The following are the views expressed by Olufemi Oguntokun in the June 18, 2026 episode of the On the Lord’s Side Podcast — Christian perspectives on news and current events.
ON THE GIFTING OF HOUSES TO JUDGES
Good morning to you once again. It is Thursday, the 18th of June 2026.
One of the matters getting attention on X, on Twitter, in Nigeria yesterday and today has been the commissioning of houses for judges of the Court of Appeal in Nigeria. These houses, built in Abuja and sponsored by the administration through Minister Nyesom Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory under the administration of President Bola Tinubu, have invited considerable controversy — and rightly so. I have no doubt whatsoever that the commissioning should invite controversy.
Let me first explain why the controversy exists. There are some out there who will say, well, what’s the big deal? The government has built houses. And if you see the houses — they are not just houses, they are palatial; they are mansions, and that is the proper way to put it if you have seen the videos. Some will ask, what’s there to see? Is that not part of the duty of government to do things like that?
This is a time when many Nigerians should benefit from some civic education on the role of government and the role of the different arms of government. At the most basic level, we all know we have the doctrine of the separation of powers entrenched in the Nigerian constitution, and it is there for a good reason. What does that doctrine say? It says, basically, that all the parts of the state should not be concentrated in one person or one institution. Political scientists have historically identified three core powers of the state: the executive power, which is the power to execute the laws, to implement programmes, policies and laws; the judicial power, the power to interpret the laws and the constitution and to determine disputes, which is vested in the courts; and the legislative power, the power to make the laws themselves. The thinking behind this is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely — which is true for any human being and any human institution.
The parallel to “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” is to go back to 1 Samuel and read the account of when Israel demanded a king. Israel had been ruled by judges appointed by God Himself. During the judgeship of Samuel, at some point the people revolted, in a manner of speaking, and said, look around — we have had judges for a long time, but the kingdoms around us, the other countries, they have kings, and their kings are so powerful, so regal; we also want a king. Samuel was distraught. He went to God, and God said to Samuel, “Don’t worry. It is not you they have rejected; it is Me they have rejected. They want a king, they are going to get a king. But tell them the nature of the king they are going to get.” Because what they were proposing was to invest all the powers of the state in a single person, a single king. So Samuel told them: you are going to get a king, but this king will take your sons and conscript them into his army; he will take your daughters into his household; he will tax you; he will take from your fields. And the people, foolish as they were, said, notwithstanding, we want a king. That is a parallel to “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If you invest all the powers of a state in a single person, that power will corrupt that person; that person will abuse it, no matter how good he is. That is the nature of human character.
And it is not only about nations. It is also about institutions, about companies. That is why even in companies we talk about checks and balances, we talk about governance — and governance is a big deal now in corporate affairs, so much so that even government institutions are concerned about how the leading corporate entities in the world are governed. You want to be sure that absolute power is not concentrated in a single person. It used to be the case in corporate practice in Nigeria that a single person could be both the chairman of the board and the managing director of a company. It is no longer the case, especially for public companies. It is now statutorily required that the office of chairman of the board be separated from the office of managing director, because you want one to discharge the oversight role over the other. History has proven that when you combine those two offices in one person, especially in Nigeria, the office is abused.
I have gone to all this length about the doctrine of separation of powers just to lay a foundation. According to the report, the controversy centres on the commissioning of housing units, including for Court of Appeal judges, in Abuja’s Katampe district by the FCT administration under Minister Wike. This is framed officially as welfare support for judicial officers. So what we find here is that the executive arm of government — which, under the doctrine of separation of powers, is distinct from the judicial arm, separate and coequal — has seen fit to give welfare support to judicial officers, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Court of Appeal. (As an aside, this year, 2026, we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Court of Appeal in Nigeria.) According to the Minister, it will improve the living conditions, the security and the independence of judges by reducing reliance on inadequate or rented accommodation. Critics view it as executive overreach that risks compromising judicial impartiality, especially with public funds amid economic hardship and ahead of elections.
Many people on X are discussing this passionately. People have gone as far as saying: don’t deceive us, let us call a spade a spade — this is almost akin to a bribe given to judges. There was a time, and we engaged with that story, when judges from the Court of Appeal paid a courtesy visit to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, and many people in the legal community were shocked and scandalised — really scandalised — by some of those judges, who said to him, look, we look forward to your support, we look forward to your gifting us houses, because we need the assurance that after office we will be well catered for. Many were scandalised by that, as well they should be. So people are saying this is clearly a bribe given by the government to judges, and that the framing as “welfare support” should be seen as a specious argument. Some have pointed out that Minister Wike has a history of similar gestures — that when he was Rivers State Governor he gave houses and SUVs to judges. And many on X are saying: you are giving mansions to judges; should you not contrast that luxury with the conditions of service for doctors, teachers, civil servants and ordinary Nigerians? And it is so true.
I am a lawyer myself, and I respect judges. I have the highest regard for judges and for those who work in the judiciary, and the judiciary is so important to the wellbeing of any nation and to the maintenance of law and order. But there are other people who are equally important — doctors, teachers, civil servants — and I will get to that shortly. Many are also talking about how this ties into upcoming elections. You know that in Nigeria, elections are decided by the votes of the citizens, but more often than not — because our institutions are weak, and our institutions are weak because the people manning them do not have strong and sterling character, which is the ultimate reason institutions are weak — you find that many of our elections end up in court. Indeed, the last election that brought the President to power ended up in court and went all the way to the Supreme Court. So politicians in Nigeria have come to understand that elections often end up in court, and maybe somebody has now understood, according to many commentators on X, that what you need to do is get the judges in your corner. If you have the judges in your corner, you have greater assurance of winning the election. So somebody wrote on X that the APC is giving largesse to judges because of election litigation. Of course, some defend it — they say Wike claims no influence, that a judge once ruled against him, that it is just welfare support. But I have spoken about the doctrine of separation of powers, and this is so important.
The separation of powers means that the welfare and the remuneration of each arm of government should not be influenced by the other at all. What should have been the proper approach here? Nobody should be saying judges don’t deserve houses of their own. The right approach should have been budgetary allocation through the National Assembly to the NJC — the National Judicial Council, the body that has supervisory control and exercises governance over the affairs of judges. If we have discovered, as a nation, that our judges do not have access to decent housing, or are not assured of housing after retirement, then a budgetary allocation should be made through the National Assembly and given to the NJC to build these houses — so that the judges see the houses not as coming from the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, not as from the President, but as from Nigeria. Whatever I receive as a result of a budgetary allocation through the National Assembly has not come from the President, has not come from a single person or a minister; it has come from the nation. That should have been the right approach: NJC-led, via a budgetary allocation through the National Assembly. Or there should, in any case, be far better transparency about this. One of the leading legal commentators in Nigeria, Femi Falana has argued that the executive cannot unilaterally gift houses to federal judges; funds should go through proper constitutional channels. This should never have happened.
Now I want to comment on what should be the right approach more broadly — and this is not limited to the gifting of these houses. Just recently on this programme we were engaging with the news of Elon Musk becoming the first dollar trillionaire in history, and we engaged with the different views across the political spectrum about that. There are some on the political left who argue that we should not have billionaires in the world, that the super-rich are a problem, and that what we need to do is confiscate their wealth and give it to the poor. We engaged with the foolishness of that kind of thinking. One, once you confiscate wealth and give it to everybody, everybody becomes poor. Two — and we are talking about the super-rich who did not steal their money, not from the government, but people who engage in enterprise and build wealth — if you confiscate their wealth and give it to others, you are disincentivising entrepreneurship. Nobody in such a society would then invest his time, resources and risk for entrepreneurial purposes, and you end up with a society where production is not sufficient to build new wealth. And we contrasted that with the reality that it is actually theft to take what belongs to somebody else and give it to other people.
That is why what the Bible teaches concerning the super-rich is not to confiscate their wealth, but for their hearts to be so disposed that they are generous. Generosity is different from confiscation. So, when you have people who are truly concerned about poverty, you should not be thinking about confiscating the wealth of some and giving it to others. You should not be thinking about somebody sitting at a table and allocating — five to you, twenty to you, and next month again I’ll take and support this one or that one — which is exactly what is being done here with the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, sitting back and saying, oh, these judges need welfare support; some of them cannot fully maintain themselves after they retire; therefore I’ll build a mansion for this person and a mansion for that person. I said, when we were engaging with Elon Musk, that the better approach is to invest in infrastructure — in what is called the enabling environment for entrepreneurship to thrive.
You want a system where housing is so affordable that judges, given their salary, can have access to mortgages and build their own houses and pay for them over time — so much so that even a policeman could do that. That is the kind of economy a government should invest in building. Not the Father Christmas kind of economy, not the headmaster kind of economy, where you sit back and say, next month I’m going to divide what we have into four, I’ll give one to you and one to you, and then people come back, cap in hand, saying we need more support. That is exactly what some politicians thrive on, and it appears to be the approach of the present government. Is it not the tax-and-spend policy of many on the political left? They want to increase taxation, bring everything into the storehouse, and then sit back and say, now let me give it to you, and not to that person — and of course that is abuse. It leads to abuses. People begin to give and to withhold gifts and allocations to those who may oppose them, which is exactly what is happening right now, and it is totally wrong. What government should be doing is building the environment for entrepreneurship to thrive and for everyone who is doing decent work to earn enough for the basic things. If you have an economy where people as distinguished as judges are not able to afford houses of their own, there is something wrong with that economy. That is the problem that should be addressed — not gifts being given.
Now let us come to the Christian perspective on all of this, because even the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory has admitted that what is being done is the giving of welfare support — a gift to judges. What does the Bible say about judges accepting gifts? Remember, we are not talking about a budgetary allocation made by the National Assembly in the constitutionally prescribed manner for the NJC to build houses for judges. We are talking about a case where a member of the executive arm, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, decided to give gifts to some judges as welfare support. What does the Bible say about the acceptance of gifts like that? Exodus 23:8 and Deuteronomy 16:19: “Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the righteous.” A gift here often means an inducement — any inducement affecting judgment. And nobody should insult our intelligence by saying, oh, these judges have their wits about them; notwithstanding that they have been gifted these houses by the Minister, they retain the impartiality to issue judgment against him. The Bible tells us not to be that simple-minded. It cannot be that simple-minded to think that, notwithstanding the gifts, they retain their impartiality. The Bible teaches that a gift blinds those who see and twists the words of the righteous. Once you have received a gift from someone, you cannot see clearly — or even if you can see clearly, you pretend not to see; you are compromised, in a manner of speaking.
Second Chronicles 19: Jehoshaphat [transcript “Gail Shaffer” — confirm] said to the judges, “Consider carefully what you do, because you are not judging for mere mortals but for the LORD.” This is something that should be read by every Christian who is a judge, and every pastor or Christian leader who has a judge in his congregation should remind those judges of it. “Consider carefully what you do, because you are not judging for man but for the LORD. Now let the fear of the LORD be on you. Judge carefully, for with the LORD our God there is no injustice, or partiality, or bribery.” And of course, if you read through Proverbs, you find repeated warnings that bribes corrupt. Once you accept a gift like that, it corrupts. Many Christians, in the circumstances we have described, would urge judges to decline such support, or to channel it institutionally, to preserve conscience and credibility.
And of course we do admit that our judges should enjoy improved welfare conditions — not only them, but doctors and teachers. In fact, the whole economy is crying for intervention, in such a way that anybody doing decent work is able, without welfare interventions from any politician, to meet basic needs. Think of an economy where the policeman, living on his salary and within his means, can afford a decent mortgage, can pay his children’s school fees, has access to healthcare — and the same for teachers, and for practically everyone doing decent work. Not that everything will be perfect, not that money will not be tight, but you can afford the basic things. Think of a society like that, and you will find that the temptation to engage in corrupt activities is rightly reduced.
And I always say to people: we have to be clear-eyed; we must not bury our heads in the sand. Those who do these things, in the name of welfare allocations, know exactly what they are doing. When you talk about institutions, you are talking about people, because institutions are inanimate things. When you talk about the judiciary, you are talking about the judges, the registrars, the lawyers who work in it. When you talk about the executive, you are talking about the President and his ministers. So if we are actually talking about human beings, pray tell me how, in the future, if the people in institution A call the people in institution B and say, “We have a matter before you,” the people in institution B will say, “Please do not bring that up; we have nothing to do together.” Well, you once had something to do together — a gift passed hands. I do hope some persons will take this up and challenge in court what has happened. For those who have concerns about this from a constitutional point of view, you are right to have them. And for us who think from a Christian perspective, let us have no doubt whatsoever that gifts to judges are an abomination before God.
ON LOBBYING AND COMMISSIONED OPINIONS
The next story is an allegation made by someone on Twitter — and attributed to a security expert in Nigeria — suggesting that, listen to this, Nigeria pumped 150 million dollars into Washington to bribe people to stop Trump’s intervention in Nigeria.
Let me take some steps back to build a foundation. At some point last year, when the attacks by terrorists on Christians in the north became unbearable — and it still is unbearable — President Trump intervened, after many conservative politicians in the United States spoke out about the seeming lack of effort by the government to address the Christian genocide, the attacks on Christians and Christian churches in the north. Eventually President Trump himself spoke up and said he was concerned about the persecution of Christians in Nigeria, and that if the government did not act he would do this and that. He made those threats, and eventually authorised some attacks — maybe two now, on record. But the large-scale intervention he promised has not been realised. We understand there is some cooperation between the intelligence and military units in the US and in Nigeria; indeed, it was recently said that that collaboration led to the killing of a man described as the second most active terrorist in the world. But many people are now suggesting that the reason the large-scale intervention did not materialise is that lobbyists — and you have to know who lobbyists are in the context of American politics — persuaded Trump not to intervene in the manner he originally proposed.
I want you to hear what that security expert said. According to him: “When the American intervention came, first with the two tweets and then the Christmas Day intervention, instead of Nigerians responding positively to the intervention the American government made through Donald Trump, let me tell you what the Nigerian response was. Nigeria flooded the United States of America with money — to do what? To deny that there was a Christian genocide. Nigeria, that will not take care of its citizens at home, officially and publicly released 10 million dollars to a lobby firm; but altogether Nigeria’s money sent to Washington to neutralise what Trump has been doing is almost 150 million dollars. We have more than enough documentation, more than enough clout, to show that there really was a Christian genocide going on.” He went on, as he had said more than ten years ago, that in the final stages there would be infighting among the terrorist factions — that ISWAP is the most deadly of all, that the Fulani and the Boko Haram (who are Kanuri) do not see eye to eye, two predators fighting to be the one to devour the nation; and that all honourable Muslims who refuse to be part of terrorism end up being killed, the first time being in Kano many years ago. He said that when this current administration responded by pouring money into Washington, a lot of people who had been working hard there, who had information, suddenly came down in their enthusiasm. But, he said, the good news is that many others refuse to give up.
Now, I do hope you followed what that security expert said, and I love the way he ended his submission, with something popularised by one of the governments in Nigeria during the last election: that the philosophy of the current government would appear to be that whatever problem money cannot solve, more money will solve. The curious part is the suggestion that, when Trump first tweeted about the Christian genocide and made those threats, and then made that Christmas Day attack, you would have expected Nigeria to support him and say, “Yes, we really need help, we need to solve the Christian genocide problem.” But instead, at least on record, Nigeria had a lobby firm in the US paid as much as 10 million dollars to deny the existence of Christian genocide in Nigeria.
You have to understand how these lobbies work, and how shaping public opinion in the US was important at that time, and continues to be important to the policies the government would take. Let us say Trump was of a mind to truly deploy extensive resources to fight the genocide in Nigeria. If public opinion in the US shifts against him, more likely than not he would not do it. If those lobbies succeed in convincing people that there is actually no Christian genocide in Nigeria, people will ask, why are you deploying resources if there is no genocide? So what do these lobbies do? They arrange meetings with officials, lawmakers and staff; they provide information and briefings; they organise events; they shape media narratives; and they advocate for specific policies. They go to senators, representatives, advisors to the President and members of the executive; they hold events, conduct research, and present the results, saying, “Look, what Nigeria needs is not military intervention but military cooperation; not direct attacks on the terrorists but working through the Nigerian government.” They leverage their connections, their expertise, their access and their influence over government policy.
Many people in Nigeria will hear that and say, oh, you are just talking about bribery. It is not the naked corruption and bribery that would happen in some other parts of the world, where money exchanges hands. You just have these lobbies, paid by people who want a definite outcome, to influence the thinking of those in the administration. Of course, bribery is a criminal offence in the US as well. What you find instead is that these lobbies organise paid events, invite people to dinner, and discuss things with them — leveraging their connections, expertise and access. And let us assume, for the sake of argument, that this is exactly what happened. Just to be very clear about the facts: lobbyists who lobby for foreign interests in the United States are required, under the Foreign Agents Registration Act — popularly called FARA — to report how much they receive from foreign governments and foreign entities for their work. That is a very smart thing for the United States, because without some regulation around that, people would simply be representing foreign interests, even to the detriment of the United States. Under that Act, public records show that roughly 13 billion naira, or nine million dollars was paid to DCI Group, a Washington firm with Republican ties — because, you know, there is a Republican in government, which is Trump. If you want to influence a Republican administration, you go through a lobbying firm with extensive Republican ties. So although this gentleman said 150 million, which we may not be able to verify, at least we know for a fact, from public records, that nine million was paid — about 13 billion naira at that time.
You have to think about this from different perspectives. First: if the Nigerian government has 13 billion to spare on paying lobbyists to influence President Trump, think of what that money could have done to build up our military and our response to the Christian genocide. If you have that much to spare, couldn’t you have spent it on improving security in Nigeria, on the readiness of the military to confront these terrorists? The second perspective is for us to become aware of how decision-makers make their decisions in many parts of the world. We are talking about the United States now and the role lobbyists play, but that happens everywhere. Ultimately, in a presidential system, you have a president who makes the ultimate decision — and this president is human, not superhuman, and certainly not divine. He does not know everything, and must depend on what he is told by many people. And that applies to leadership everywhere — not only presidents, but the leader of any group, association or institution. Ultimately you rely on the information fed to you by your subordinates, and these subordinates are themselves human; they rely on the information fed to them by the people serving under them. Then you begin to understand how lobbies get their way: they plant articles and news reports in newspapers — and not just newspapers now, but on social media as well. There are many people on social media sharing views that are not their own; they are sharing views and opinions they were paid to share.
Christians who want to think faithfully and biblically about things should wake up to this. This is the way things work. When you read people sharing opinions and views, more often than not they are not their own — they are views that have been commissioned, because those who commission them understand the importance of shaping public opinion. So if I fire up my Twitter app now and read people’s views about a particular matter, I begin to think, oh, this is what the majority is leaning towards. And if you are not careful, you may just be influenced by what people have been commissioned to say. That is why people must think for themselves. We have to think for ourselves. Even if the whole world says we are going this way, think for yourself — and then take captive whatever view is being championed, take it captive to make it submit to Christ. As Paul admonished us, take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ.
So we have to understand how leaders make decisions, based on the information available to them, fed by their subordinates and advisors, who themselves rely on and are ultimately influenced by what lobbyists do — lobbyists who plant articles, news reports and events, and promote information in the public space. From a Christian point of view, you begin to understand what the Bible means when it says, first of all, to say prayers for those in government. Say prayers for leaders, because if you don’t, they are going to be misled — and when they are misled, we are all going to suffer for it. That is what Paul wrote to Timothy, in 1 Timothy 2: “I urge, then, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving be made for all people — for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” We pray for them so that they are not misled by the many out there — the lobbies and all who are angling for their own interest. If you want to live a quiet and peaceful life, the Holy Spirit admonishes you to say prayers for those in authority. Now that we understand how competing information is fed to those in authority, we must pray for them — and not only political leaders, but all our leaders: church leaders, cultural leaders, family leaders as well.
And you also want to think, from a moral and Christian perspective, about the lobbies themselves. Can a Christian be a lobbyist? Of course a Christian can be a lobbyist. But should a Christian lobbyist lobby for any point of view, as long as he has been paid? That cannot possibly be the case from a Christian point of view. The first question is not, “Is there money to be made?” Jesus said the life of a man does not consist in the abundance of what he owns. The first question for a Christian is not “Is there money to be made in this?” but “Will God be glorified by my taking up this assignment?” Once you say something like this, just as the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, made fun of Jesus when He spoke about money — they laughed Him to scorn — people may laugh you to scorn today and say, well, the first question is whether there is money to be made. But the first question is whether this is God-glorifying, and then whether it is legal by the laws of the land. So I would say that, given the evidence of Christian genocide in Nigeria, I would not expect anybody operating strictly from a Christian perspective to be lobbying for the United States government, or the people of the United States, to believe the lie. You cannot lobby for the lie. Yes, lobbying can be legitimate advocacy — oftentimes it is. But there is a line that a Christian who is a lobbyist must not cross just for the sake of monetary gain.
So, in summary, the 150 million claim seems inflated and sensational about a real but smaller disclosed lobbying effort. The real truth is that public records show the Nigerian government paid money — up to nine million dollars, about 13 billion naira — to change the perspective in the Trump administration about the reality of Christian genocide in Nigeria. What do we take from that, from a Christian perspective? For leaders, discernment is key. A Christian in a leadership position should realise that his subordinates and advisors are probably being influenced by those who do not want him to do the right thing. You have to pray for discernment, for grace to sift through everything. Those of us who are led, and who want to lead quiet and peaceful lives, must pray, as Paul admonished, for kings and all those in authority. And Christians ultimately must serve higher principles. That is the best expression of it: when Jesus said the life of a man does not consist in the abundance of what he owns, what He was saying is that a Christian must serve higher principles, not just money.
This is not merely a discourse about some of the malaise in the American cultural and political system, but you find that money has become a source of problem even for American society. Once you have a society where everything is denominated in terms of money, or what is there to be made, you will ultimately find decay setting in. Christians must have higher principles — whether they are the people engaging lobbies or the lobbies themselves. If you know for a fact that the evidence points towards Christian genocide in northern Nigeria, you dare not accept a gig — and that must be the exact word for it — where you begin to advocate for what is not true. We have to serve higher principles: not just power or money, but the cause of the truth. Our lips are our own — no. We cannot be like those described in Psalm 12:4, who say, “By our tongues we will prevail; our lips are our own — who is lord over us?” These are the people who say, “I can say what I want to say, I can write what I want to write, because there is money to be made.” Our lips are not our own; our thoughts are not even our own; everything must be made subject to Christ Himself.
So Nigeria’s challenges persist. Christian persecution continues; the genocide continues; and the wider insecurity problem continues in Nigeria. I am not saying the exact right response would be an invasion or direct military intervention by the United States. But the reality that the Nigerian government actually paid money to influence views and opinions in the US is quite telling — telling, first, of the availability of funds for the Nigerian government; and second, of how public opinion is actually moulded, not just in the US but everywhere in the world. So the next time you come across people taking a particular position on a particular matter, think again and ask yourself, how should I think? That is something missing in the world now. People are not pausing to ask, how should I think about this? What does the Bible say about this? How aligned is this view with the mind of Christ? Because more often than not, the opinions pressed upon us are commissioned opinions — and that should say a lot about the society we live in. The people who so passionately advocate a view are sometimes people who have been paid to publish that view.
And in all good conscience, a Christian cannot hold one view while propagating another. I recall a time when I used to have some relationship with a particular person who had political connections, and we would be commissioned to write political articles advocating for one view or another, and we did it, and we got paid, and these things were published in the newspaper. At some point I came to the conclusion that I should not be doing that — especially when I began to disagree with the opinions being published. When I said to that person, “I don’t want to do this,” they asked, “Why? Do you want us to increase the money you get paid?” I said, “No, I just don’t want to do that kind of gig.” And he said, “What’s wrong?” I said, “No, I just don’t want to do it again.” I think everybody must come to that point where you serve higher principles. You cannot be championing a point of view that you yourself fundamentally disagree with just because you are going to get paid for it. I know that may be a challenge for many who are financially challenged — and nobody, except perhaps the super-rich, has super-abundance for everything we need — but we must have principles. And it is my prayer that God will continue to help us to walk more faithfully with Him and to please Him at all times, in Jesus’ name. Amen.
I want to thank you for being with me this morning on GospelBells Radio, On the Lord’s Side — Christian perspectives on news and current events. I hope to be with you again tomorrow by the grace of God. Whatever you do today, please remain firmly on the Lord’s side. God bless you. You are listening to GospelBellsRadio.com, the Christian internet radio with a mission to engage the culture with the mind of Christ. Keep listening, and invite others too. God bless you. Engaging the culture with the mind of Christ.
