My thoughts on the "Left Behind" movie

Recently, I saw the new “Left Behind” movie starring Nicolas Cage.  In short, while the cast did a good job, and it is undeniably entertaining, I still can’t recommend this film.

My biggest problem with this movie isn’t primarily what was said in the film, it’s what wasn’t said.  Let me explain.  The three main characters are Rayford Steele, Chloe Steele (his daughter) and Cameron or “Buck” Williams.  In the book that the movie is based on written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, these three eventually learn that Jesus Christ had taken (or raptured as it is commonly referred to) all the Christians to Heaven, and they had been left behind.  Ultimately, they each chose to become a Christian, even though their decision was a costly one because it meant facing a dark seven year period known as the Tribulation, where being martyred for their new faith was likely.

Unfortunately, the movie doesn’t present Rayford, Chloe, or Buck putting their faith in Christ.  Rayford does begin to piece together that it was just the Christian passengers who were gone, and he deduces that he knows what the event was because his Christian wife had previously told him.  But he still doesn’t become a Christian.  To be fair, he is preoccupied with trying to make an emergency landing because the plane is leaking gasoline, something that didn’t actually occur in the original book.  Buck’s conversion to Christianity isn’t shown, either.  He is on the same plane as Rayford, and he is too busy trying to calm the other passengers down, and help Rayford in whatever way he can.

The absence of Chloe’s conversion story is the most glaring.  She finds that her mother and brother were among those who disappeared.  She subsequently goes to a church where she finds that just one pastor was left behind (the fascinating story of why he was left behind is strangely never told in the film, but it is in the book).  This pastor tells her what had happened, but Chloe doesn’t want to listen; she actually goes and almost commits suicide until her father’s phone call finally gets through.  This one is the most disappointing because, by the end of the film, Chloe is actually the hero, but not because of her newfound relationship with Christ, as it should have been.

If you are interested in seeing a movie that does follow the original book quite well I would recommend the first “Left Behind” movie starring Kirk Cameron.  It not only showcases the conversion of the main characters, but also covers other important events such as the rise of the Antichrist (who somehow doesn’t even appear in this new movie).  Stick with the original movie, and avoid this new film.  Don’t misunderstand: I’m not saying this new rebooted Left Behind movie is a bad movie, by any means.  It’s entertaining.  I’m simply saying that the transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ (a major presence in the original book) isn’t conveyed in this new film.  It is altogether ignored.

Kevin

"I delight to do Your will"

I recently finished viewing the first season of the TV show “Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”  From its start to its season finale, I really enjoyed it.  Granted, the show isn’t without its flaws.

To give just one example, the writing does get rather incoherent at a particular juncture in the season.  At one point, my head was spinning because there was so much misdirection, paranoia, and suspicion of particular characters.  I actually got the feeling that the writers couldn’t decide who was supposed to the bad apples that had the evil ulterior motives, and who wasn’t.  However, these flaws notwithstanding, I submit that the positives far outweigh the negatives when it comes to “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”

One of my favorite episodes of the first season is entitled “Yes men”.  It is called this because the main villain of the episode, a woman named Lorelei, threatens Earth.  Lorelei hails from Asgard (Thor’s home world; this show is set in the Marvel universe, so there are references to Thor, Captain America, Iron-Man, and the Avengers).  Lorelei possesses the power to bend any man to forsake their prior alliances and serve her, simply by touching them.  Another Asgardian named Lady Sif goes after Lorelei, in an attempt to stop her and return her to Asgard.

The Lorelei/Lady Sif scenes are particularly gripping.  In one scene, Lorelei taunts Sif by stating that Sif’s propensity to obey whatever her Asgardian master instructs hasn’t resulted in any personal benefit for her.  As an example, Lorelei points out that while she can have any man she wants, any man that Sif has desired hasn’t been reciprocated.  Sif wouldn’t dare give Lorelei the satisfaction of agreeing with her, but I got the sense that there was an element of truth to Lorelei’s accusation.  Ultimately, Lady Sif does defeat Lorelei and return her to Asgard to pay for her crimes.  Before leaving, the head of the S.H.I.E.L.D. team asks Sif if this whole ordeal was difficult for her.  She simply responds, “Odin ordered her back alive.  As one of his warriors, I bow to his will.”

Lady Sif is one of my new heroes.  Her decision to submit her will, desires, and life to her master, Odin, is inspiring to me.  On a daily basis, Sif faces the decision to choose her way or the way of her master.  In the end, even if it isn’t always easy, she chooses to surrender her personal desires to the wisdom of her master.  As a Christian, I too know what it’s like to face the daily decision of choosing my way or God’s way.  I’m certainly not going to declare that I always decide to go God’s way, but like Lady Sif, I know that the best course of action is to choose to daily yield all my personal hopes, dreams, and plans to God.  With the confident assurance that God’s way is the best way.

Kevin

“I delight to do Your will, O my God” – Psalm 40:8 (NKJV)   

Wise words

Today is National Boss Day.  It may be an obscure holiday, but it is a legitimate holiday, nevertheless.  In honor of this day, I want to convey an interesting sentiment from the world of superheroes.  This may seem unrelated or inapplicable at first, but it will become clear.

I suspect that most people, even those who don't follow superheroes at all, know the credo that Spider-Man (alias Peter Parker) lives by.  His Uncle Ben conveyed it to him not long before he was murdered; Ben said, “With great power comes great responsibility.”  This is a profound statement just on its face, but it is even more potent when you consider the context of why this declaration drives Spider-Man on a daily basis.  Some of you may already know this story, if so please bear with me for just a moment.

 

Peter Parker’s life was changed forever when he was bitten by a radioactive spider; the bite somehow transferred the spider’s attributes to Peter.  He gained the proportional strength and speed of a spider, the ability to stick to walls, as well as become aware of danger before it occurs (his famous “spider-sense”).  Fascinatingly, Parker initially decided to use his power to make money in wrestling.  After a game one night, Peter saw a criminal running down a hallway in his direction, but the criminal simply wanted to escape from a policeman who was chasing him.  The police officer asked Peter to help, but Peter was completely indifferent and he simply stepped aside, letting the criminal get away.

 

Not long after this, upon returning home, Peter was informed that his Uncle Ben had been shot and killed.  The policeman also reported to him that they had the man who murdered him cornered at a condemned warehouse.  Peter was filled with rage, desiring revenge.  Thus, to protect his identity, he put on the costume that he had been wrestling in, and he went after the perpetrator himself.  He was stunned to discover that the man who killed Ben was the very same man he had previously let escape.

It was in that painful moment that he finally completely understood his uncle’s words: “With great power comes great responsibility.”  Peter had been given a great power, and all he wanted to do with that power was use it for his selfish ambitions.  But he learned the hard way that, first and foremost, his power was given to be a benefit and help to others, not just for his own selfish gain.

If you are a boss, you have been given power.  With that power, there must come the understanding that you have a tremendous responsibility to use that power for the benefit and well-being of others.  It is short-sighted (at best) and egotistical (at worst) to simply use the power that has been granted to you just to promote yourself.  The Bible exhorts, “Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being” (1 Corinthians 10:24; NKJV).  Another translation puts that verse this way: “Try to do what is good for others, not just what is good for yourselves.”  That’s a good word.

Happy Boss Day!

Kevin

Keep on forgiving

I've been thinking about one of Jesus’ parables in Matthew 18 lately.  First of all, to set up context, there’s an exchange between Jesus and Peter that occurs right before Christ gives this parable.  Peter comes up to Jesus and he asks, “Lord, how many times should I forgive my brother when he sins against me?  Up to seven”” (Matthew 18:21)?  But Jesus must have made Peter’s jaw drop when He answered, “Not seven times, but seventy times seven” (verse 22).  A pastor that I’ve mentioned before in this blog – the late Pastor Rick Ferguson – often stated that Jesus’ point here is not that you forgive 490 times but no more.  It’s that Jesus is saying that there’s no limit; you must always choose to forgive.  I agree with Rick’s assessment.

This is further evidenced when you note that immediately after He said His "seventy times seven" statement, Jesus tells the parable known as the parable of the unmerciful or unforgiving servant to clarify.  This parable is from Matthew 18:23-35.  I’ll summarize it.  A man owes what Jesus says is “ten thousand talents” (verse 24).  In short, this is an astronomically high amount of money; an amount that essentially can’t be paid off in a lifetime.  This man goes to his master and he begs for time to pay off his debt.  The master, out of compassion, cancels the debt altogether.

So the man, freshly forgiven of his massive debt, goes to another man who owes him what Jesus says is “a hundred denerii” (verse 28).  This can easily be paid off in a short amount of time.  The man begs for time to pay off his debt.  But sadly the first man, the man who was forgiven of a debt he couldn't possibly hope to ever pay, refuses to extend the same forgiveness and graciousness that he was given, even though the debt is substantially less.

 

Jesus’ point is abundantly clear.  I, as a Christian, have been forgiven a debt of sin that was enormous, massive, and vast beyond measure.  This debt of sin was pardoned by God, based on Jesus’ shed blood on the cross for me.  How can I then turn around and refuse to extend forgiveness to someone else?  After all, whatever the grievance against me, it pales in comparison to the grievances that I had toward God, and yet He chose to forgive.  I must do the same.

I wish I could end there, but there's more.  Strap on your theological seat belt because Jesus actually ends the parable with a shocking conclusion.  The master, upon discovering that the man he forgave didn’t extend the same forgiveness to the other man, repeals his original offer of forgiveness, and he throws the man into prison until he can pay back the massive debt.  Jesus ends by saying, “This is how my Heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart” (Matthew 18:35).  

This is a very hard verse.  Frankly, I've wrestled with this conclusion and its explanation for years.  First, let me be clear on one point: this text is not suggesting that the unforgiving man or woman loses his salvation, and that he/she now has to perform works of penance to appease God.  This interpretation is erroneous because it goes against the rest of the Bible.  Remember Ephesians 2 tells us that salvation or the forgiveness of sin is a free gift; we can’t possibly earn it to begin with.  So what is Jesus saying here, then?

Here’s where I've landed: I think what Jesus is saying here is that unforgiveness drives a wedge between God and the Christian.  The unforgiving Christian doesn't lose his salvation, but he does lose his fellowship, his intimacy, his sense of closeness with God.  Why?  Because he or she is not living the way God’s Word says to live.  All throughout the Scriptures we read to extend forgiveness to others; therefore to refuse to do so is to sin against God.  And sin negatively impacts intimacy with God.  It makes God feel like He is a million miles away.

Therefore, let me end where I started.  How many times did Jesus say to forgive others?  He said "seventy times seven."  In other words, there’s no limit to the amount of times I’m to forgive others.  Keep on forgiving, as I stated for this blog title.  If I choose to disregard this and inwardly nurse a grudge, there are consequences for this decision.  There are emotional, physical, and spiritual consequences.  Thus, the bottom line to all of this is obvious and clear: it’s far better to always choose to forgive, no matter what.

Kevin

“Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you have against one another.  Forgive as the Lord forgave you” – Colossians 3:13

Five thoughts from this week's NFL action

It was an interesting week from the world of the NFL.  I wanted to hit and run on a few things that stood out to me.

#1: I was really impressed to see the Cleveland Browns win over the Pittsburgh Steelers 31-10.  No disrespect to the Steelers, but I love to see teams that have struggled have some success.  The Browns haven’t been very good for a really long time.  Currently they stand at 3-2 and they really should have a better record, as they let one game get away from them that they should have won.

#2: Great win by the Dallas Cowboys.  The Cowboys are for real.  They went into Seattle, the loudest stadium in the NFL, and they found a way to defeat the Super Bowl champion Seahawks by a score of 30-23.  The Cowboys are now 5-1, and they are one of the biggest surprises in the NFL thus far.

#3: Ties in the NFL are anticlimactic.  Yesterday the Bengals and Panthers game ended in a 37-37 tie.  Each teams had their shot to win.  Many will point to Mike Nugent missing a 36 yard field goal at the end of regulation.  But don’t forget that on the Panthers last drive, Jerricho Cotchery was thrown a good ball in the end zone that he should have caught, but he just couldn’t haul it in for the touchdown and the victory.  It’s disappointing to see two teams play their hearts out and have it result in a tie.

#4: I’ve been keeping my eye on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers because Lovie Smith is their new head coach this year.  It’s been disappointing to watch the Bucs struggle mightily so far.  They are 1-5.  They have been competitive in some games, but yesterday they were embarrassed.  They lost 48-17 to the Baltimore Ravens, but the game was over by halftime (Baltimore was leading 38-0).

#5: On their final drive, the Packers were going to spike the ball to stop the clock, but Rodgers faked everyone out and instead he passed it to a receiver who ran it inside the 5 and out of bounds to stop the clock.  Rogers ultimately threw a touchdown pass to defeat the Dolphins 27-24.

 

According to Rodgers own admission after the game, that fake spike play was his decision.  Fortunately for him and the Packers, it helped lead the team to a victory.  It was a very gutsy decision because they had no timeouts.  If his receiver was tackled in bounds, the Packers would have ran out of time and lost the game.

Kevin

Manning or Brady: a debate with no clear answer

Recently on the Dan Patrick show, Tony Dungy was asked which quarterback has had the better career: Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.  Dungy quickly answered Tom Brady.  He went on to say that this was because Brady has more Super Bowl victories than Peyton Manning (Brady has 3; Manning has 1).

I want to weigh in on this.  Whatever your opinion on this debate (you really can’t go wrong with either player) I don’t think it’s fair to assert that one individual quarterback’s career is better than another simply because of more Super Bowl wins.  Football is a team game.  Tom Brady doesn’t play defense or special teams; he plays quarterback.  If the Patriots lose a Super Bowl with Brady (and they have), it’s because the other team beat them; you can’t pin it all on Tom Brady.  The same goes for Peyton Manning.

As I see it, the quarterback receives too much of the glory for winning and too much of the blame for losing.  I’ll say it again for emphasis: football is a team game.  You simply cannot declare one quarterback is better than another just because of Super Bowl wins.

For example, Dan Marino was a star in his heyday.  In 1984, he put up incredible numbers, even by today’s standards, but especially in 1984.  He threw for 5,084 yards and 48 touchdowns passes; granted these records have since been broken but it still doesn’t diminish what he did (and he still holds other records that haven’t been broken).  But for all that he accomplished, he played in one Super Bowl against the 49ers (in 1984) and lost.  He played for sixteen years and only went to that one Super Bowl.

John Elway was also a star in his heyday, but for most of his career he could never win a Super Bowl.  His Broncos got steamrolled in the Super Bowl on three different occasions.  For many years, many wondered if he would ever win the big game.  He was finally able to do so in Super Bowl 32, and then again in Super Bowl 33.

 

This was a fitting end to a great career; but does this automatically mean that Elway was the better quarterback over Marino?  Not necessarily.  I would say that both were unbelievable quarterbacks.  To try to point to the fact that Elway won Super Bowls and Marino didn’t is largely irrelevant to the debate.  The same is true for Manning and Brady.  Both are amazing quarterbacks.  Super Bowl wins shouldn’t factor into the discussion.

Kevin

“They’re both spectacular...I don’t think there’s too much of a difference between them.  It’s like comparing Picasso and Michelangelo.  It’s hard to compare the two.”

-Wes Welker answering who he thinks is better between Manning and Brady

My list of worst superhero movies

It’s an undeniable fact that sometimes a superhero movie is just bad.  Today I want to present my list of worst superhero movies ever made.  Let me preface this by saying that for the following to have the (dis)honor of making this list, it has to be a movie that I personally have viewed.  Furthermore, please note that this list is my list; feel free to disagree with it if you want; it’s just my personal opinion.  So here it is.

#5: Green Lantern (2011)

I actually went into this one with high hopes, but I was quickly disappointed.  Where to begin?  There are numerous characters in this film that are physically grotesque and very unpleasant to look at.  Both the villains and many of the good guys as well.  Plus the character of Hal Jordan (Green Lantern's alter ego) is poorly written and inconsistent with the valor that Hal actually possesses. 

The biggest problem I had is the laughingly bad Green Lantern costume; more specifically his eyes.  When he is in costume and wearing his mask (mercifully, half the time he doesn’t wear his mask) Green Lantern’s eyes are a different color; they are light blue.  And it is so noticeable that it distracts the viewer.  For instance, at one point, Green Lantern has saved the day, and his love interest is looking lovingly into his eyes.  But his eyes look so goofy and unnatural with his mask on that I actually found myself laughing when it was supposed to be a tender scene between the two.

#4: Steel (1997)

Steel was an attempt to put one of Superman’s allies onto the big screen.  I like the character of Steel; the problem with this movie was they cast Shaquille O’Neal as Steel.  Shaquille was a good basketball player, but not the best actor.  Furthermore, the dialogue seemed to repeatedly remind the audience that Shaquille O’Neal was playing Steel.  For instance, at one point Steel jokes about how he can’t make free throws.  We get it already: Shaquille O’Neal is playing Steel.

#3: Catwoman (2004)

There’s so much wrong with this movie.  To begin, the title character is not Selina Kyle, it’s a random character named Patience Phillips.  There’s no mention of Batman, Gotham City, or how Catwoman is supposed to be a character that vacillates between being good sometimes and evil at other times.  Instead it’s just a new character that is supposedly a part of a long line of Catwomen (really?).  In short, this is a standalone Catwoman movie stripped of everything that makes the Catwoman character intriguing.  The less said about that ridiculous Catwoman costume the better.

#2: Batman and Robin (1997)

This movie is regarded by many as the worst superhero movie ever made.  While I think there's a superhero film worse than this one, "Batman and Robin" is certainly the worst Batman movie ever made.  The numerous bad ice puns; the farfetched plot points; the odd casting choices (George Clooney as Batman?  Alicia Silverstone as Barbara/Batgirl?).  But I have to state that the biggest gripe I have is what this movie did to these characters.

For example, Bane, one of the greatest Batman villains, is downgraded to a brainless thug who can’t even speak in a complete sentence.  Robin is relegated to a hotheaded jerk who argues with Batman for most of the film.  At one point, he angrily screams at Batman just because he wasn’t allowed to try to make a dangerous jump with his motorcycle.  Or how about when Batman sees Batgirl for the first time?  He asks, “And you are?”  “Batgirl,” she answers.  “That’s not awfully P.C. what about Bat-woman or Bat-person?”  No matter how campy the genre, Batman would never actually say that in a million years.

Before I get to my number one, let me list a few honorable mentions. 

Superman 4: The Quest for Peace (1987)

This is the one that murdered the Superman movie franchise for decades.  This is a film that you actually enjoy when you are a younger person, but then as you get older you see more and more just how terrible the whole film really was.  That said, even as a small boy, I wondered if Nuclear Man (one of the main villains in the film) really had nails that, upon scratching Superman, actually brings the Man of Steel to the brink of death, so much so that Superman has to use a final piece of green crystal from Krypton to restore his health and powers (which really doesn’t make sense), why wouldn’t he just use them again and try to scratch Superman a second time?  Yet he doesn’t.

Hulk (2003)

It's difficult to make a good Hulk movie.  Actor Eric Bana (Bruce Banner/the Hulk) and Director Ang Lee tried their hand at one, and they weren’t successful.  For one thing, there was way too much focus on Bruce Banner’s childhood.  It seemed like half the movie was just a glorified Bruce Banner psychiatric visit.  Plus, I found Nick Nolte’s character really annoying.  Furthermore, the final battle ended in a way that was anything but spectacular.  This one failed so resoundingly that there was quickly a reboot to the franchise, ushering in Ed Norton’s Hulk film.

And now, without further ado, here is (in my opinion) the worst superhero movie...

#1: Elektra (2005)

For those that don't know "Elektra" was a spinoff of the 2003 movie “Daredevil”.  Jennifer Garner gave a memorable performance as Elektra (Matt Murdock/Daredevil’s love interest) in that flick, so someone had the idea to give Garner her own movie where she reprises her role.  While I personally don’t think that the film “Daredevil” is nearly as bad as many suggest, it looks like a flawless masterpiece when compared to “Elektra”.  This is a real shame because I'm a Jennifer Garner fan, and even she couldn't save this one.

Really I could just go on and on enumerating how bad this film is.  The overall pace is slow and boring; the characters are forgettable; one of the main villains is defeated in an extremely implausible way (defying the laws of gravity to do it); and there are no references to Elektra’s relationship with Daredevil (did he really mean that little to her?).  

But the most irritating aspect of this film is that it was too much in Elektra’s head.  Take this bizarre scene for an example: Elektra has resolved to protect a father and her daughter; assassins are closing in to kill them, and Elektra knows this.  So she stops and closes her eyes, apparently to help her focus for the impending task.  The villains subsequently break in and quickly shoot Elektra, and then they murder the daughter.  But then we suddenly cut back to that same shot of Elektra’s closed eyes.  Evidently, that whole scene was all in her head.  Why she chose to imagine the worst case scenario before fighting is beyond me.

Furthermore, the film gives us numerous flashbacks from Elektra’s mysterious past, both while she sleeps at night and when she is awake.  The problem is they are so random that they stop holding your interest after a while; they actually became a distracting nuisance to me.  It is for these reasons (and many others that I chose not to get into) that puts “Elektra” as my choice for the worst superhero movie ever made.

Kevin    

Trusting in God’s sovereignty (part 2)

Last time, I spoke of desiring to let God write my life story in the way that He wants it written, even if certain excerpts differ from the way that I personally would have written it.  It occurred to me that someone might read my words and inwardly say in response, “Kevin, when you speak of ‘letting God write your story,’ you make it sound like you are just a puppet on a string, or a pre-programmed robot, with no say in your actions whatsoever.  You’re not some character in a book; you have the ability to choose the direction your life goes.”

 

Certainly we do have the wonderful gift of choice, but this doesn’t somehow negate or overrule God’s sovereign plan.  Let me give you some Scripture verses.  I love Job’s affirmation of faith in Job 42:2; he says to God, “I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted.”  In Isaiah 46, God says, “My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please…What I have said that I will bring about; what I have planned, that I will do” (verses 10-11).  Revelation 3:7 says Jesus opens doors no one can close and he closes doors no one can open.  Yes, on the one hand, we make real choices that carry weight, but on the other hand, we aren’t smart to somehow ruin God’s plans.

 

To illustrate this, consider Joseph from the book of Genesis.  He wasn’t a victim of circumstance when his brothers sold him to Egypt, rather than murder him as they originally planned.  He wasn’t a victim of circumstance when he was thrown in prison after being falsely accused by a scorned married woman who was angry that Joseph had simply resisted her sexual advances.  While in that prison, Joseph had a cellmate who had a troubling dream.  Joseph interpreted the dream: the cellmate was going to be reinstated to his position in Pharaoh’s office.  And he was, just as Joseph said.  Thus, when Pharaoh himself began having a troubling dream, the man was able to say to Pharaoh, “You know, when I was in prison this guy was able to interpret my dream, I bet he can for you too.”

 

Joseph was able to interpret the dream: there was going to be seven years of abundance followed by seven years of severe famine.  Joseph counseled Pharaoh to put someone in charge of storing up food during the years of plenty, so rations would be available during the famine.  Pharaoh says, “Great idea!  How about you?”  Ultimately, Joseph was made second in command of Egypt, behind only Pharaoh himself.

 

Let me be clear to avoid any misunderstanding: I’m not saying that God will eventually give you a high rank of authority, just as He did for Joseph.  That was God’s plan for Joseph, but that’s not necessarily His plan for you.  My point is real choices were made, but God was sovereignty working; God was writing Joseph’s life story, and nothing was going to thwart that plan.  I don’t know about you, but I find that encouraging.

Kevin

Trusting in God's sovereignty

The other day, I was watching a morning talk show.  They were interviewing a star of a new hit TV show.  This person was asked if the cast knew what was eventually going to happen to their characters for the season.  She answered that they don’t know what is going to happen, just like the viewers.  She added this was difficult for her because she is, by nature, a person who likes to be in control, but in this case, she can’t.  Then she stated that she has learned to "trust the writers," because they are good at their job.

That phrase that she used of trusting the writers has subsequently been stuck in my head ever since I heard it.  I've been applying it to my Christian life.  I've never actually read the book “When God Writes Your Life Story” by Eric and Leslie Ludy, but I love the picture that this title brings.  As a Christian man who has submitted his life to God, it is the Lord Himself who composes the chapters of my life story.  I desire for Him to write my life story the way He deems best.  

Believe me, this is easy to say, but harder to live out.  There have been times where I look at certain episodes in my life, and candidly, I question why God chose to compose that section of my life story in that particular way.  This is where trust comes in.  Even when life isn't easy, I have to decide afresh to put my trust in God, the writer of my life story.  He knows what is best.

Kevin