The Sutherby’s Ministry with InFaith

09/11/2026

I've been sitting with the hard words Jesus spoke right after He told the disciples He must suffer and be killed.

Peter tried to pull Him aside and talk Him out of the cross. Jesus would have none of it. Then He called the crowd with the disciples and said it plain:

“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul?” (Mark 8:34-37)

Coming after Jesus is not polishing up the life you already have. It is denying the self that keeps trying to save itself—by performance, by looking decent, by holding onto control. The cross He calls us to is the end of every other claim we make on our own righteousness.

Scripture is clear that the righteousness of God has been revealed apart from the law, through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. He took up His cross first. He lost His life for us. Living faith trusts that finished work and then follows Him, losing the old life for His sake and the gospel’s.

You can gain the whole world—comfort, reputation, even religious credit—and still forfeit your soul. Nothing you offer can buy it back. Only Christ can.

Where in your life are you still clutching at ways to save yourself instead of losing that life to follow Him?

09/04/2026

😮 Did you know that one of the most famous verses in the Book of James might actually be a quote from someone else?

😈👺If you grew up in the church, you’ve probably heard James 2:19 quoted a hundred times: “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe and shudder!” You’ve maybe even quoted this yourself.

We usually read this as James strictly warning his readers. But if you dig into the original language, a fascinating mystery emerges; one that completely changes the flow of his argument.

🧐 The Punctuation Problem 💭

When James wrote his epistle, he wrote in Koine Greek. Ancient Greek manuscripts had no punctuation; no periods, no commas, and importantly, no quotation marks.

😤😡In James 2:18, James uses a popular ancient literary device called a diatribe. He introduces an imaginary "Objector" to argue with him, starting with the phrase: "But someone will say..."

Because there are no quotation marks in the original text, English Bible translators have to make an interpretive decision: Where does the Objector stop speaking, and where does James start speaking again?

🗣️ Who is saying what? 📣

Depending on which Bible translation you use, you get a very different picture:

📕 The Short Quote (ESV, NIV): These translations end the quote early in verse 18: "You have faith and I have works." Under this view, James immediately jumps back in to answer, meaning James is the one bringing up the demons.

📕 📚 The Medium Quote (NASB)
This translation ends the quote at the end of verse 18: “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” In this option it still has James jumping back in and mentioning the demons

📚 📕 📖 The Long Quote (The Weymouth New Testament): Most rarely, like in the Weymouth New Testament, the Objector is actually speaking through all of verses 18 AND 19. “You have faith, I have actions: prove to me your faith apart from corresponding actions and I will prove mine to you by my actions. You believe that God is one, and you are quite right: evil spirits also believe this, and shudder."

🤔 Why the "Long Quote" makes the most sense

If the Objector is speaking through both verses, the entire debate makes a little more sense, though still somewhat ambiguous as to what the Objector is arguing.

The Objector is trying to argue something like the idea that faith and works are totally separate and unconnected. Maybe even that it’s pointless to try to connect them because there are such divergent works that can result from the same belief. Remember, James’ main point is that faith without works is useless and unprofitable. The Objector MUST be arguing the opposite (why else would he be objecting?).

😇👹"Hey James, we have different gifts. You have faith, I have works. It's all good! After all, you believe in God? Great! Even the demons believe that, and they shudder. They don't do good works. See? There’s no logical connection between your belief and works."

If the Objector is the one using the demons as an excuse to separate faith and works, notice what happens next. In verse 20, James comes back with a swift and heavy rebuke:

🙋🏻‍♂️"Do you want to know, O foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?"

This sharp rebuke is the clearest indicator we have that the Objector is finally done speaking. James listens to this whole terrible argument, calls the Objector foolish, and resumes his point: faith shouldn’t just exist alone. It needs works to make it profitable and useful!

🧔🏻‍♂️🧔🏼‍♂️James wasn't the only New Testament author to use this imaginary "Objector" technique; the Apostle Paul used this exact same rhetorical style to dismantle bad theology. In Romans 6, Paul anticipates a critic's argument, asking, "Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?" and immediately shoots it down with a resounding, "God forbid!" Similarly, when defending the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, he introduces a skeptical voice asking, "How are the dead raised?" only to fire back with the exact same bluntness James used: "You fool!"

🥊Both Paul and James use these fictional sparring partners to anticipate their readers' doubts and address the counterarguments. We know when the Objector stops speaking when the Author re-enters with the rebuke.

✍️ Every time we open our English Bibles, we are reading the result of translation and interpretive decisions that have been made for us. Knowing the background of these texts doesn't just give us fun facts; it helps us see the true intent, and actual words, of the original author. Most importantly, if we study carefully, we can avoid saying things that are “foolish,” like “even the demons believe.”

09/03/2026

You may have seen this announcement that Convergent Church is partnering to help plant/re-plant a church in Holt, MI. For the past few months we’ve been praying for the Lutz family as they will be sent at the beginning of 2027 to help shepherd the people at this church in Holt.

This Sunday, I have the honor to fill in an preach at this church! I am very excited to have the opportunity to teach the Word again and will be covering the topic of Justification from Romans 5.

What an apt topic as we will also be taking part in communion

Please pray for me as I prepare my sermon and pray for the brothers and sisters in Holt who will hear the word. Pray for any there who may not know the Lord to come to know Him this Sunday.

08/30/2026

A year ago we attended a Life Group with some new friends we had made. Unbeknownst to us, God was going to call us to make a move of faith.

A couple of months later we sensed God calling us to plant new roots at Convergent Church in Owosso.

After growing in deeper relationships with one of our pastors and his wife, and about a half dozen other couples, Pam and I were approached to lead our own Life Group.

Multiplication of disciples has been the heartbeat of my ministry with InFaith for over a decade. So while it’s a sad “gospel goodbye” to those in our former Life Group, it’s exciting to see groups multiplying as people dive deeper in to their walk with the Lord.

Our original life group is actually planting two new groups, ours is just one of them. Pray for all of the Life Groups at Convergent as we grow together in the Lord. Pray also for the people God will bring to our Life Group

08/28/2026

Additionally, No passage in the New Testament allows for a singular elder; it’s always a plurality.

There’s a reason for a plurality. It allows for accountability, mutual support, and diversity of gifting within the local church’s leadership.

The pastoral epistles do give guidelines for qualifications of elders. They are essentially qualities of a mature believer.

The question arises: what if a local church doesn’t have a plurality of people who meet those qualifications perfectly?

Is it better to have one elder who fits all the qualifications or to have a plurality of imperfect elders but who are growing in maturity?

08/26/2026

Reading biblical narratives requires a special kind of Hermenuetic. You have to actually read it like a story.

While biblical stories are different from fairy tales and moral stories in that they are real, they are still similar in that, usually, the application comes in the conclusion or resolution of conflicts.

Another benefit of reading biblical narratives as full stories, rather than short Sunday school snippets, is that it makes the stories come alive! The characters becomes real people with their own minds, attitudes, beliefs, and motives.

This is clearly seen when you look at the story of Joab, one of David’s mighty men and his nephew. Joab becomes a tragic character that we can sympathize with and, if we read carefully, can find ourselves relating to.

This is the first episode that my son Mark edited on his own so give it a view or listen wherever you find your podcasts and give him a comment 😀

This teaching delves into the importance of understanding biblical ...

08/21/2026

Trusting God in public, but taking matters into his own hands when it suits him.
Where do you think leaders lose credibility fastest?

08/14/2026

A couple of weeks ago I had the honor of being on my friend Greg Garcia’s show “His Generation Podcast” to discuss growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.

He was gracious enough to let me take our discussion and release it on “Faith in Focus” but go take a look at his show on YouTube, Rumble, or wherever you get podcasts

In this episode, Dennis appeared on a friend, Greg Garcia's, podcas...

08/11/2026

Having just finished “Crime and Punishment,” I want to share a final summary. [Spoiler Alert] The novel ends with the main character having a dream of a plague that sweeps over humanity in which every person lives his or her own truth; moral relativism is the plague.

One of the great things of modern technology is that, while some of these classic literature books are more difficult to read, AI and the Internet can help make them more accessible. After I finished the book I asked Gemini, “What he envisions seems eerily prophetic by Dostoyevsky of modern cultures post modern view of morality and truth: what’s true for you is true for you.”

It responded in length:

The "dream of the plague" at the end of the Epilogue isn't just a fever dream—it is a precise diagnosis of hyper-individualism and moral relativism. Dostoevsky saw where the intellectual currents of his own era (1860s rationalism, utilitarianism, and nihilism) were heading long before they fully materialized in the 20th and 21st centuries.

1. The Core of the Dream: Subjective Truth as a Contagion

In the hospital, Raskolnikov dreams of microscopic creatures (trichinae) that infect people with a peculiar kind of insanity:

"Never, never had men considered themselves so intellectuallly complete and completely in possession of the truth as these infected ones... Each thought that he alone held the truth, and was tormented by the sight of others..."

Dostoevsky’s genius here was identifying that when objective moral truth—or a shared ground of reality—is abandoned, everyone becomes their own pope, judge, and lawgiver.

In modern terms, when truth becomes entirely subjective ("my truth" vs. "your truth"), communication breaks down. As Dostoevsky writes in the dream, people couldn't agree on what was good or evil, who to accuse or who to acquit. The logical conclusion of absolute moral relativism isn't tolerance; it's total social fragmentation, where power and violence become the only ways to resolve differences.

2. From Raskolnikov's Essay to the Mass Scale

Throughout the novel, Raskolnikov's crime is a isolated, micro-experiment in moral relativism:

He decided that for him, the old pawnbroker was just a "louse."
He decided that his goals outweighed traditional morality ("Thou shalt not kill").
The plague dream simply takes Raskolnikov’s personal philosophy and scales it up to all of humanity.

Dostoevsky is telling Raskolnikov—and the reader—that if you are allowed to decide morality based on your own intellect and preferences, then everyone is. And when 8 billion people operate as their own ultimate moral authority, society eats itself alive.

3. Why It Feels So Prophetic Today

Dostoevsky was writing in 1866, decades before the rise of 20th-century totalitarianisms and more than a century before postmodernism popularized the idea that objective truth is merely a social construct or a power play.

Dostoevsky saw that stripping away a shared, transcendent moral anchor (for him, Christian love and objective truth) leaves behind two dangerous extremes:

Totalitarian Ideology: Trying to force everyone into a rigid, man-made system.

Hyper-Individualistic Relativism: Where individual desire and opinion become the supreme law, rendering society incapable of uniting around common values, facts, or ethics.

4. Dostoevsky’s Proposed Antidote

In the novel, Dostoevsky doesn't fight this nihilistic plague with more human logic or intellectual arguing—because logic, as Razumikhin noted, can be twisted to justify anything.

Instead, the counter-agent to the plague is represented by Sonya: active love, humility, self-sacrifice, and an objective moral law grounded in something higher than the human ego. For Dostoevsky, the only thing that saves us from the nightmare of the plague dream is stepping outside of our own heads and re-anchoring ourselves in love for others.

08/02/2026

Going live with my old Daily Wire Friend, Greg Garcia, on his show His Generation Podcast to discuss growing in grace and knowledge. Check us out if you'd like

August 2nd 2026 3pm (PST) / 6pm (EST) LIVE BroadcastSpecial Episod...