Faithful Writers

By Guest Author: Jeff Barlatier Modern Christianity has quietly canonized guilt. We treat emotional heaviness as spiritual depth, remorse as maturity, and lingering shame as evidence of holiness. If someone feels bad long enough — or publicly enough — we assume repentance has taken place. But Scripture never equates guilt with repentance. Not linguistically. Not exegetically. Not theologically. In fact, the Bible consistently distinguishes between sorrow that transforms and sorrow that corrodes. When guilt is mistaken for repentance, the gospel is reduced to emotional self-punishment, consciences are wounded, and transformation stalls. It is time to say this clearly and biblically: Guilt is not repentance. Guilt Is Psychological. Repentance Is Directional. The confusion begins when repentance is reduced to an internal emotional state rather than a relational and behavioral reorientation. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the primary word translated “repent” is שׁוּב (shuv), meaning to turn, return, or reverse direction (Brown, Driver, & Briggs, 1907). It is a spatial verb. One does not feel shuv; one does shuv. The prophets never command Israel to feel worse. They command Israel to turn back. “Return (shuv) to Me, and I will return to you,” says the LORD of hosts (Malachi 3:7, NRSV). Repentance is not introspective anguish; it is covenantal movement. Likewise, the New Testament word μετάνοια (metanoia) does not mean “deep remorse.” Etymologically, it refers to a change of mind, but not in the modern sense of opinion. In the Greco-Roman world, nous referred to one’s governing perception of reality — the seat of understanding and orientation (Louw & Nida, 1989). Thus, metanoia describes a decisive reorientation of life based on a newly perceived truth. Guilt may accompany repentance, but it is never its substance. Paul Explicitly Separates Guilt from Repentance The Apostle Paul draws a sharp theological line that modern Christianity often blurs: “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death” (2 Corinthians 7:10, ESV). Paul does not say grief is repentance. He says grief may produce repentance — or death. The Greek term for grief here, λύπη (lypē), refers to emotional pain or distress. Paul recognizes that sorrow alone is morally neutral. Its value lies in what it generates. • Godly grief → repentance → salvation → life • Worldly grief → fixation → despair → death Worldly grief turns inward . It rehearses failure without turning toward God. Godly grief moves through sorrow toward obedience and restoration. When guilt becomes the endpoint rather than the catalyst, repentance never occurs. Judas and Peter: A Case Study in False Repentance No contrast exposes this confusion more clearly than Judas and Peter. Matthew tells us that Judas felt deep remorse: “Then Judas…was seized with remorse (metamelētheis) and returned the thirty pieces of silver” (Matthew 27:3, NRSV). The Greek verb μεταμέλομαι (metamelomai) denotes emotional regret, not repentance. It is never used for salvific turning. Judas confessed wrongdoing, returned the money, and yet never turned back to Christ. His sorrow ended in self-destruction. Peter, by contrast, denied Jesus three times and “wept bitterly” (Luke 22:62). Yet Peter did not isolate himself in guilt. He remained with the community, returned to the risen Christ, and was publicly restored (John 21:15 — 19). Both felt sorrow. Only one repented. The difference was not emotional intensity but relational direction. Why Guilt Feels Holy Guilt masquerades as repentance for several reasons. Guilt Feels Like Accountability Feeling bad looks like taking sin seriously. But Scripture never equates seriousness with sanctification. One can hate sin emotionally while still clinging to it practically. 2. Guilt Feels Like Payment Many Christians unconsciously treat guilt as penance. If I suffer internally long enough, perhaps I have balanced the scales. This instinct is profoundly anti-gospel. As Luther observed, humans are incurably bent toward self-atonement (Luther, 1518/1957). 3. Guilt Avoids Obedience Guilt allows endless emotional engagement without concrete change. It keeps sin central while leaving habits untouched. Repentance, by contrast, demands surrender. The Accuser Thrives Where Guilt Reigns Scripture names Satan “the accuser of the brothers” (Revelation 12:10). Accusation thrives not where sin is denied, but where forgiveness is doubted. Paul declares: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). Condemnation is not a sanctifying tool. Conviction leads to repentance; condemnation leads to paralysis. John Chrysostom warned that lingering self-accusation after confession is not humility but unbelief — refusing to trust the sufficiency of grace (Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans). Repentance Is Relational, Not Emotional Biblical repentance restores relationship, not emotional equilibrium. The prodigal son’s repentance did not occur when he felt shame among the pigs. Shame had already hollowed him out. Repentance occurred when: “He arose and came to his father” (Luke 15:20). The father did not wait for perfect remorse. He ran to meet the movement. God responds to turning, not torment. Guilt Undermines Assurance by Replacing God’s Word with Feelings When guilt is confused with repentance, forgiveness becomes experiential rather than declarative . Believers begin to ask, “Do I feel forgiven?” instead of “Has God forgiven?” Scripture grounds forgiveness in God’s character, not our emotional state: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us” (1 John 1:9). Faithful. Just. Objective. To continue punishing oneself after forgiveness is not reverence — it is distrust. As Calvin wrote, “Unbelief is not always loud rebellion; often it is quiet refusal to be comforted” (Institutes, 3.2.15). Conviction Moves Forward. Guilt Loops Backward. Conviction is specific, actionable, and hopeful. Guilt is vague, heavy, and self-referential. Conviction says, “This does not belong to who you are becoming.” Guilt says, “This is who you are.” One leads to obedience. The other leads to exhaustion. Why the Church Must Stop Teaching Guilt as Spiritual Maturity When churches reward guilt, they disciple people into perpetual self-surveillance rather than joyful obedience. Confession becomes repetitive, not transformative. Shame is mistaken for depth. The gospel does not call believers to live perpetually guilty. It calls them to live forgiven and free (Galatians 5:1). Repentance ends where obedience begins. At some point, clinging to guilt becomes resistance to grace. Stop Calling Guilt Repentance Guilt is an emotion. Repentance is a turning . Guilt may awaken the conscience. Repentance restores the relationship. And once you have turned, guilt has no authority left. The gospel is not asking you to feel worse. It is commanding you to walk forward. And guilt — no matter how religious it feels — can never do that. ©   Jeff Barlatier (Doctoral Candidate)MDiv candidate References (APA) Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (1907). A Hebrew and English lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford University Press. Calvin, J. (1559/1960). Institutes of the Christian religion (J. T. McNeill, Ed.; F. L. Battles, Trans.). Westminster Press. Chrysostom, J. (n.d.). Homilies on Romans. Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament based on semantic domains. United Bible Societies. Luther, M. (1518/1957). Heidelberg Disputation. Fortress Press. The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version. (1989). National Council of Churches.

A stewardship-shaped life is never built on tasks alone. It grows in the quiet, ordinary moments when we choose to see people the way God sees them: as entrusted souls, not interruptions; divine assignments, not items on a list. Relational stewardship is the posture of a believer who understands that God has placed people in our path not for efficiency, but for love. It is the shift from doing to becoming, from managing responsibilities to managing trust, from completing duties to reflecting the heart of the Owner. At the center of relational stewardship is the truth Jesus declared when asked about the greatest commandment. He did not point to a task, a ritual, or a religious achievement. He pointed to love — love for God with our whole being and love for our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:37–39). This is the soil from which all faithful stewardship grows. When we love God deeply, His love naturally flows outward into our relationships. When we love others well, we honor the God who entrusted them to us. The apostle Peter echoes this when he states that each of us should use the gift given to us by God to serve others, as faithful stewards. (1 Peter 4:10). Notice the direction of stewardship: it is outward, relational, and grace-centered. We are not stewards of tasks, programs, or outcomes. We are stewards of grace — God’s grace expressed through our presence, tone, compassion, and faithfulness. This understanding reframes how we initiate relationships. Many believers assume relationships simply “happen,” but relational stewardship is intentional. It begins with presence, not performance. Presence is the ministry of slowing down long enough to notice the person others overlook. It is sitting beside someone who is alone, offering a sincere greeting, or asking a simple question like, “How has your week been?” These small acts communicate, “You matter. I see you.” In a world where people feel increasingly invisible, presence becomes a powerful expression of God’s heart. Honor is another doorway into relational stewardship. Romans 12:10 calls us to “honor one another above yourselves,” a command that reshapes how we approach every interaction. Honor softens hearts. It signals safety. It reminds people that they are valued not for what they do, but for who they are. Using someone’s name, affirming something you see in them, or simply listening without rushing communicates honor in ways that words alone cannot. Tone also plays a vital role. Scripture teaches that “a gentle answer turns away wrath” (Proverbs 15:1) and urges believers to “spur one another on toward love and good deeds” (Hebrews 10:24). Tone is part of stewardship because it reveals the condition of our heart. A hurried or harsh tone can shut down trust, while a gentle, warm tone opens doors for deeper connection. Tone is not merely how we speak, but how we carry the presence of Christ into every conversation. But initiating relationships is only the beginning. Relational stewardship requires nurturing what God entrusts. Galatians 6:2 calls us to “bear one another’s burdens,” a command that cannot be fulfilled from a distance. Burden-bearing requires proximity, patience, and compassion. It means following up with someone you prayed for, remembering details of their story, or checking in after a difficult week. These simple acts communicate, “You are not forgotten.” Listening is another essential practice. In a culture that prizes quick fixes and fast solutions, listening becomes a countercultural act of love. Relational stewardship listens not to respond, but to understand. It resists the urge to correct quickly. It asks clarifying questions. It honors the story being shared. Listening says, “Your story matters to me,” and in doing so, it reflects the heart of the One who hears us with perfect patience. There are moments, however, when stewardship requires speaking truth with grace. Colossians 3:12–14 calls believers to clothe themselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience. Truth without grace wounds; grace without truth weakens. Together, they help others grow. Relational stewardship stays present even after hard conversations, choosing reconciliation over avoidance. Jesus taught that if a brother sins against us, we are to go to him privately (Matthew 18:15). Avoiding conflict may feel like peacekeeping, but Scripture calls it neglecting stewardship. Protecting relationships means addressing tension early, with humility and love. Ultimately, relational stewardship is not a series of tasks. It’s a lifestyle. It is built through small, consistent acts of faithfulness. It is praying for someone by name each day, sending a note of encouragement, practicing a gentle tone, or asking God each morning, “Who have You entrusted to me today?” It is inviting someone to coffee, checking on someone who is struggling, or reconciling with someone when needed. It is evaluating our own patterns and asking, “Where am I being transactional instead of relational?” The difference between transactional and relational stewardship is profound. A transactional mindset asks, “What do I need to get done?” A relational mindset asks, “Who has God entrusted to me?” Transactional stewardship focuses on tasks; relational stewardship focuses on people. Transactional stewardship completes duties; relational stewardship reflects God’s heart. Transactional stewardship measures success by outcomes; relational stewardship measures faithfulness by love. God sees every act of relational stewardship, even the ones no one else notices. Hebrews 6:10 reminds us that He is not unjust to forget our work and the love we show for His name. Every relationship is an assignment, an appointment set and orchestrated by God. Every word and presence is a seed of influence. And every seed planted in love bears fruit that honors the Master. What relationship is God inviting you to steward today? © Randy DeVaul

What do these names all have in common? Jeffery Dahmer Judas John Gacy Hilter Pedro Lopez Ted Bundy Nero Harold Pontius Pilate Jesus loved them and died for their sins that day on the cross. While this can be hard for most to stomach the thought of this. It is true. We are all loved, regardless of what we have done. For God so loved this world that His Son came and died for each and every one of us. He carried the entirety of our sins, from the beginning of time until the end, while nailed to that cross for us. We have had many martyrs over the centuries who have died for one or many, but none of them carried our sins. When we die, we will awake anew. Our pain, sorrow, and misery will be gone. Jesus knows this, yet he He said, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” If He had died a death of just martyrdom for us, He would have known He would awaken resurrected in the blink of an eye, His pain gone and never lived over again. Yet he sweat blood — Why? Because it wasn’t simple martyrdom. He was carrying the weight of every single person’s sins from all time. Imagine taking the weight of all your sins and multiplying that by billions. Then willingly taking those upon yourself while being crucified? Hematidrosis. That is the name of the condition He had as He was praying to God the night Judas betrayed Him. This is a very rare condition where blood is excreted through sweat. All sources indicate that it is so rare that it is hard to research it properly, but there is one agreement amongst all the sources I have read. It can be caused by extreme stress, intense fear, severe anxiety, or facing death. To carry this for us, to love us so much to die for everyone, is love. Like I said earlier, it may be hard for people to stomach, but He died for the sinners; He died for what we call the worst of the worst. This wasn’t martyrdom, this was sacrifice for freedom from sin, death, and hell. This was love. He loves Judas, He loves Hitler, He loves John Gacy, He loves Herold. We all are loved, and He has carried the sins of everyone that day on the cross. When you remember this day, remember His love. Respect his sacrifice, respect what He did for all of us. This was not a simple death, this was pure hell He carried for us. © Jane Isley Sources: Matthew 26:39 NIV Luke 22:44 NIV Department of Internal Medicine, Cascais Hospital; Haematidrosis: The Rare Phenomenon of Sweating Blood Healthline; Hematidrosis: Is Sweating Blood Real ? WebMD; What Is Hematidrosis ?

"To many see Christ's death as “just a death,” not realizing the gravity of the situation He faced for us." I am preparing to lead communion on Thursday for my Bible study group. I always feel this pull in my heart when it is time, and with that pull, there is always a specific topic that is weighing on my heart that I want to share before communion. I decided to share what I have prepared to say for communion. Trust me when I say, yes, I know I don’t do it “traditionally,” but then again, I’m definitely NOT your “traditional” person either, and this is written with the vocal inflection I talk with. From The Trial of Christ; page 297 by Dee Wampler “ The leather thongs and sheep bones cut into Jesus’ skin and tissues, into his underlying skeletal muscles, and produced quivering ribbons of bleeding flesh. Among the Jews, it was customary to limit the strokes of the lash to thirty-nine for fear of infringing by mistake upon the letter of the law fixing the maximum at forty, 114 Such caution was unknown to the Roman law which prescribed no maximum number of strokes. 115 The whip was made up of thongs of hardened leather studded with small pieces of bone and lead, sometimes with sharp points called “scorpions.” The sufferer was bound by the hands to a low column and was kept from moving out of the bending position so that all the strokes might reach their mark. At first, the skin became livid and bloody and soon it was torn to shreds, with the flesh coming off in strips. We read in the passion stories of certain martyrs that the bloody anatomy of a body was exposed to the horror stricken gaze of the onlookers, and it was not infrequent that the condemned man succumbed during the torture. 116 Josephus records that he himself had some of his opponents scourged until their entrails were visible. 117 The soldiers tore off the robe of Jesus which reopened the scourging wounds. 118" (1) My Part Jesus sat that night, celebrating the Passover with His disciples. He sat with them, knowing Judas would betray Him just a few hours later. Why, you might ask. Why sit with the man who would betray Him? The answer is simple: because we are all, despite our sins, loved and invited to His table. It is up to us whether we accept the invitation or not. Jesus knew what He was about to go through, and it should be remembered this was not as a mere act of simple martyrdom. To many see it as “just a death,” not realizing the gravity of the situation He faced for us. He was carrying the weight of every single sin for all mankind, past, present, and future, with Him to the cross, He was feeling the darkness and pain of every single sin ever committed. He did this so we could live again. “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” 1 Peter 2:24 You see, it wasn’t just His body that was crucified that day; it was also His heart, mind, and soul that were beaten, bloodied, and shredded. Jesus gave us a loving remembrance that night, despite who sat next to Him and despite what was coming for Him. We are to remember what He did for us, and that was to free us from sin and death so that one day we would be sitting with Him, in a new kingdom, raising a toast to God. Let us never forget the hell He went through for us. Now, I will be reading from Mark 14:22–25 before we take communion. When we do each, I will remain silent for a moment so you can have time with God. Bread While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body. Juice Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Now, let us go out in this world, shine brightly for God, and remember Jesus’s sacrifice, which is the truest gift of love anyone could receive. © Jane Isley

It was refreshing to get valid questions from a reader who made sure I knew right away he wasn’t out for a fight, and they are genuine questions that are well worth the time to answer. I also knew I could not answer them to the best of my ability in a comment section. So we are here now, to do my best to answer and hopefully not confuddle anything. Here are this gentleman's questions in response to my article “ He died for all sinners. ” The straight-laced, non-answer answer to the first part as to why die for our sins would be to retort back and say something along the lines of “Well, He died so we could go to Heaven.”  Like I said, a non-answer answer and doesn’t necessarily clarify anything if you are a non-believer, the curious, or a believer scratching your head trying to understand it. Wanting to know the reason behind the reason is perfectly normal; we don’t go to a car dealership and not pop the hood and ask a million questions first before we decide to buy the car. The reason behind the reason  So why would God, the creator of everything, need or want to do this? Why choose death for sins instead of something else?  I’ll be completely honest, entire books are dedicated to this one question, so there is stuff I will not be able to cover completely or even touch on. I’m just going to do this how I would in person, and take out the jargon and be human, because I, too, asked these same questions once. I wanted a teacher, not a preacher. To begin, it ultimately boils down to two starting points, from how I see it in my brain. (Others have different starting points, and that doesn’t mean any of us are wrong, just different.) Sin became a part of our lives. God cannot tolerate sin because He is just, and sin needs to be punished.  Sin can not and should not be tolerated; if God tolerated sin of any kind, He would have to tolerate all sin. If He did that, then good would no longer exist, sin would take over, and our understanding of good and bad would cease to exist completely and become a constant state of grey.  It had to stay black and white. If there were no firm line drawn between to two, I couldn’t even imagine what that world would begin to look like. He outright refuses to tolerate sin, and for good reason, sin leads to death. We are told this from the beginning in Genesis.  A death that is beyond just our heartbeat stopping, a death that results in all of us never being able to be within His presence again. A gap we are unable to bridge on our own. First, we need to recognize that God didn’t want puppets. I mean, what’s the point of a real relationship if you are in control of every aspect of it, including their thinking? There is no point, we get to choose of our own accord and will, always.  He created something beautiful and perfect that He wanted to share, then sin entered. (Oh, and yes, lots could be written on that topic, and I’d barely scratch the surface because of the complexity, super in-depth is best left to the pros who have spent their lives diving into that subject, I’m nowhere near that yet.) If sin had not entered our world, God wouldn’t have been put into the position He was put into. He easily could have snuffed Adam and Eve out and started over — or some like to think at least.  See, God connected with us  through the breath of life , which was exclusive and unique to us. He made a point of setting us apart from the animals He created by giving us a soul, that connection and purity allowed Adam and Eve to be in His presence. We are given a hint of this perfection in Genesis 3:8. If sin had not entered the world, we’d still be in Eden, walking and talking with God in His presence, like nothing happened; we would be in paradise without a moment's worry. What kind of God would He be if He had snuffed Adam and Eve out? And this includes us, btw, because from the very beginning He knew us, He knit us together, and appointed us. That's an intimate gesture towards us. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5 Would He have just left their souls, which are connected to Him, floating out there for all eternity, feeling the weight of sin with no possible way to be redeemed, no possible way to be reconciled , and no possible way to ask forgiveness? — I’m not even going to pretend that I fully understand the “why did things have to go down the way they did in Eden?” My thought on that matter is maybe it had to play out that way so the ones who chose God are truly, completely, and willingly with God as individuals and not puppets? Probably an unpopular thought, but it’s what I got, I don’t know the why, and that’s ok. It happened, now we have to deal. This is where those harder questions come in: Why send Himself to suffer and die for us? Why was death needed? Couldn’t He have done something else?  This is epically one of the hardest concepts to wrap the brain around, trust me, I’ve been there. So, here we are now with sin in the world that separates us from God.  For us to even enter Heaven, we have to be resurrected and transformed with new bodies . Also important to note, we actually get a new   Heaven and Earth (2); we need new bodies to be in our new Heaven and Earth. God will create a new environment free from sin for believers so we can once again be in His presence.   “ Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. ” Now, sin has to go somewhere; sin is a transgression against God’s law. The sin in the world has to be conquered and separated from us, so that we are no longer separated from God. That black and white situation I talked about earlier. To explain it as best I can, sin is a debt, a debt we can not pay on our own. Sin is too heavy, too dark, too unholy for a person (human) to carry to Heaven. Jesus (the Son of God) came to literally carry that debt; He took it upon Himself, into Himself, so that we are free of it when we die and meet Him in Heaven because He was the perfect “vessel” for lack of a better word, to take all sin, carry it, and destroy it.  This was an act of mercy and love for all humanity.  We are not left hanging, trying to carry our sins with us for eternity, constantly separated from God. Sin strangles our soul with its weight. We now have the chance to be free of our sins and be with Him  once again —  if we so choose . (more on that later) “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” 1 Peter 2:24 Did you catch that? “In His Body.”  He carried the full weight of every sin in Himself. Our death (the worst then heart-stopping kind of death)  had to be defeated by His death. He paid that price ( atonement )  for us because sin has to be paid for, but the system was flawed; it is a transgression against God’s law, and God provided a way for us to be with Him again. “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” Romans 8:1 Now, what about Hitler? First, we have no idea what Hitler was thinking when he killed himself, so I’m not going to theorize on that. But what we can know for sure is that he was a sinner. A sinner like you and me.  As hard and unfathomable as it is, we do not have the right to deny God and His forgiveness to anyone. I’m sure if the victims of the holocaust knew Hitler repented, as in truly and completely repented, some would have an extremely hard time with that. How could God forgive a man like that, though?  Simple, the same way He did for you and me.  Here’s the catch, though, Hitler wouldn’t be able to just mouth the words “God forgive me for my sins and I give you mine and my wife’s life because I don’t deserve to live?” and expect to be in Heaven. Doesn’t work like that for anyone.  You want salvation? You have to mean it; otherwise, God will not recognize you on judgment day. “Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!”  Matthew 7:20–23 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.” Matthew 10:32–33 Repentance is the only way anyone is getting into Heaven.  “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,” Act 3:19 Jesus’s death wasn’t some blanket atonement packet for everybody to get into Heaven; you have to repent, you have to want to follow Him, you have to want to change, you have to have faith in Him, His death, His resurrection, and His atonement for believers. We want God to forgive us for our sins, and cherish knowing we will see Him on judgment day and hear, “ I Know You. ” We may not like it, but we have no right to deny this to anyone if they have chosen Him.  We are also told to forgive those who have sinned against us. Ephesians 4:32 , Matthew 6:12 , and Luke 17:3–4 . As well as told “Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him. ” 1 John 3:15 . This can be hard, even painful to accept, and many will turn away just because of this last section alone. But we truly do not have any right to deny salvation to anyone. If you believe you deserve it, so do they. We have no right to point fingers at someone else’s sin and deem it as worse than ours, and therefore, they are to be denied Heaven because it’s what we want and what we believe. Salvation doesn’t play favorites, and neither does God when someone turns and comes to Him. We don’t have to like it, but you do have someone who can help you come to accept this, and that He loves us all. ☝ I hope I have done as well as I can in answering and didn’t go too squirrely. There is no way to cover the vast points that could still be included, but I hope this helps at least answer a few questions and get you in the right direction for further study. I also recommend reading Why Jesus Has To Be Both Divine and Human To Atone for Humanity’s Sins   by Mary Lou Cornish . Her article further expands on what I have not or only skimmed the surface of. © Jane Isley Sources: (1) simplybible.com (2)   In God’s presence once again —  Revelation 21 Got Questions: What is the meaning of atonement?   Soul and womb —  Psalm 139:13–16 We must confess our sins —   1 John 1:9 No one comes to the Father except through me. —  John 14:6 “But made alive in the Spirit.” 1 Peter 3:18 New bodies: Philippians 3:21 , 1 Corinthians 15:42–44 , & 2 Corinthians 5:1–4

Until shortly after I graduated college, I was a moderately-avid horror film consumer, specifically those of the spiritual nature. My brother, who shared this mild fascination with the supernatural, eagerly viewed them with me and it became a sort of hobby we shared. Though we weren’t obsessive about them, whenever the latest scare came out on DVD, we’d snatch it up and pop the popcorn. We enjoyed classics like The Amityville Horror & The Shining , but the newer ones were the ones that really pulled us in. Think: the Annabelle , The Conjuring, and Insidious worlds. Each of those movie universes explored demon-hunting and spiritual warfare which, both of us being Christians, we knew to be real (not so much the Hollywood version, but rather the concepts). Some of the movies would make me jumpy and on-edge afterwards. Others would give me nightmares. I knew they were increasingly affecting me, yet I continued to fill my mind with images and jump scares that I will never be able to unsee. That is, until one evening when the Holy Spirit got a hold of me. We were watching the newest release and the still small voice of the Lord told me to stop mid-movie. It was crystal clear and undeniably the Holy Spirit . My horror-watching days had come to an abrupt halt, and I’ve never looked back. Who is Satan? Satan goes by many common names, such as Lucifer, The Devil, The Enemy and The Fallen Angel. Genesis refers to him as a serpent, and we see a description of Satan as a dragon in Revelation . John tells us that Satan is a murderer, liar, and the Father of Lies. However, did you know he was also known as the Morning Star and Son of the Dawn before he fell? How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! — Isaiah 14:12 Satan is crafty, cunning, and good at making sin look beautiful. He brought down legions of angels with him when he fell from heaven. He is wicked and deceptive, tempting mankind and luring us away from God. He is also powerful. Even Michael, the highest ranking angel of the Lord, recognized this and did not speak against him when given the opportunity. Rather, he called on the name of the Lord when he went up against his opponent. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” — Jude 1:9 That should tell us something, folks. We don’t fear Satan if we are covered by the blood of Christ. But we should respect that he is more powerful than we are on our own. If an angel mightier than Satan dared not go up against him without invoking the name and authority of the Lord, we shouldn’t either. We also shouldn’t go looking for him. Playing with Fire Voluntarily participating in, playing with, viewing, or otherwise exposing ourselves to evil is like dancing around a bonfire with gasoline on your clothes. You might be okay, but you might not. Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it. — Psalm 4:23 When my brother and I were consuming so many horror films, we were not guarding our hearts. We were allowing our minds to be infiltrated with scenes and ideas that celebrated darkness. Those are in direct opposition with the types of things we’re told to fill our minds with. Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things. — Philippians 4:8 Am I saying Christians can’t watch scary movies? No, not at all. But I am saying we should be careful with what we allow in our minds, because it shapes us. Though not as often now, I still experience spiritual attacks to this day because of some of the things I exposed myself to more than a decade ago. In the preface to his book, The Screwtape Letters , C.S. Lewis writes: There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors… I love this line, because it succinctly states how Scripture instructs Christians to interact with dark forces —  be aware of, but don’t invite. Have nothing to do with the fruitless acts of darkness, but rather expose them. — Ephesians 5:11 Some translations even say, “have no fellowship with…” Just saying. A Warning to My Brothers and Sisters None of this is written to invoke fear (or legalism when it comes to what movies we watch). Rather, my hope is that you will take very seriously the fact that we do have an enemy who is very much out there in the world. The tactics he uses are cunning and deceitful. His greatest skill is packaging up lies and half truths and making them appear innocent, even holy . See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. — Colossians 2:8 Don’t be taken in. Be on your guard. Stay in the Word. Thanks for reading! If any of this resonated with you, or you’d like to see more content like this, please consider subscribing so you’ll never miss out on a post. 🫶🏻 © Stephanie M Other articles you may want to check out: The Spiritual Battle I Did Not Expect That time the enemy tried to silence us, and almost won… Trauma, Sin and Breaking Cycles My response to a beautifully written half truth

Talking with a legend I remember sitting in the basement of a U.C. Berkeley law professor who went to my church watching videos of a Christian debater with an intern from the same church. The professor was upstairs writing a book while we were downstairs learning about the intellectual credibility of the Christian faith. The intern later became the chair of the philosophy department at Biola University, where that debater, William Lane Craig, was a professor. And the Berkeley professor in whose house we were sitting was Phil Johnson, whose book “Darwin on Trial” started a firestorm in the relationship between religion and science. Dr. Johnson said something I’ve never forgotten. He told me they were trying to get Christian professors to sign on to open statements about their beliefs, but these religious professors were hesitant to do so for fear of reprisals. The academic community had a vendetta against anyone who would admit to being Christian. But Johnson was undeterred. “Bunch of chickens,” Dr. Johnson said. I’ve gone on to earn a Master’s in the Philosophy of Science from the University of Edinburgh (same school Darwin went to, except I got a degree and he was a dropout), and it’s worse than I realized. Years later, the truth is coming into the light. Bigoted academics are perfectly willing to silence evidence when it doesn’t jibe with their preferred paradigms. Science keeps getting it wrong What’s a bit stunning is that the sophomoric vision of a scientific community that are simply objective truth-seekers who are persecuted by religious intolerance still persists, despite the fact that the roles are plainly reversed. Scientists have used the tools at their disposal to hide evidence, silence disagreement, and persecute challengers. A few case studies make this painfully clear: Eugenics . The history of eugenics is a sordid, racist one, in which the most educated, wealthy, and empowered scientists sought to diminish the reproductive capabilities of non-whites in America and then elsewhere. Sir Francis Galton, father of modern eugenics and cousin of Charles Darwin, was educated at the premier English universities of his day. He studied medicine and rejected traditional Christianity for masonic practices and the masons’ Scientific Lodge. He did extensive research into the inheritance of traits, and ultimately argued that Africa should be populated by the Chinese to replace the inferior races. Anglo Saxons, he asserted, were the superior race worldwide. Eugenics would go on to be used to justify the unconsented sterilization of non-white women who had come to hospitals to deliver babies. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study. For decades, US government scientists allowed hundreds of black men to suffer from syphilis without treatment even after penicillin had been discovered. The stated reason was to observe the progression of the disease. The US Public Health Service oversaw the study, and the CDC was complicit. Men died, suffered permanent disabilities, and passed the disease on to their wives and children. Piltdown Man. The discovery of the missing link that tied human development to the apes was allegedly found in 1912. For 40 years the scientific community ran with it. The problem was that it was an intentional hoax, with bones chemically stained to appear ancient and teeth filed down by hand. It appeared a dozen years before the Scopes Monkey Trial, just in time to tilt and bias popular thought as debates were being hammered into policy. Tobacco. By the mid-1950s, internal research had already shown that smoking caused cancer and that nicotine is addictive. But well-educated, wealthy members of the scientific community asserted publicly that the science was inconclusive and then created misleading studies to muddy the data. Read Richard Lewontin’s Biology as Ideology to see how this works — he’s a Harvard scientist who has lifted the lid off the illusion of objective science. How to cheat at science and get away with it Those who think that science is a library filled with objective, established facts that stand as a fortress against superstition and religion are really living in a fantasy world. Science is an ever-evolving investigation that resists final claims of certitude, and its halls are filled with materials that are biased and manipulated. Here are a few filters to keep in mind anytime we read what “the science” says. Research has to be funded . The people paying the money usually want results favorable to their cause. Boring papers don’t get published. If 10 studies are done, and 9 turn up nothing, but the last one hints at some possible correlations (especially if they might be controversial), the 10th one is the only one that gets published. And remember, to keep their jobs and salaries, scientific researchers need to publish. They are inclined towards what will keep them employed, not merely what is true. Peer reviews are essential to gatekeeping and validating studies. However, the people doing the reviews are often senior researchers who also want to keep their jobs and salaries. That means that someone with a fossilized bias is going to be predisposed to reject alternate findings from their peers. Max Planck famously said, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” This is often paraphrased, “Science advances one funeral at a time.” Thomas Kuhn in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions essentially says the same thing. Peer review doesn’t eliminate bias; it institutionalizes it. Religious scientists are better at their jobs Christian ethics proposes a remedy to this: the classic virtue of humility. Intellectual humility requires one to admit when one is wrong, to be open to alternative views, and to be willing to change one’s mind when truth demands it. A Christian scientist is, at the end of the day, just going to be a better scientist than another. This is because empirical science presumes morality; it cannot establish morality. Morality comes before good science, not vice versa. Science has always relied on moral scientists, even while pretending it does not need morality at all. Honesty in reporting data, courage in publishing unwelcome results, and humility in the face of contradictory evidence are not scientific discoveries; they are moral virtues science quietly borrows and then forgets to credit. And right now, the scientific community is struggling with the reality that the evidence points towards an intelligent designer. Christianity, in particular, has historically produced scientists who understood their work as an act of faithfulness rather than self-assertion. Galileo pursued the intelligibility of the cosmos because he believed it reflected a rational Creator. Isaac Newton saw his laws not as replacements for God but as descriptions of divine order. Gregor Mendel’s genetics emerged from the patient discipline of a monastery, not the hunger for prestige. Michael Faraday’s experimental rigor flowed from a theology that prized truth over status. And in our own time, Francis Collins has spoken openly about how his Christian faith compelled intellectual honesty rather than obstructed it. These figures were not good scientists despite their beliefs; they were good scientists because their beliefs trained them in virtues science itself cannot generate. Science presumes morality at every step, requiring truthfulness, restraint, and responsibility, while lacking the resources to justify why any of those virtues should matter at all. Christianity doesn’t compete with science; it supplies the moral soil in which good science actually grows. The most dangerous scientist is not the religious one. It’s the one who believes his work is morally self-justifying. Conclusion: The moral blind spot Science is extraordinary at describing the world, but it is silent about why truth should matter more than power, why people should matter more than progress, or why some lines should never be crossed even if they can be. Those judgments cannot be cooked up in the laboratory. The real conflict, then, is not between science and religion, but between science that acknowledges moral limits and science that imagines itself morally self-authorizing. History has already shown us which of those two becomes dangerous. If science is going to guide the future, it will need more than better instruments. It will need better, and specifically religious, people. © James W. Miller First published in Faith Seeking Wonder

Introduction Those unfamiliar with physicist Erwin Schrödinger’s famous 1935 thought experiment, Schrödinger’s Cat, may be wondering, “What in the world is the above image showing? Somebody please let that poor cat out of that box before it suffocates!” As a cat lover, I naturally felt sorry for the cat in this image, too, until I realized it was only a story meant to highlight the strangeness of modern physics. Schrödinger’s thought experiment wasn’t an actual experiment. [1] He used the illustration to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to apply the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum-mechanical superposition (something existing in two states simultaneously) to everyday objects . The following describes how he designed his illustration. He envisioned a cat placed in a sealed box with a radioactive atom, a Geiger counter, and poison gas. If the atom decays, the cat dies; if it does not, the cat lives. According to quantum mechanics, until the box is opened and observed, the cat, like the atom, exists in a superposition, meaning it is both alive and dead at the same time. By Author Schrödinger was not trying to prove that reality is ambiguous. He was trying to say that our theories about reality may be incomplete. I heartily agree with Steve Turgeon’s comments on this thought experiment. It’s ironic how Schrödinger is celebrated as a pioneer of quantum mechanics, when his most famous thought experiment was actually a critique of its absurdity. The cat wasn’t meant to illustrate a quantum mystery — it was meant to expose how ridiculous it is to treat superpositions as literal. He didn’t glorify the weirdness; he challenged it. Sometimes the sharpest contributions come from those who aren’t convinced by the “theory” at all. [2] How this illustration relates to Christianity One interpretation of Schrödinger’s cat is that reality doesn’t exist until it is observed . In this view, consciousness, or observation itself, is what creates truth. The “Relativists” love this idea. Christianity, however, firmly rejects this idea, holding that observation itself does not create reality . Scripture presents God as the ultimate observer who created the universe, which exists and operates independently of human awareness. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. ( Colossians 1:17, NIV ) Reality, like truth, exists whether we acknowledge it or not. We know that the theoretical cat in this illustration is either alive or dead, regardless of who observes it. Christian theology insists that God, not human observers, forms the basis of reality . Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. ( Hebrews 4:13 , NIV) According to God’s Word, reality is always fully known, truth is never ambiguous or in superposition (in two states at once), and creation is sustained moment by moment. What may seem uncertain to us is never uncertain to God. Modern culture loves quantum mechanics Humanists in our modern culture often borrow quantum language (such as the term superposition) to justify their belief in moral relativism. They assume that the uncertainty of subatomic particles’ states and the observer issue justify the belief that truth is fluid, undefined, or depends on the situation or the individual’s perspective. Christianity rejects this ambiguity and the idea that both good and evil can be true at the same time. Scripture shows that Truth is not invented, it is not created by group consensus or individual observation, it is discovered. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil. ( Isaiah 5:20, NIV ) Many people today believe that faith is believing in something that isn’t true, and that people who live by it ignore reality. Christianity teaches the opposite, treating faith as something concrete and insisting that it doesn’t deny unseen reality; it trusts that unseen reality is real, ordered, and purposeful . Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. ( Hebrews 11:1, NIV ) Just as scientists trust that invisible particles exist based on scientific evidence, Christian’s trust God based on revelation, history, and reason. We all want clarity Schrödinger’s cat illustration highlights humanity’s discomfort with ambiguity. The unresolved states in the story unsettle us because we want clarity and certainty. Christianity grappled with the uncertainty principle as well. At the cross, death seemed victorious. At the resurrection, God resolved the deepest uncertainty of all: Is there life after death, or is death final? He didn’t leave that question in superposition but proclaimed that life wins ! Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here but has risen. ( Luke 24:5–6, ESV ) Conclusion Christianity teaches that God and truth are knowable, even as Schrödinger’s cat illustrates the absurdity of applying the quantum principle of superposition to the state of a cat’s life. The universe is understandable because it was created by the One who created it and who wanted us to understand it. Truth is not waiting for us to define it. It is defined by and sustained by God, and that fact makes me and my cat O’Malley very happy. © Debra Hodges References: 1. What did Schrodinger’s Cat experiment prove? (2013, July 30). Science Questions With Surprising Answers. https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/30/what-did-schrodingers-cat-experiment-prove/ . 2. (4) 90 years ago this month, Erwin. . . — American Physical Society | Facebook . (n.d.). https://www.facebook.com/apsphysics/posts/90-years-ago-this-month-erwin-schr%C3%B6dinger-proposed-his-now-famous-thought-experi/1067658572072490/

Before you scroll… please stay with this one briefly, not because it’s controversial, but because it’s necessary. There are Bible verses we quote so often that they start to sound like slogans. We put them on captions, say them in prayer, and even use them to encourage people. But sometimes… we misunderstand them, not because we’re “bad Christians,” but because we’ve heard them repeated without context for so long that we stopped asking what they truly meant. So here are six popular Scriptures that are frequently misinterpreted and what they actually mean when you read them in context. Photo by kaleb tapp  on Unsplash 1. “Money is the root of all evil.” – (1 Timothy 6:10) Most people say this like the Bible hates money, but the verse doesn’t say money is evil. It says the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Money is a tool. The problem begins when money becomes a god, and anything that has your heart or takes the place of God in your life has become your god. 2. “God helps those who help themselves.” (Not in the Bible) This is one of the most quoted “Bible verses” that isn’t in the Bible at all. It sounds really wise, but it can quietly promote self-reliance over dependence on God. The gospel is literally the opposite: God helps the helpless. 3. “Judge not.” – (Matthew 7:1) People use this verse to shut down any correction or accountability, but Jesus wasn’t saying “never judge.” He was warning against hypocritical judgment, where you condemn someone while ignoring your own issues. If Jesus truly meant “never correct anyone”, then He wouldn’t have corrected people, and He wouldn’t have told His followers to correct people. The Bible also teaches righteous judgment, correction, and discernment. 4. “Ask and you shall receive.” – (Matthew 7:7) Many people read this like God is a vending machine. Ask for money, cars, anything at all… Then Boom!!!! He must do it, but the context is about asking with faith and alignment. Other scriptures explain that God responds according to His will, not our greed. God is a Father, not a genie. 5. “I can do all things through Christ.” – (Philippians 4:13) This verse gets used for everything…sports, exams, business, and success, but Apostle Paul wasn’t talking about achieving big dreams. He was talking about learning contentment in hardship and abundance. “I can do all things” meant: I can endure, survive, and remain faithful. 6. “Train up a child…” – (Proverbs 22:6) You’ll agree with me that this verse is often used as a guarantee: “If you raise your child right, they will never go astray.” But Proverbs are not promises, they are wisdom principles. They describe what is generally true, not what is always guaranteed. Children still have free will as they grow older and make decisions for themselves The Problem Isn’t Quoting Scripture, It’s Quoting It Without Context. Many of these misunderstandings happen because we read verses like quotes, but the Bible wasn’t written as random motivational lines. The Bible is a story, a message, and a revelation. And when we read it with the help of the Holy Spirit and in context, we don’t just sound smarter, we become more grounded, more mature, and more spiritually accurate. So the next time you hear a popular verse… Pause, read around it, and then ask what it truly meant, because the Bible doesn’t need our exaggeration to be powerful. It’s already powerful!!!!! © Favour

Guest writer Modupe Ayobami  raises a bold theological question: if Jesus removed the curse of Genesis 3, why do some believe it still applies to women but not men? This article examines the Second Adam doctrine, biblical partnership, and whether Christ restored equality or reinforced hierarchy. I have a question for Christian men, especially Bible scholars. When Adam and Eve sinned, God issued specific curses, right? Adam’s curse (Genesis 3:17-19): Painful toil Ground cursed because of him By the sweat of his brow he’ll eat Eve’s curse (Genesis 3:16): Pain in childbearing Desire for her husband Husband will rule over her Now, here's where it gets interesting. The "Second Adam" Doctrine When Jesus came as the "second Adam," Christians teach that He removed the curse. That’s why Christian men don’t say: "I accept painful, sweaty labor as my permanent curse." Instead, they declare: "By grace, I prosper with EASE" "Everything works for my good" "I don’t have to struggle, Jesus removed the curse" Beautiful. I agree. But then why ( WHY ) do those same men tell women: "Your husband is meant to RULE you. That’s your curse from Genesis 3:16, and it’s God’s design for marriage." Wait. Hold on. If Jesus removed the curse for men (painful toil), why does the curse still apply to women (male rule)? The logical inconsistency Either: Jesus removed ALL the curses for ALL people (including male headship over women), OR The curses still apply (meaning men, you need to accept painful toil without claiming grace exempts you) You don’t get to say: "Jesus freed ME from my curse." But "Women are still under THEIRS" That’s manipulation, not theology. What Genesis actually shows: Partnership, not hierarchy Let’s go back to Genesis 1-2 (BEFORE the fall). "So God created mankind in his image... male and female he created them. God blessed THEM and said to THEM, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over... (creation).’" Genesis 1:27-28 God gave dominion to BOTH. Not Adam over Eve. Not man over woman. BOTH over creation. "The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’" Genesis 2:18 The word "helper" (Hebrew: ezer ) is the same word used for God Himself when He helps Israel (Psalm 121:1-2). It doesn't mean subordinate. It means strong ally, partner, co-laborer. So Before Sin: No hierarchy No male rule Partnership and shared dominion After Sin (Genesis 3:16): Male rule over women becomes part of the curse, not the design The curse is a distortion of God’s original intent. Jesus came to UNDO the curse and RESTORE God’s original design. So what did Jesus restore? If Jesus is the second Adam who removes the curse: For Men: Freedom from the curse of painful toil (Galatians 3:13) Prosperity and grace instead of struggle For Women: Freedom from the curse of male rule Restoration of partnership and equality "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28 Christ dissolved the hierarchies sin created. He restored the original design: partnership, mutual submission, shared dominion. "But What About Submission?" Christian men love quoting Ephesians 5:22:"Wives, submit to your husbands." But let’s read the FULL context: Ephesians 5:21 (the verse right before): "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." MUTUAL submission. Then Paul addresses the 1st-century Greco-Roman household: Wives submit to husbands (v. 22) Husbands love wives as Christ loved the church (v. 25), meaning sacrificial service, not domination Children obey parents (6:1) Slaves obey masters (6:5) Notice something? Paul was addressing the household codes of his time — a patriarchal, slave-owning culture. He didn’t say, " This is God’s eternal design for all time." He said, "Within your current system, here’s how to live as Christians." We don’t still enforce: ❌ Slavery (even though Paul told slaves to obey masters) ❌ Absolute parental authority over adult children So why do we still enforce wifely submission as if it’s timeless? What Jesus actually taught about leadership When the disciples argued about who was greatest, Jesus said: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them... Not so with you. Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant." Matthew 20:25-26 Jesus explicitly REJECTED the "rule over" model. He said: leadership is service, not domination. So when men say, "I’m the head, so I rule", they’re using the Gentile model Jesus specifically condemned. The question christian men can’t answer If Jesus removed Adam’s curse of painful toil, why do you insist Eve’s curse of male rule still applies? I've asked this question many times. Here's what I typically hear: Response 1: " Submission doesn’t mean inequality, it’s just different roles." My counter: If male rule over women was part of the CURSE (Genesis 3:16), not the original design (Genesis 1-2), then insisting on it means you believe the curse still applies. So does grace remove it or not? Response 2: " The man is the head, just like Christ is head of the church." My counter: Ephesians 5:25 says husbands should love like Christ loved the church, meaning He gave Himself up for her. He didn’t control her. He served her. If "head" means authority, show me where Jesus controlled, monitored, or restricted the church’s freedom. Headship is service, not rule. Response 3: " This is cultural relativism. The Bible is clear." My counter: So you believe slavery is still biblical because Ephesians 6:5 says "slaves obey your masters"? Or do you admit Paul was addressing cultural realities of his time? You can’t claim submission is timeless while admitting slavery passages were cultural. Either both are cultural, or both are timeless. Pick one. Response 4: " Men and women are equal in value but have different roles." My counter: " Separate but equal" was the justification for segregation. If the "role" for women always involves subordination and the "role" for men always involves authority, that’s hierarchy, not equality. And hierarchy was the CURSE, not the design. You cannot claim that Jesus removed the curse for men but not for women. Either: Christ removed ALL curses for ALL people (including male rule over women) OR The curses still apply to everyone (meaning men, accept painful toil without claiming grace) And if you try to have both, you’re not teaching theology. You ’r e simply justifying control . I’ll like to hear from Christian men, Bible theologists and Thinkers. What do you think? Have you encountered this theological inconsistency? How do you respond? Let’s discuss in the comments. © Modupe Ayobami