The Fetzer Study of Spirituality reports that “the more spiritual than religious group” rose from 18.5% of American adults in 1998 to 33.6% in 2020. “Spirituality” is in, while “organized religion” is out. Spirituality is considered to be a private, individual experience while “religion” is considered to be a public, communal practice. North American religious groups with established institution have emphasized personal faith and practice to such degree that they seem blind to the benefits of community they offer. Our day is undeniably focused upon an individualistic experience.

Of the world religions, Hinduism and Buddhism are the more individualistic in practice. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are more communal. The rising generations, if they dabble in any religious practice are gravitating toward Hinduism and Buddhism or other religious traditions that are focused upon the individual’s spiritual growth. Of course, in North America and Europe, rising generations are choosing anything spiritual not tethered to Christianity, which has significantly contributed to the building of western civilization through institution and hopping into bed with the state. Its traditions, systems of government, infrastructure, and dogma are of little interest to the rising generations, except as targets for criticism.

I have compiled a short list of diagnostic, “what-if” questions should any reader choose to explore one’s spirituality:

What if you invested a little time in self-reflection of your spirituality, to succinctly describe it in a sentence or two? How would you describe your spirituality? For many of us, even those devoted to an organized religion, our description of personal spirituality may be amorphous. We may subconsciously resist the framing of our spirituality in a succinct statement. After all, that’s what “religion” does. When I ask others, “What does it mean that you are a Christian?” I receive a wide variety of answers and a few pregnant pauses and garbled answers. The answers to my question, “What does it mean that you are spiritual?” are similar. If I ask, “What is your daily physical exercise regimen?” then I receive clear, detailed answers. The same is true if I ask about financial plans, recreational and travel bucket lists, and diet. Nevertheless, there is an increased interest in and pursuit of the spiritual dimensions of human experience among the rising generations. The library being accessed in this discovery is quite different than the collection of traditional, religious and philosophical tomes upon which western civilization has been built. This should not be considered a threat by anyone who believes that truth is truth, regardless of the vehicle delivering it.

What if you were less reactionary embarking on a serious quest for spiritual truth beyond dabbling in online quips and memes? Deconstruction is a reactionary exercise mostly driven by listing everything false or misguided in what one has been taught. It’s healthy and productive to rid oneself of baggage and trauma. Once you have swept the decks clean and you are an empty slate, what positive facts, beliefs, values and practices will you embrace? Is your library mainly social media clips, isolated quotes and Reddit answers? Research is in a crisis as online sources have flourished, creating a challenge by the vast volume of information - some of it valid and some of it rubbish. Anyone who senses the value of spirituality should do a deep dive.

For example, many quote Gautama Buddha: "“No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.” (I hear this quote on the lips of the rising generations deconstructing from evangelical Christianity, which emphasizes God as Savior.) To pursue spirituality you should use this quote in the whole context of what Gautama Buddha has taught. You should start with the “Noble 8-Fold Path,” But then, if you do so…you would be entering the realm of organized, codified religion. For some, “spirituality” is free agency, a self-styled amorphous pursuit of whatever seems to be intriguing in the moment. But what if you would take a deep dive? It’s as if searching is sufficient and settling is undesirable. Searching is interesting and engaging. Settling is hard work. We can settle while being life-long learners. Settling doesn’t necessarily mean stagnation.

What if you balanced personal feelings with critical thinking? 15 years ago I read a letter to parents written by my children’s public high school Principal. The opening line was something like, “I am interested to know what you are feeling about the decisions we are making at our school…” This use of “feeling” has stuck with me all these years and I began listening to discover “feeling” replacing “thinking” in our conversations. Why didn’t the Principal ask me what I was thinking? It goes deeper than language choice. It displays our honing of getting in touch with our feelings. At the same time, the honing of critical thinking skills is disappearing. What if we worked on both our guts and our minds? What would such a balance of honing skills do to our pursuit of spirituality?

For example, I personally love to backpack in the wilderness, to pause on the trail to observe a plant like Lichen on granite. As I observe the varied colors, all sorts of feelings arise in me. I feel exhilaration, associating multi-colored Lichen with high altitude spaces, my happy place. I feel one with nature as I observe Pika nibbling Lichen, dependent upon it for life, feeling my connectedness to nature. As I observe, I am also thinking. I’m wondering about the diversity of Lichen and how little I know and resolve to return home to research it. As I observe, my mind is engaged in as many details possible, formulating conclusions in need of more research when I return home. My desire is not only to have a gut feeling about Lichen and Pika, but also to know as much as possible and to formulate fact and conclusions that are intelligent. For me, gut and mind = spirituality.

What if you were to consider forces and beings beyond self connected to your spirituality? Any spiritual pursuit has to move beyond introspection. Any truth, meaning, experience is not merely housed internally. My inner voice and vibrations are not sufficient to produce an authentic spirituality. I cannot be the sole source of truth. Some of it must be objectively beyond self. Spirituality includes wonder, which is aroused as my senses take in the other, the beyond, the mysterious, the amazing. Spirituality includes interconnectedness. Spirituality is more than talking to oneself. Perhaps I begin my search with inner-self. In time my search must go further, leaping beyond self to the other. A start is to discover that I am a spiritual being. Spirituality grows as I discover the spiritual quality of everything around me. Spirituality matures as I discover other forces and beings greater than self and their influence upon me and the world around me. Spirituality includes my positive valuation of self - that I am cherished, needed and significant. Spirituality also produces a perspective of my smallness in the scope of everything. It’s humbling.

Well, that’s a start…a little checklist of “what if” questions I am asking myself. If you find it helpful, let me know. If you think I’m full of guano, then tell me. I’ll at least chuckle at your boldness.

It’s a no-brainer to acknowledge that much pruning is necessary in the church 2026. If the branches of Christian Nationalism are not pruned then the church will appear healthy in its foliage bereft of fruit. Let me explain:

Christian Nationalism is a trend. It claims to be rooted in the Holy Scriptures and Church history, but it is actually rooted in the societal trends of the Manosphere, Nationalism, Slavery, Church/State union, Patriarchy, and Politics. The Manosphere is a reaction to the emasculation of the male gender, but its solutions are far from the texts of the Holy Scriptures. Christian Nationalism seems blind to its playing into the destructive nature of the Manosphere. While Nationalism has its place in a global society, its tendency to exclude and to elevate one group above another is toxic to the Christian texts of Christ for every people group and the teaching of followers of Christ as citizens of the kingdom of heaven. Christian Nationalism is attempting to role back the abolition of slavery with its archaic economic desires driven by a purely capitalistic lust. Christian Nationalists have failed to appreciate the separation of church and state forged in the western world. Christian Nationalists have failed to interpret the Holy Scriptures, making distinctions between historic narratives describing the community in focus and the prescriptive texts transforming the community in focus. Christian Nationalism had made its bed in the current political polarization to the extent that its members cannot conceive of a true Christian as a member of any other political party but the one sanctioned by it. It’s a trend - thank God!

Christian Nationalism is backward. This would appear to be a contradiction to my first point of it being a trend. But this trend in focus is a blast from the past. It is not a forward thinking progression. It is a movement that says, “let’s go back in time when things were better ordered than they are today.” Hence Christian Nationalism’s rolling back of civil rights, global unity, religious toleration, and gender equality. The gospel of the New Testament proclaims freedom and embrace of a global and cross-cultural community. (Please read the New Testament before responding.) The Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament share a forward thinking and active trajectory of Messiah redeeming, reconciling and restoring all creation. It is futuristic in motion.

Christian Nationalism is mean, asserting an “us and them” paradigm. The separation of sheep from goats is God’s business, not the work or consideration of human individuals and communities. (Please read the whole of the New Testament.) Christians, followers of Jesus are called by him to be good for the world. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus speaks of the church as salt enhancing the flavor of the world around it. In other words, the church is to be good for the world. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus likens the church to a city on the hill whose light is not hidden - good for the dark world in the valley, a city of refuge. In his Sermon on the Mount Jesus describes a lamp in the house giving light for all in the house. He and his church are the light and all in the house are the world. The message is clear: Christ and his church is good for the world. The sermon does not call the church to be a judge of the world, but to be an enlightenment in the world, a proclamation of Christ good for the world. (The remainder of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is a lecture of his followers so that their behavior matches what they believe and proclaim. You should read it - The Gospel of Matthew 5-7 - it will take less than an hour.)

When Christian symbols and national symbols are combined, then much confusion and destruction of the truth results. Symbolism is powerful. When the cross of Jesus Christ is melded to the USA Flag, the whole of the New Testament gospel and message is lost. Christ died for the world, not for one particular nation. The melding of the symbols does not translate the gospel of Jesus Christ. Truly, in recent years, such melding of the cross of Jesus and the USA flag, has spread confusion and promoted an exclusive mindset - the intent and satisfaction of Christian Nationalism.

The New Testament’s presentation makes more of the distinction between all of us and the one and only Christ than it does between the “us and them.” (You really need to read the text in its totality!) Lifting a few verses out of its context without reading the whole is misleading to say the least.

Christian Nationalism is anti-gospel and in the end legalistic bondage. Rarely do we hear the clarion proclamation of the gospel from Christian Nationalists. In place of proclaiming, as the Apostle John does, that “Christ has atoned for our sins and not only for ours but for the sins of the whole world,” we hear messages of anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, pro-slavery, voting rights only for male heads of households, anti-immigration, reduction of taxes, and other popular points. It’s highly and deeply cultural, bereft of the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Christian Nationalism is fixated on a reprisal of the ancient Hebrew Law of God sans the teaching of Christ on the topic, let alone the teaching of his Apostles. It is heavy on what you must do to conform to a certain and prescribed cultural sub-culture with little to say about the transformation of all world cultures established upon the gospel of Jesus Christ good for all people groups. It plays God while failing to embrace God’s forward trajectory of embracing the whole world, which is created for divine glory. Many fall for Christian Nationalism’s platform, because they agree with one or more planks, failing to see that the main plank of divine redemption, reconciliation and restoration is missing.

Christians depart from one part of the church to another, seeking freedom from legalism only to find themselves trapped again. An evangelical Baptist desiring to be free of the legalism of tea totalism joins the Eastern Orthodox Church only to become embroiled in a legalism of “us and them” at the celebration of Holy Communion. A Pentecostal tiring of the legalism of spiritual gifts joins the Reformed church only to become embroiled in a legalism of Sabbatarian practice or a mean-spirit against Armenians. A mainline denominational Christian joins a non-denominational church only to discover that the pietism still exists, in most occasions to a deeper degree.

When did it become an essential? Are you pro-gay or anti-gay? When did this become an essential rather than a secondary or tertiary issue? When did it become an essential? Are you pro-choice or pro-life? When did it become an essential rather than a secondary or tertriary issue? What ever happened to a confessional church with secondary standards that do not mention such issues? (I am a member of one such denomination that is losing its way on such issues.) When did it become an essential? That you are a member of one specific political party? If you are a member of another political party then you are suspect. When did this become a primary, essential issue? Which church council or assembly has said so? Why is so much of the cultural grist left to popular opinion? All of this nonsense leads to legalism, an abolishment of the gospel - the good news for the whole world.

What does the world around the church think of all this madness? Whatever happened to the free and bold proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ for everyone? It has been kidnapped by the likes of Christian Nationalists, who are out for themselves, caring little for those for whom Christ died.

Do you suffer from “monkey mind”? Recently I have begun to practice Tai Chi and Qigong for a number of reasons including the riddance of monkey mind. I’ve read Peter M. Wayne’s book, “The Harvard Medical School Guide to Tai Chi,” finding it helpful and inspiring. I mimic Wayne’s youtube clips modeling simple Tai Chi and Qigong movements. Wayne writes, “Too much thinking, especially that endless chatter in your head as you wander from thought to thought analyzing relationships, worrying about the future, or simply daydreaming - what the Chinese call monkey mind - can affect your health.” Wayne quotes stand-up comedian Stephen Wright, “I was trying to daydream, but my mind kept wandering.” Wayne cites the conclusions of Harvard psychologists, Matthew A. Killingsworth and Daniel T. Gilbert: “It turns out that about half the time, you are thinking about something other than your immediate surroundings, and most of this daydreaming doesn’t make you happy. In fact, the ability to think about what is not happening is a cognitive achievement, but one that comes at an emotional cost.”

Monkey Mind Messes with me:

It robs my on-the-spot observation…. On a trail through a diverse eco-system I pause to observe the plants - the ones I fondly know - Oregon Grape, Trillium, Ginger, Huckleberry, Snow Plant, Paint Brush, Foxglove, Miner’s Lettuce, Skunk Cabbage… and the ones I do not know - memorizing leave patterns and other details to research at home. I pause to open all my senses, measuring my breathing, slowing my mind to focus on what surrounds me. Monkey mind robs me of such bliss, playing recordings of past, disappointing conversations - disturbing ear worms raising my stress level. I begin to plan what I need to do when I return home to the “real world,” forgetting that my sublime present is just as real and perhaps what I truly need at the moment.

It robs my listening ability…. As a Christian Pastor I invite a person into my office to listen. At first I am focused on what the person is saying, but then, one remark sets my mind to formulating a response to interject when it is my turn to speak. I may even interrupt the person mid-sentence to say what I think must be said. If the person talks ad nauseam, going in circles, my mind wanders to other duties in my near-future or more pleasant thoughts that make more sense to me. After all, few can enter my office to tell me something I’ve never before heard. I forget to listen to what grips this person, what he/she believes is truly significant. It’s my monkey mind!

It robs my peace/rest…. In the New Testament the Apostle Paul writes to the Church at Ephesus that we are “raised up with Christ, seated with him in the heavenly places united to him.” (Ephesians 2:6). Paul then writes to the Church at Colossae, “Set your mind on things above, not on things of the earth.” (Colossians 3:2). I am well-aware of the criticism of such Christian thought being, “so heavenly minded that we are no earthly good,” but Paul may be on to something - the riddance of monkey mind. When I follow Paul’s words cited here, I am able to pause in the moment. My earth-bound schedule, personal experience and duties all come to a screeching halt as I focus my mind on a higher reality that saturates and freezes the present moment. I am able to rest in timeless words echoing in the sacred writ - divine love for me regardless of my circumstances; freedom from guilt, shame and penalty; restoration of all nature… All of the trouble and stress of my time/space bound world dissolves and peace saturates my soul. Monkey mind raises my blood pressure and scrambles my Qi.

Dr. Wayne’s Qigong exercises, which at first seem to be minimal and thus a waste of time, begin to calm me. As he coaches, I feel the planting of my soles, the rhythm of my breath, the twisting of my internal organs. These allow my mind to rest from thoughts of what I must do today. My checklists evaporate as I focus on one plant in my garden out the window or on one of the copper bells hanging above the Periwinkle. Wayne’s Tai Chi movements follow the traditional three categories of water, tree and mountain. As I choose a movement, I associate it with one of these three and focus on making my movements as beautiful and graceful as water, or a tree, or a mountain. Wayne recommends thinking of my movements through thick air - thick as water. This slows down and measures my movements as my mind directs me to do each repetition with increased finesse. He reminds me that I was raised playing inter-scholastic sports with coaches barking, “Give it your 110%!” The Tai Chi way is exert yourself 70% and focus on performing the motions well.

Such coaching is the death knell for my monkey mind. As a Christian I have never been one, who feels the need to “christianize” everything I say and do. Nevertheless, I have found the following to be an enhancer to my daily Tai Chi and Qigong practice. As I perform water-like movements, I will remember the words of Jesus, “The water I give will become in you a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” (John 4:13). Jesus says, “If anyone thirsts, let them come to me and drink.” (John 7:37). Jesus is echoing the Hebrew prophet, Isaiah: “Come! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters.” I focus on my movements through thick air, doing my best to make them an image of my favorite rills - The Umpqua or Imnaha Rivers, my happy places in Oregon.

I squat to a minimal depth and as I repeat the movement, I envision tree roots growing deeper in rich soil. With each movement I go a bit deeper in my squat. I’m putting down roots. I hear the Hebrew prophet Isaiah describe us as “oaks of righteousness.” (Isaiah 61:3). I hear Jesus beg for more time to cultivate the fruitless fig tree, digging his hands in the dirt to aerate the roots. (Luke 13:6-8). I hold my deepest squat for as long as I can (right now it’s 30 seconds). I feel the pain give way to my muscles relaxing as I focus on my breathing. I leg press to standing position stretching my arms as high as possible, like the branches of a tree.

My mountain movements focus my mind on the summit where the divine meets humanity in the presence of pristine nature. The vista in my mind is frozen grandeur. Anything hustling below is as minuscule an ant. I feel the granite beneath my soles. I lift one foot to balance on the other, pointing my free foot in three compass directions keeping my balance for 60 seconds before switching feet. I am stable. I am fixed in my body, mind and spirit. I am grounded. I hear the Apostle Paul praying for me: “I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.” (Ephesians 3:16-19). (Is this mountain or tree imagery? Either one moves me to be grounded.)

It’s working. My monkey mind is starving. I am more present living in the moment. I am better for others, not to mention for myself. I’ve always enjoyed a healthy dose of happiness. It’s the inner-peace that’s growing.

These ancient words have suffered chronological snobbery and false interpretations. Allow me to present what Hebrew language scholars tell us these words mean - not humanity’s abuse of these words, or what you or I think they mean, but what the author and original community meant and understood by these words.

“Be fruitful and increase in number” refers to human propagation. In the 1990’s sociologists were telling us that the world was over-populated and so, we must curtail human population, a negative impact upon the earth’s viability. For two decades much scorn was heaped upon The Cultural Mandate as a religious nemesis to earth’s survival. But now in 2026 all of the statistical assessment and scientific analysis is sounding the alarm of declining human population. Apparently, in North America, there will not be sufficient number of babies raised to change the Depends of an aging boomer population if our growth rate does not increase. The Cultural Mandate does not stop at the command to propagate the human race. If it did then it would be irresponsible. Thankfully, it continues to a related command.

“Fill the earth.” These Hebrew words mean “to spread out evenly.” Our present dilemma is not too many human beings, but an unhealthy concentration of human population in particular regions of the globe. The Cultural Mandate requires the human race to spread out its population in sustainable communities so that the earth is not ravished. Instead of choosing to raise a family in the Valley of the Sun in Arizona, where potable water is scarce, one should think about relocating to the Dakotas or a small town in North America where there is plenty of water, a declining economy and affordable housing. Working remotely or making the sacrifice to reprise a dying town with good bones is the better option. Make your fortune in Los Angeles or New York City, then move to a smaller community where you can make a difference and where your carbon footprint is smaller. That’s what “fill the earth” means.

“Subdue it.” These are the words of The Cultural Mandate most misunderstood and target of environmental scorn. These words do not mean the rape and pillaging of natural resources for greedy gain. Such behavior is an abuse of this command of The Cultural Mandate. In Hebrew, the word “subdue” means the responsible control/management of natural resources for the appropriate purpose of the Creator. In the Hebrew Scriptures, in the book of Genesis, the Creator of the earth appoints the human race as caretakers of nature. The human race is to tend the garden and manage the earth for the good of all nature.

My son works on an organic farm in Sisters, Oregon. The farmers only use hand tools and only apply organic matter to fertilize and to deter pests. These farmers are appropriately subduing the earth. In other words, they are managing and controlling nature for a good purpose. “Subdue” does not mean “destroy,” or greedy abuse of natural resources. It does not mean, “Drill, baby drill” without any consideration of environmental harm. If a hippie fashions a hand-cut water-wheel and places it into a creek, hooks up wires to a battery to generate electricity for a hut in the jungle or forest, she is subduing nature - that is, using it, managing it for a good purpose. Perhaps she hooks up a solar panel she bought on Amazon! If she learns how to weave a pine-needle basket to use instead of a plastic bowl, then she is subduing the earth with a good and sustainable purpose. It’s sustainable. It’s responsible. It’s environmentally sound.

The urbanite can also subdue the earth responsibly. Ditch the Tesla and use public transit. Walk. Go out to eat less and stop blaming cows for global warming. Stop flying around the globe to spend a week with tribal wanabees, who worship actual tribes subsisting at an average life-span of 18 years old. The fuel to land you at Shangrila just busted a new hole in earth’s atmosphere. “Subdue” in Hebrew means to live sustainably and yes, responsibly.

“Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” This refers to the human race caring for the rest of the animal kingdom. The Cultural Mandate tasks the human race to care for all living creatures and thus for all nature. “Rule” does not mean abusive authority. It means responsible, loving care. To rule over the fish does not mean gill netting. It means assuring that fish species flourish. Ruling over the birds means getting rid of DDT so that the Bald Eagle doesn’t go extinct. In the past 40 years our world has done much to reprise animal species on the brink of extinction and such endeavor is truly in accord with The Cultural Mandate.

The Book of Genesis is a collection of unfolding narratives through which the human race either follows The Cultural Mandate or ignores/opposes it. The final third of the book are the narratives of Joseph, who rises to second in command of the ancient Egyptian empire, following The Cultural Mandate by subduing the production of grain in fertile years to provide food for a future famine, saving the lives of countless people.

The main story of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament is God redeeming, reconciling and restoring all creation, liberating it from human abuse and greed. The Cultural Mandate thus becomes more than sustaining the natural environment. It serves the reclamation of the human soul bent on evil, freeing it through the coming of Messiah, who redeems, reconciles and restores all creation. The propagation of the human race in Genesis and throughout the Hebrew Scriptures is focused upon preserving the line of Messiah. The filling of the earth, evenly spreading out human population, gives way to Messiah come, not only for one concentrated people group, but for all - a global community diverse and equally cherished by God. The subduing of the earth results in the rolling back of human selfishness and greed, providing a sustainable environment for all living forms. The care of all flora and fauna is instrumental in the divine plan to restore all nature, including the restoration of the human soul.

You may not be Jewish or Christian and so, your interest in their Holy Scriptures, including The Cultural Mandate, may be low to nothing. Nevertheless, much of your interests and values may coincide with The Cultural Mandate, once you have fairly understood it. Perhaps you have sipped the Kool Aid that Jewish and Christian ideals are environmentally destructive and so you have gravitated to Hindu or Buddhist teachings through the grid of western presentations. Perhaps Native American ideals have captured your admiration and devotion. The Cultural Mandate of Genesis weaves through the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament and it is not at all opposed to the views and practices you have found so engaging in other sources.

The Cultural Mandate has informed Western Civilization for the good and for the bad. Significant forces have abused it for greed. But for the most part it has produced a thriving human society. Here is a list of the positive results:

#1 = a strong work ethic #2 = a love of family and community for the good of the rising generations #3 = a messianic hope of redemption, reconciliation and restoration of all creation #4 = an opportunity for all regardless of caste, karma, station, ethnicity or status #5 = an individual and communal responsibility #6 = a hearkening to a voice above and beyond self that has the whole world’s best in mind.

Paula White-Cain also claims to be a prophet. As Monergism.com notes, “She is a leading figure in the Word of Faith movement and has strong ties to the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), a movement that promotes modern-day apostleship and direct revelation outside of Scripture.” Watch this recent clip of her prophesying.

Prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament do not command the release of angels from one location of the globe to another. Rather, God commands angels to appear to them. Only Jesus, the Prophet, mentions his authority to command angels. Paula White-Cain commands these angels from Africa and South America to come to the USA and she does so invoking the name of Jesus. This is a rather bold prophesy of God’s army of angels is being marshaled for victory in the USA!

Watch this video. Paula White-Cain speaks in tongues often on stage with the keyboards playing inspiring chords in the background. (She’s pretty good at it!) At the conclusion of unintellible language, she yells, “Power!” Is this a one-word translation of her long string? The Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Church at Corinth in the first century, instructed the church to provide a third-party translation for any speaking in tongues in a worship gathering.

We must listen and discern whether or not these clips are good representations of Christian worship, namely prophesying and speaking in tongues. In the New Testament, “The Acts of the Apostles,” at the Pentecost celebration in Jerusalem, 120 disciples of Jesus, including Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, spill into the streets to preach the gospel in various languages, unknown to themselves, but understood by the pilgrims from many different language groups. Ask the question, “Does anyone in Paula White-Cain’s audience understand her speaking in tongues?

Watch this one. It takes money to do good work in the name of God. Paula White-Cain goes a step further. She says, “I’m not moving. I’m not going to lay hands on people ‘til you’re obedient and get out of your seat. Come on, and come bring up a seed.” In the circles Paula White-Cain operates, “a sacrificial seed” is code for a self-sacrificial gift voluntarily offered with the promise of it returning in larger amounts to the giver. In this clip she threatens to withhold the blessing. Is such language coercion or at best, manipulation? The Hebrew Scriptures include a mandatory series of tithes. The New Testament teaches a self-sacrificial and generous, voluntary offering as an act of worship and participation in the mission of Christ. (For a deeper dive, watch her one-hour plus sermon, “The Miracle of Giving.” You must know the Holy Scriptures fairly well to filter through her many textual citations and interpretations.)

I must say that Paul White-Cain has some fine preaching points in this sermon. She clearly preaches the gospel, especially our identity in Christ, not in anything else. But if you persevere through the long sermon, you discover that she’s reaching for your money.

Watch this clip. Ask yourself if this behavior comes close to anything we read in the Holy Scriptures of Christianity. Paul White-Cain’s microphone breaths are interesting. Is she trying to repeat the first century Pentecost scene where God poured out his Spirit as tongues of fire on the disciples? These disciples with fire hovering over their heads, went outside to the streets to proclaim the gospel, none of them fell backwards as a minister breathed heavily into a microphone. -Time to discern what’s going on.

A few thoughts in my mind…

#1 = Billy Graham served as spiritual advisor to 13 US Presidents from Truman to Obama. As you may remember, he stuck to the gospel alone.

#2 = The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) is a rogue collaboration untethered from the organized church. It has tainted a large portion of the evangelical movement.

#3 = Prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures called kings and people to repentance. Nathan moved King David to repentance. Jeremiah called Jerusalem to repentance landing him in the Jerusalem sewers for a few days. Isaiah served 4 kings consecutively in the nation of Judah. He proclaimed the coming Messiah and the need to repent. Elijah opposed King Ahab and his Queen, Jezebel. Jonah preached repentance to Nineveh.

#4= The Hebrew prophet, Joel foretells the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in the last days upon everyone for the purpose of proclaiming salvation through Messiah. The Apostle Peter in his Pentecost sermon in the first century cites Joel’s prophecy and claims it is fulfilled beginning in his day. “The Acts of the Apostles” supplies the history of the Apostles spreading out into the world to proclaim the gospel. They performed signs and wonders all with the purpose of calling people to Jesus to a community, Christ’s church, to proclaim freedom and forgiveness to the whole world.

#5 = Enough of the on-stage antics of North American televangelists!

#6 = Large portions of the church do not consider Paula White-Cain or the NAR to be good representatives of Christianity.

German physiologist Friedrich Goltz’s research in the late 19th century gave to us not only his scientific discoveries but also a classic metaphor. Sociologically it’s about timing, tolerance and trouble. We are the frog. The kettle on the burner is our escalating predicament.

In the realm of USA politics, do you feel as if you are the frog in the kettle? In your religious community, do you feel the heat rising and suspect that fellow adherents are comfortably hot-tubbing it as the temp rises? In your workplace, do you suspect corporate, managerial control the flame? In your relationships, do you sense a rising toxicity?

How do we know when it’s time to leap or when it’s time to be tolerant? Recently, a growing number of North American Christians believe that USA President Trump’s AI photo depicting himself as a healing Jesus is a boiling point - a crossing of the line. Christianity Today has labeled this line as “blasphemy.” It’s difficult to know when “enough is enough.” The near-boiling water soothes in the evening but the skin is blistered in the morning.

Last week I connected with a friend after a long hiatus. He had reconnected with the organized church, intent on active service. Several of his fellow members with him proposed care for the homeless on their streets only to find church leadership dragging their feet, appointing a study committee to look into it. His frustration lies in what he considers to be a no-brainer proposal to be the hands and feet of Jesus rather than a complicated and novel plan to stretch the mission of the church. Should he leap out of the kettle or should he enjoy the jacuzzi bubbles?

Rising generations no longer value loyalty to an employer, who they believe no longer has their best in mind. Bridge, a temp agency has posted an article on its website and it takes a most tolerant and positive view. In doing so, it throws under the bus the rising generations, whose values have morphed along with a more fluid society. The Context of Things, an online posting of leadership and work-related issues, suggests that employers lack moral reciprocity. This is a chicken and egg conversation. But we are talking frogs in the kettle. When is it the right time to quit your job?

It is becoming increasingly popular for those of us sipping at the wells of trending psychology to dump relationships we consider to be toxic to our contentment. Psychology Today’s 2024 article, “What Research Tells Us About Family Estrangement,” is a good first read. Insufficient statistical research presently cannot confirm the recent escalation, though some studies claim that one in four of us have suffered estrangement in our relationships. The author suggests that recently we have begun to talk openly about it. In a society with a growing number of specifically clinical terms, many of us latch onto one and widely label others who hint or smack of the dysfunctional behavior. For example, we loosely label anyone, who mildly expresses selfishness as a “narcissist,” when in fact, such a person is not clinically a narcissist. Another term being thrown around is “trauma.” It appears as if all of us have been traumatized in numerous ways from minimal to clinically significant. The degree of trauma is not part of the conversation. What matters is only that you have suffered trauma to any degree. It’s one thing to be aware of one’s trauma and to work through it toward freedom from it. It’s quite another thing to use it as just cause for estrangement.

Two generations past, the adage was “You can choose your friends but you can’t choose your relatives.” Today, you can cancel your friends and relatives. Anyone abused, suffering clinically observed trauma, may have good reason for doing so, and may need encouragement to do so. Sadly, so many of us stay in toxic relationships. When is it the right time to cut off someone who has abused you? Do you remain in the kettle while the other party continually dunks your head under water for longer and longer tortures?

Do you feel as if you are the frog in the kettle? If you feel the heat increasing and your discomfort rising to the degree of alarm warning that your well-being/viability is in danger, then it’s time to think - not merely feel, but think.

Here are points to ponder - What I may have to think through while I feel the heat rising: #1 = What are my moral imperatives? What do I think is right and wrong? Am I correct in holding these imperatives as objective truths for everyone, or are they merely what I feel is right for me? Objective moral imperatives hold a community accountable. Subjective moral imperatives chosen merely for myself holds no one else accountable for how they might treat me. #2 = What are my expectations of others? Should I expect employers to offer reciprocity without considering the bottom-line of business? Should I expect church leadership to immediately launch a ready-fire-aim or can it carefully think through a program to help others? Should I expect the head of state in a censorship-free community to refrain from making memes at midnight? Can I try to understand why my tiger-mom spanked me as a child? Should I expect that she would never lose it? If I have the right to assign even minor trauma to my behavior thus hurting others, must I give such right to the person who caused my minor trauma? Can he also say, “I was traumatized too”? Is it reasonable for me to deny others the right to excuse their behavior due to the trauma they have suffered? #3 = What is the source of my contentment or lack of it? Am I jumping out of the kettle because it is no longer comfortable? Am I floating in the kettle because I am lazy or apathetic? Have I given thought and made a list of what would truly produce my contentment? Do I need therapy or does everyone else around me need it and I don’t? Is the source of my contentment deeper than the irritations others cause me?

These are the questions prompting me to think about my situation. If I have pushed your buttons, then it may be time for both of us to quit the kettle and take a swim together in the cool flow of a glacial-fed stream, where our hearts begin to pump again and our minds are desperately gasping for reality.

Right now so much is wrong and polarized movements are fighting for what’s right. Sanity has fled like a retired attorney on a Harley. I have to flee to another century to find a well-turned phrase returning sanity. G.K. Chesterton wrote: “The Reformer is always right about what’s wrong. However, he’s often wrong about what’s right.” Now, this is helpful. It is also memorable. This is a well-turned phrase engraving beauty upon a sad fact of human behavior.

Another writer, whose thoughtful expressions usually unfold in lengthier prose, Annie Dillard nonetheless delivers a well-turned phrase now and then. She also tersely yet beautifully coaches us in an age of upheaval: “You can’t test courage cautiously.” To balance us reckless rebels, who never rest, she writes, “Spend the afternoon. You can’t take it with you.”

Well-turned phrases often show up in speeches, rhetoricians masters of the skill, a dying art for certain. In his first Inaugural Address, Franklin D. Roosevelt struck into the minds and hearts of a generation, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Such crafted language was the bread and butter of political stumps and preaching pulpits through out western civilization. Audiences expected those in office to maintain decorum. Such rhetoric guided, inspired and calmed us.

The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. said, “We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but on the positive affirmation of peace.” For any of us searching for encouragement to persevere, he preached, “We must accept finite disappointment but never lose infinite hope.” In his final speech before his assassination Dr. King preached “I’ve Been to the Mountain Top,” truly one of the best textual and prophetic sermons of all time. If you have never listened to it, then click on the link to hear and see him deliver one well-turned phrase after another.

Also in the early 1960’s, our valuation of inspiring rhetoric still high, U.S. President John F. Kennedy offered one of the best-known well-turned phrases in U.S.A. history: "Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” (The entire and short speech is worth a listen.) Not only are the words skillfully crafted, but the message carefully chosen to reach across political spectrum to strike into the hearts of an entire nation.

Mahatma Gandhi’s well-turned phrase spanned east to west globally: “Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.” Now, it’s folk wisdom to say, “Be a life-long learner.” This is a fine adage but the language is not as finely honed as Gandhi. His well-turned phrase is more balanced between behavior and knowledge.

Malala Yousafzai, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, in her fight for the education of Pakistani girls, learned the power of a well-turned phrase at a young age. She struck an international chord in saying, “We realize the importance of our voices only when they are silenced.”

Now and then, someone from Hollywood waxes eloquent and Audrey Heburn as a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador pulled it off, saying, “Nothing is impossible. The word itself says, ‘I’m possible.’” (I happen to believe that some feats are humanly impossible, but sometimes we underestimate what humanity can do in the face of famine, oppression and genocide.)

Historically, one of the finest of preachers, Charles H. Spurgeon reminded the world that human impossibility moves us to appeal to a higher Being: “God helps those who cannot help themselves.” Of course, his well-turned phrase is a play on a much more well-known one, “God helps those who help themselves,” as a needed and helpful correction.

I’m curious to glean from you any well-turned phrases that have stuck in your mind and heart. Post them to me by any means you like.

If you do not practice religiously in such manner, then you can still find a similar way to spur your spiritual growth and purity. For millennia most world religions have fasted or given up what is cherished so that what is truly important can rise in our awareness and valuations. In the past decade fasting has become popular in realm of health fitness, and so, the religious practice of fasting doesn’t seem odd at all. Personally, I’ve come ‘round to using fasting, not only for my physical health, but also for my spiritual health.

This season, some of us are thinking outside the box. I have become addicted to my news feed, and so I’m begging off it for 40 days. In my local faith community, we are suggesting to teens that they beg off social media and/or playing games on their smart phones. (Please don’t give up reading Substack!)

The Lenten strategy is the giving up of something to focus us upon something richer for our souls. Andy Dwyer of Parks and Rec is promoting Hallow, an app that supplies rich and accessible Lenten devotion. During Lent 2026, you can try it for free using the link in the preceding sentence.

The Hebrew word for “meditation” means “to mumble.” This stems from the oral tradition of the Jewish community reading audibly the Hebrew Scriptures. Lent is a good time for mumbling. While your belly is grumbling, why not pick up a pithy tome and audibly work your way through it? Instead of the news feed or social media reels and posts, why not choose material a bit more challenging and inspiring? Below is a short list of suggestions from the Jewish and Christian traditions for your mumbling over the next 40 days:

#1 = The Hebrew Psalms make good mumbling. Songs, prayers, and wisdom in poetry, with sufficient candor and repetition can promote spiritual awakening and deepening in us. (On Spotify you can listen to traditional chanting of the Psalms or to contemporary tune settings.)

#2 = The Parables of Jesus make good mumbling. All the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament Gospels read aloud well and catch us up short, promoting paradigm shifts so needed in us. (Dust it off.)

#3 = Jeremiah Burroughs’ The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment is a mumbler. Yes, the English Puritans get some things right. (Buy it at Thrift Books.)

#4 = Henri Nouwen’s Making All Things New: An Invitation to the Spiritual Life will make you a mumbler. Even if you are not a Christian, you can benefit from literature such as this. We can all benefit by pushing the boundaries of our entrenched worldviews and lifestyles.(Get it at Amazon.)

Lenten fasting is coupled to prayer. Over these 40 days, find your voice in prayer. Turn off the podcasts and feed the soul.

How specific must our prayers be? If the divine Being to whom I pray, is a Person, who is all-knowing, who is in control of all the affairs of the universe, who listens and speaks, then must I litter my prayers with specific details? If I am praying in the hearing of others, such details could be the source of gossip, or self-righteousness, or manipulation. If I am praying in private, then such details can be a distraction, or a self-processing exercise.

The divine Being to whom I pray loves to hear my lisping and stuttering as a beloved creation and child. And so, I can say just about anything - detailed or general. Nevertheless, this question moves me to consider what might be the better content of my prayers. The following points describe how I have been praying in recent years.

My understanding of the Divine Being = More and more, I pray expressions of my personal knowledge of the One to whom I pray. In any of my relationships, it is important for me to acknowledge what I know to be true of the other party. It builds the relationship. I can be corrected and I can be affirmed. Clarity is the result. To whom I pray is the infinite divine Being, who is all-powerful, all-knowing Creator, Sustainer and Transformer. I am a creature, a child, a pilgrim, a recipient. And so, I pray such. The content of my prayers are rife with details I know about the divine Being and about myself. The content acknowledges our relationship. It is the Creator/creature distinction, that is a key point of Cornelius Van Til’s philosophy.

My submission to the Divine Being = I follow Jesus Messiah, who lived according to the will of the Divine Being. Before his passion, he prayed, “Not my will but thine be done.” In prayer, I have expressed my submission to the divine will. When I pray details concerning anything I am experiencing, I have the tendency to put forth my will, what I think is best. When I pray, deo volente, “God-willing,” I am submitting to the divine Being. In recent years, I have put more words towards the description of my submission to the divine Being than I have to details concerning my petitions. It has been cathartic!

My love and concern for others = Throughout the many years that I ran for exercise, when I would come to an incline, I would pray for my loved ones, who were in trouble. The physical burn I experienced matched the suffering of those for whom I prayed. My prayers were full of details concerning the complications of those I loved. In recent years, walking instead of running, I vocalize names in prayer followed by one-word petitions - “Help!” “Transform!” “Redeem!” “Reconcile!” “Restore!” It’s liberating. I leave the details to the divine Being, to whom I pray.

I was raised to be a skeptic of formulaic prayers, as if they were not personally sincere. But now, the formulaic prayers preserved by the church seem to be a comfort, a guide, and an appropriate expression. To pray words that are not my own, grounds me in a community devoted to the divine Being, who listens and speaks, who answers prayer. Such prayers remind me that the troubling details of my life and loved ones are shared by a larger community.

My response to a world full of evil = I am addicted to world news. Every morning I read the headlines and pray. It is important to me to be informed of what is happening. Many of my friends and colleagues say, “I have stopped reading the news - it’s too distressing!” But I continue to keep informed. I pray to a divine Being, whom I believe is in ultimate control of all the affairs of this world. The more troubling the news, the more fervently I pray. It gets me out of my ghetto and forces me to face the ultimate questions of good and evil. I pray, “This is your problem. Fix it. I follow your Messiah, so show me what I can say and do in my little corner of the world as your instrument. It’s too big for me to unravel on my own.”

My silence = Often in prayer, I am moved to silence. What can I say? What should I say? My silence is not inactivity. It’s listening. It’s waiting. It’s trusting. I’m not in control. There is no formula, incantation, or password I can utter with results. Søren Kierkegaard said, “Prayer truly begins when we are finally silent.” Believe me, I have plenty to say. But at the end of the day, the complications of my life and that of my loved ones, not to mention the affairs of this world, land me in silent reliance upon the divine Being to whom I pray. What can I say? My prayer is a conversation with One, who can speak and do what will make a difference for the good.

Prayer has no boundaries. Say what you will. Join the conversation. Discover to whom you are speaking. Be humble. Love.

As I approached the chapel in the center of the cemetery, I read the engraving above the door commemorating St. Roch, the patron saint of miraculous cures. It struck me odd that a place of burial would be dedicated to one, who could prevent death! In my Facebook clip I mildly mocked it… https://www.facebook.com/reel/1369689047714268. For the past week at home, I have been ruminating on this conundrum. I conducted a little research and found an answer that returned me to the Christian tradition of burial of the dead.

The Christian burial of the dead is custom of hope. Christians believe that death is a passage from this world into the world to come. The resurrection of Jesus is the blazing of a path for us, our resurrection from the dead into a new heavens and new earth - an eternal realm free of evil. The Christian customs in burying the dead are hopeful.

Rev. Peter Leonard Thevis (1837-1893), pastor of Holy Trinity Church, designed and constructed the chapel as an act of gratitude for the intercession of St. Roch in protecting his congregation during the yellow fever epidemic of 1867. Ever since, pilgrims have visited the cemetery to pray for the healing of their loved ones, in the hope of the final resurrection for those, who have died and have been buried. It is an expression of faith in the God, who numbers our days and shall safely land us in his love forever.

Our North American culture has been skittish about death for generations. Many of us have replaced burial of corpses with cremation, scattering ashes instead of interment. We rarely visit graves of loved ones and we push away death with plastic surgery and teenage antics into our 80’s. Instead of a funeral, we host memorial services or “celebrations of life” in honor of our loved ones. We tell each other that we need not mourn and grieve the death of our loved ones, but instead be joyful that they have passed on to a better place. We are in a bit of denial when it comes to death.

What are your thoughts about Christians in the Bywater neighborhood of New Orleans, annually streaming into the St. Roch Cemetery to pray for the healing of their loved ones, surrounded by the crypts of those, who have not enjoyed healing, but have slipped into death? Is there any value to their actions founded in a belief that God can heal toward extended life and also can safely land our loved ones in a new and eternal world? Their belief is that God is the one who gives life, appoints the time of death and navigates the passage of death to another world.

The rising generations are intrigued by the death customs of non-Christian cultures. You can stream documentaries on the elaborate ceremonies of these cultures. These customs face death, have hope in existence beyond death, and help the community cope with grief and loss. The trend is definitely against the North American denial or dismissal of death.

One of the better Christian traditions concerning death is the practice of finishing well. Live life to its fullest. Make sure you keep short accounts concerning your faults. Keep to your best until your dying breath. Love. As long as you have breath - love.

The article opens with this sentence = “A new digital awakening is unfolding in religious centers, including in Houston, where pastors, rabbis and prayer apps are turning to artificial intelligence to reach worshippers, personalize sermons, and power chatbots that resemble God.” My first thought is this: Why are pastors and rabbis, prayer apps and power chatbots looking for a better source for presenting God to their audiences? Does the rabbi doubt his/her mastery of the Hebrew Scriptures? Does the pastor feel inadequate to field the plethora of questions of the rising generations? Are the individuals behind prayer apps and power chatbots too lazy to read and digest information in this over-saturated information age? Is there value to any of us doing the spade work, no matter how difficult? Is it best to rely on AI to do the hard work for us?

The article continues:

Why it matters: AI is helping some places of worship stay relevant in the face of shrinking staff, empty pews and growing online audiences. But the practice raises new questions about who, or what, is guiding the flock.

• New AI-powered apps allow you to “text with Jesus” or “talk to the Bible.”

• Other apps can create personalized prayers, take confession or offer religious advice.

• “What could go wrong?” Robert P. Jones, CEO of the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, sarcastically asks.

In an era gone by, people would go to houses of worship, not only to worship and to engage in authentic relationships, but also to gain information. Today, more and more people are devaluing worship and relationships, gleaning the information they desire online. Well-meaning and passionate proclaimers of truth, if not information, have adopted the technology “to get the word out.” But what if the acquisition of information is best distributed in face-to-face community? If a house of worship believes that gathering together to worship and forging productive relationships as the fiber of community, then why would its leaders and members capitulate to online sources of information and distribution? It seems counter-productive.

Why does anyone need an AI-powered app providing the opportunity to “text with Jesus”? Has anyone ever heard of prayer? What’s wrong with shedding the PJ’s and beating feet to a physical location to converse with neighbors?

Why does anyone need an AI-powered app to “talk to the Bible”? Does anyone lack access to a Bible today? Does anyone read anymore? Is the Bible a text book or operating manual that answers all of our questions? I download the app and punch in any question I have, receiving an AI answer telling me what the Bible says about my particular concern. If this is your view of the Holy Scriptures, then AI would be a helpful tool. But if the Holy Scriptures are focused upon a rather narrow message, unconcerned with answering all of your personal questions, much of its answers only gleaned through ardent consideration of ancient texts with significant cultural gaps, then AI may fall short as an effective tutorial.

Why would anyone rely on AI to craft a personalized prayer? Is not prayer your personalized expressions to the divine? Does AI ever know better what you should say to God? If God exists and wishes to engage you in a personal relationship, then would AI better express your heart than you would do on your own? After all, the Holy Scriptures clearly present a God, who cares more about your heart than your verbal vocalization of acceptable formulaic words to win divine attention and favor.

AI may do better than a mega-church pastor, who does not know you personally, in giving religious advice. But a rabbi, priest or minister, who knows you personally, who lives in your neighborhood, may offer better religious advice than AI. You can always take it or leave it. AI will never hold you accountable, will never pray for you, will never follow up on how you are doing in a crisis. You might say, “But I’ve been burned by a rabbi, priest or minister.” Sadly, this may be the case. But what assurance do you have that AI will not burn you? And if so, what accountability is there for your justice and healing?

“What could go wrong?” Robert P. Jones.

The article continues:

State of play: The U.S. could see an unprecedented 15,000 churches shut their doors this year as a record number of Americans (29%) now are identifying as religiously unaffiliated.

• Megachurches are consolidating the remaining faithful, but even the most charismatic pastors struggle to offer private counseling with such large congregations.

Is AI the answer to the decline of the church in North America? Mega churches are a significant problem causing the decline by redefining what the church is. If the church is an event to which anonymous attenders gather for an experience, then true worship, relationship-building, and embrace of useful information wanes. In most North American communities, mega churches suck dry local congregations in which neighbors know each other by name and care for one another. Well-trained and caring rabbis, priests and pastors are replaced by charismatic talking heads, who lead the dog and pony show, bilk the masses and live high on the hog. Those relying on AI are assuming that the synagogue, church or any other house of worship is a venue, not a community. Most mega church pastors are not struggling to offer private counseling or any pastoral ministry. They avoid such work like the plague. AI is only a candidate for religious service in a community sold out to the mega church model.

The article continues:

Zoom in: Rabbi Josh Fixler at Congregation Emanu El teamed up with a data scientist to build Rabbi Bot — an AI chatbot trained on years of his sermons and writings.

• Rev. Colin Bossen of Houston’s First Unitarian Church tells Chron he uses AI tools for more practical tasks, like helping translate English text into Spanish, but once used it for a sermon titled “Silicon Gods: Artificial Intelligence and Religion.”

• Pastor Keion Henderson of The Lighthouse Church has used ChatGPT to brainstorm sermons — including a rodeo-themed Easter message — and to help plan events for his 20,000-member congregation. He also leaned on the tool to craft seven sermons on a multi-city tour in California, per Chron.

Rabbi Josh Fixler at Congregation Emanu El might be using AI effectively. His Rabbi Bot, an AI chatbot is tasked with offering what he has taught and published over the many years of his service. It is focused and efficient.

When it comes to writing and preaching sermons, the end goal is not the best performance but what the preacher has digested personally and offers as an unique individual tasked with serving a particular community. For 31 years I served as a minister in a denomination alongside of a colleague, I knew personally, the Reverend Tim Keller. A few of our colleagues did not think that they could preach as good a sermon as Tim Keller. And so, they preached word for word some of his sermons. One colleague went as far as preaching a personal illustration from the personal life of Time Keller and his wife, Cathy, changing the names to his own and his wife. All of these colleagues were fired for plagiarism.

My nephew told me that his pastor in this same denomination, enjoyed a new season of effective and inspiring preaching, noticed by the congregation. It was soon discovered that he had been using AI to write his sermons. The congregation was divided in response. Some were appalled, calling for his dismissal. Others said, “If his sermons are better than with AI, why should we care?” What matters is community. What matters is personal engagement with the text. What matters is not the immediate answer to a question but the grappling with the question and the answer by individuals living together in the same unfolding space.

The article concludes:

The bottom line: Bossen says AI is a tool that can help generate text, but it can’t minister.

• Preaching, he says, is mostly about presence — hospital visits, community time, and the bond built with congregants. Until AI can form real human relationships, he doesn’t see it “breathing down [his] neck” in the pulpit.

Reverend Colin Bossen of Houston’s First Unitarian Church is correct, as far as I can see. Having reacted to this article, I ask the question: How should the church use AI?

#1 = AI can be used as a research source. On most online searches, AI comes up first. It can be a guide, a confirmation, a directive. The starting point should be primary texts - The Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament….A presenter should do his/her/their own spade word first in the primary texts before allowing AI or any other published source to direct, confine, or inform. AI can be a check - like a fact check. (As a young preacher I was taught to do my own language analysis of the text before I consulted a published commentary on the text.) This is good advice.

#2 = Sparingly. In this information saturated age, we worship data. We over-value knowledge. What our communities need is wisdom. Knowledge is data. Wisdom is knowledge applied. AI is growing and improving in its presentation. It is possible that in the near future AI will be able to serve up wisdom. After all, the sci-fi projection is that AI will replace all human contribution, function, and control. AI is projected to usurp human endeavor in this world, rendering humanity as its slave. The question is, “Will AI be able to offer wisdom?” Will AI’s wisdom be humanity’s discovery of divine truth? Will AI be subject to the unfolding and changing whims of natural science? Will AI eventually spring free of human programming and become its own entity? Will AI be the triumph of machine over humanity? Will AI be the ultimate monster created by humanity?

#3 = With a tinge of skepticism. Humanity is endowed with critical thinking skills. The online world has worked against the honing of these skills. We plug into a search engine and allow online algorithms to do the work for us. We have become lazy. We don’t read, ponder, meditate, posit, hypothesize, let alone think much anymore. We rarely play the skeptic. We may fact check. But we don’t analyze and evaluate information much anymore. We use the excuse of fake news, but embrace and preach whatever sounds right to us without doing any spade work. We don’t engage in local conversations while wasting time on online conversations, sound-bytes, memes and short video clips. We should be asking more questions and wondering what is behind each presentation at our finger tips.

My byline is “What should the church not do with AI?” Simply, the church should not rely on AI to do anything it can do face-to-face, locally, and patiently. AI should not replace real conversations in real space and time. AI should not replace local development. AI should not force us to immediate answers or solutions without ample time to patiently consider what we should think and do in our neighborhood and world.

Have you ever thought, “Who is behind AI?” Who is programming it? Who is controlling it? Have you ever thought, “I can turn it off and thrive without it?” Have you ever thought of what it means to be a slave? Are you at all concerned about one source controlling human thought and endeavor? You may be critical of the concept of God or the over-reaching authority of any institution. Are you also critical of AI?Perhaps you have liberated yourself from the control of a divine being or a religious or governmental institution. What if you would find yourself enslaved to an online program of growing data directing the course of your will and experience?

The God of the Hebrew Scriptures and of the New Testament builds community through authentic relationships. Institutions, though imperfect do the same. AI is not personal or relational. AI is the monster humanity is creating beyond Frankenstein.

In the Fall of 2025 I began to give free copies of my guide to my paid subscribers and a few unpaid subscribers, who showed some interest, short of shelling out $15.99. Now that I have celebrated Thanksgiving 2025, with so much gratitude in my heart for so many gifts poured out upon me, I have decided to give away “Nathan’s Guide to Christianese” upon request. (Perhaps I should have compiled a guide to Esperanto or Pig Latin.)

While I have your attention (if I indeed have it), my most recent post prior to this one, needs at least one correction. In October, I was unable to walk or do anything on my feet for six days - not six weeks. I was suffering excruciating pain as I wrote the post, and typed “weeks” instead of days. Following poor medical advice, I began to “walk off” my injuries resulting in more severe injuries. My post announced my entering into a season of silence, which is accurate only due to my threshold of pain. I would like to say that November has been a rich season of prayer and meditation. In one sense, it has been so in that I have cried out for the cessation of my suffering and praying for every single person I know, who is suffering more than I am. But as far as “rich” means fertile reading of pithy literature, gleaning pearls of wisdom, November has been a desert as my mental and spiritual energies have been consumed with conducting my duties as a minister between naps and medicating. Last week a doctor served me 50% with some significant care gaps. Today I consulted a second doctor, who delivered a few, helpful loving lectures. And so, hopefully, I will be on the mend soon.

I know… TMI.. but I do use my sub stack as an instrument of personal processing. It is primarily for me. If what I write is in any way helpful to you, then my joy and contentment increases.

#1 = I injured my foot hiking and have suffered excruciating pain and inability to exercise. The energy I usually possess towards talking has been sucked dry by the physical pain. It’s been six weeks. I can’t hike, walk to work, mulch my garden, or sleep in my favorite positions. It’s my fault: I backpacked in a pair of brand new, low-end pair of shoes, making a mistake on the trail turning a 7.7 trek into a 13 mile hike. The following three days, I walked in those inferior shoes an additional 24 miles, thinking that I could “walk-off” the injuries. I’m not healing as quickly as I did when I was much younger. Which brings me to my next discovery:

#2 = I’m aging, having hit one of those “aging milestones” everyone is noting. Apparently, we don’t age on a consistent schedule day to day. At 40 most of us hit an aging milestone at which we experience a significant change. Around 61-62 we hit another aging milestone (I’ll celebrate 64 years in a few weeks.) Last week someone, who knows me well, noticed the increase of my facial wrinkles for the first time (all smile wrinkles, I’ll have you know.) I no longer enjoy boundless energy and so I must pace myself.

#3 = I’m thinking, “What more can be said?” For 41 years in my vocation, it has been my duty and privilege to speak publicly. Until recently, I’ve been energized by personal learning toward imparting information to others. What I have offered is not “new” but it is “fresh” due to my personal discovery and pursuits. Now, I find myself imparting information that is “old” for me but “new” to the rising generations. Some might call it “wisdom,” but it is personally not as exciting or invigorating for me. And so, I think to myself, “What more can I say?”

In a recent gathering of colleagues, a person much older than me was making a presentation which included a few helpful points and illustrations, all of which I have heard often throughout my childhood and young adulthood. After the presentation, a much younger colleague publicly praised the older presenter for these components, saying: “I have never heard these before and have found them to be most helpful and thoughtful today.” (or something close to this quote.) My colleague, sitting next to me, who has recently retired, jabbed his elbow into my bicep, whispering: “What? The kid has never heard these points? How old were you when you first heard that GRACE stands for ‘God’s riches at Christ’s expense?’ I whispered, “Since I was in diapers.” We both felt so old. We did share a good laugh realizing that it’s not about us and our fresh discoveries but what is helpful to the audience including more and more, the rising generations. This is a new thought for me to embrace and for some reason, it has welcomed a season of silence.

#4 = Autumn has come again. Fall is my favorite season of the year (burnt orange is my favorite color) and the crisp air is delightful. For me, a perfect day is full of Fall color, low temperatures and clear skies. But also in the air is a hint of death. It has a quieting effect upon me. (The squirrels are busy and I’ve noticed that their burying of nuts is erratic and so I’m left wondering if all my talking isn’t similar.)

There’s so much to say, but at the moment, I’m fine with stopping at the squirrels. At least their chattering protest when my dog trees them makes sense. It never gets old. I love it. “Good dog!” I say and return to my silent season.

How does one enjoy the favor of an infinitely holy God? How does one become truly free, transformed from evil to original goodness? The gospel (good news proclaimed) of the Holy Scriptures is that God alone saves us. In his personal letter to Titus, the Apostle Paul writes several times, “God our Savior.” He tells Titus, “But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:4-7). In his letter to the church at Ephesus, the Apostle Paul writes: “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”

In John’s Gospel Jesus is recorded saying: “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” (John 6:35-40).

These citations are among more texts that assert that God alone saves humanity. The whole teaching of the Holy Scriptures is that God alone redeems, reconciles and restores all creation. Indeed the Hebrew Scriptures present Yahweh as the only one who preserves creation to a glorious eternity.

In light of this prevalent presentation of God our Savior, who alone transforms us for eternal good and viability, how should we interpret those texts of the Holy Scriptures that pertain to human response and action? The following citations of biblical texts, are ones that some Christian communities have assumed pertain to the doctrine of salvation. But what if these texts actually pertain to assurance of salvation? What if these following texts actually have the purpose of assuring anyone that he/she/they are included in God’s redemption, reconciliation and restoration?

As a child I was taught that the following texts of the Holy Scriptures concern “my salvation.” But what if these texts have the purpose of bolstering my assurance of salvation? As I cite these texts, I will tell you how I was taught to interpret them and then tell you how I think they might be better interpreted.

John 14:5-6 = “Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?’ Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” I was taught that I was “saved” by my profession of faith in Jesus, the only way of salvation. But this text clearly says that Jesus is the only way for me to enter into the Father’s eternal love. In other words, God alone saves me. My acknowledgement of this truth builds my assurance of faith. It is not the cause or foundation of my faith and salvation. Jesus is “the way.” My profession of faith is not the way. Jesus is the truth. My profession of the truth is merely my humble embrace of the truth. Jesus is “the life.” My decision to follow Jesus is not “the life” but my assurance that I am on the right path.

Romans 10:9-11 “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, ‘Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.’” I was taught as a child that if I publicly and audibly confessed the Lordship and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then I was “saved.” The Holy Scriptures clearly teach that God alone saves. And so, what if my public confession of the Lordship and resurrection of Jesus assures me of what I believe? What if this text from the Apostle Paul’s letter to the church at Rome is about my assurance of faith instead of my foundation or source of faith? Before creation, God has destined my “salvation” and in history God has completed my “salvation” in the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Messiah. My confession of these divine acts builds my assurance of faith rather than sources them. What if my confession of faith is an acknowledgment of what God alone has done to save me? If so, then it is more a matter of assurance of faith than it is an origin of faith.

Acts 16:29-31 “The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.’” I was taught as a child that the jailer and his household were “saved” upon their profession of faith. But what if God alone saved them and their profession of faith assured them of this amazing salvation?

Assurance of faith in Jesus Christ is a beautiful and precious gift from God. Assurance of salvation is a beautiful gift of God. One’s confession or profession is not the source of salvation, but the conduit through which the gift of salvation by God alone is delivered to the unworthy recipient.

There are more texts in the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament that could be cited and studied. A good question to ask when reading and considering these texts is: “Do these texts present the source of salvation or the assurance of faith in so great a salvation?”

In such an explosive era, what’s the trajectory of Christendom? Here are some of my thoughts, though I am a bit baffled:

#1 = There is a strong trajectory towards historically traditional forms of Christianity, which address current issues. The Templeton Prize 2025 has been awarded to the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew of the Eastern Orthodox Church. He has won the award for his work in environmentalism. (Watch the Templeton Video.) North American evangelicals, done with black box sanctuaries pounding with contemporary worship bands and self-help sermons fueled by the field of Psychology, are joining the Eastern Orthodox Church. They long for historical rooting. The Templeton Prize, no matter what you think of it, is a bellwether for the trajectory of Christendom. In the past four years in North America, Eastern Orthodox Christians have increased from 700,000 to 6 million! Most new converts have come from Protestant church affiliations.

The sweet spot in the Eastern Orthodox Church, whether it be Antiochian, Greek, Russian or some other strand, is the preservation of traditional forms of worship with no capitulation to trends and at the same time the addressing of current issues, like environmentalism. (I think that this is a healthy trend.) In marketing terms, the branding of the Eastern Orthodox Church = the old is good for the unfolding new.

Another indicator is the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). It has enjoyed in 2024 a 13.4% increase, or 11,354 people, for a total of 96,148. In the 1980’s and 1990’s non-denominational was “sexy.” But in 2025, the robed cleric is rockin’ it.

#2 = The developing world is going Christian. Africa is the new Christian continent. In 1900, only about 9% of Africa’s population was Christian. That number surged to nearly 50% by 2010 and reached an estimated 56% by 2024, representing approximately 734 million people. This exponential growth is driven by a high fertility rate and a young Christian population. (At least, this is what AI has reported. Hahaha.) You may think that western missionary endeavor is part of colonialism, but the reality is that most western, Christian mission efforts on the African continent, have passed the baton to Africans for the past 60 years.

In 2018 the Chinese government estimated the number of Chinese Christians to be 44 million. The number could be greater as many Chinese Christians refuse to register with the communist government’s controlled church. Though it is prohibited, Christianity is growing at a rapid rate in Nepal, of all places! In recent years, the number of Christians in Nepal has grown from 683,00 to 3 million. North Americans, wannabe Buddhists, flock to Nepal to mix with monks, while the Nepalese are choosing Christian faith and practice. Indonesia, home to the largest Muslim population on the globe, rife with violent persecution of Christians, is experiencing a rapid conversion rate to Christianity.

India and Latin America add to the trend of the escalation of Christianity in the developing world. The trajectory of Christendom is shifting from Europe and North America to other regions of the globe.

We need to get out more. It’s so easy to be provincial and to gage the world by our own, limited experience. If North American Christians were missionally strategic, then they would focus their evangelistic efforts on their local communities.

#3 = The rising generations are searching for community and active faith: Gen Z is not looking for anonymous worship in large gatherings, but instead, authentic community in small, local gatherings. Small is good. Performance is viewed with skepticism. A caring community is desired. Gen Z is searching for those, who practice their spirituality. Unplugged music, shared meals, and open discussion are valued. Bean counters are out. Helping hands are in. Religion is out. Spirituality is in. Woke is out. Candid dialogue is in. Mainstream is out. Independent voices are in. Social media is waning. Face to face conversation is growing. (I think that all of this is good for the trajectory of Christendom.)

Government, public employees, and media/TV celebs, who have exercised their rights of freedom of speech to disagree with Charlie Kirk’s public messages, have lost their jobs, or have been suspended. Elected officials have warned any speech against Charlie Kirk will meet with severe consequence.

And so, I ask the question: Do you actually support freedom of speech? (First Amendment language.)

Our society rife with polarization is too weak to engage in dialogue of differing opinions and convictions. Were I to speak my mind publicly, I may take a bullet or lose my job.

We now live in a world of tribalism. If I present my tribe’s drum beat, then I receive accolades from my tribe and death threats from other tribes. The Constitution of the United States is designed to unite tribes toward the formation of a peaceful and productive society good for all citizens. This is not our present liberty of the day. Fear reigns as extremists to the right and the left threaten dialogue and embrace in the town square. The cultural war has engulfed societal peace and intercourse. Families, churches and civic communities are all drawn and quartered.

Welcome to the 21st century. “This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius/ the Age of Aquarius/ The Age of Aquarius…”

“Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation, Aquarius
Aquarius”

The 1960’s social revolution anticipated and forecasted the 21st century as the Age of Aquarius, an age of truth producing freedom. We are 25 years into this century and no such thing has occurred - actually the opposite! Western civilization continues to decline as the Christian perspective and valuations unravel. Now that we have unloaded the Hebrew 10 Commandments with the teaching of Jesus and his Apostles, western civilization, finally “free,” has tumbled into tribalism. The Age of Aquarius is a pipe dream at the moment. (I know, there is still 75 years to go in the century. Perhaps events will turn for the good and the 21st century will be good for the world unlike the 20th century.)

While we await a new age of freedom, how do we navigate freedom of speech? Recent movements in the 21st century, purposed to assure freedom for particular sub-categories of our society, have mitigated our right to freedom of speech. To make matters worse, our society does not know how to engage in conversations with those, who hold to differing views of life, truth, and identity. We are polarized. In other words, we are paralyzed. We have embraced tribalism over civilization.

Charlie Kirk has recently brought this polarization to the forefront. He spoke for a rising and reactive tribe. He died for it, most likely. It was not his mission to unite different tribes towards peace, understanding and tolerance. His mission did not include the Apostle Paul’s instruction, “Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.” (1 Timothy 2:8). He focused on verses in the same paragraphs of this New Testament book, ignoring this main sentence. (If you are unfamiliar with the text, then I encourage you to read it.)

Charlie Kirk was a champion of our present polarization. From the numerous video clips I have viewed, I believe that he thought that he was being sensitive and winsome. He had every right to his views and the expression of his views. He became a casualty of our tribalism.

Following are my present recommendations for a polarized society embracing the right to freedom of speech:

#1 = As you exercise your right to freedom of speech, acknowledge that other individuals and groups also have the right to their views and convictions. Up front, make it altogether clear, that other views are welcome in the societal dialogue and that you offer your views for consideration and interaction.

#2 = Resolve to be a good neighbor to those who hold to opposing views and convictions to your own. Listen, offer hospitality and forge relationships with others, who are different than you.

#3 = Ask questions which allow opposing views to be vocalized. Be inquisitive. Sincerely consider other perspectives, opinions and convictions. You are not in control of other individuals’ thoughts, opinions and convictions. Discover what others are thinking and practicing.

If you believe that God is the sovereign controller of all creation, then you will implement these three actions. You will relinquish your personal control of other voices, able to listen and process their ideas, opinions, convictions and responses. If you are uncertain that a sovereign God exists, then you may find it difficult to do so. If you believe in a democratic republic, then you will implement these three actions. You will make space for differing views and convictions protected by the US Constitution or similar documents. If you prefer a different governmental system, then you might devalue rights including freedom of speech.

For me personally, Charlie Kirk poses a quandary. In one presentation after another, he posited cultural statements with which I disagree alongside the gospel of Jesus Christ, which I embrace. He had every right to do so. (He personally amassed a fortune doing so, which is none of my concern.) My concern is the amalgamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ with cultural messages. I agree with Charlie Kirk’s gospel proclamation but disagree with some of his cultural convictions.

I think that I have the right to express my differing opinions and convictions with Charlie Kirk. Nevertheless, I abide by the following actions in the face of his murder:

#1 = When someone is murdered, I mourn his/her/their loss, refraining from my differing views with the deceased. I believe in the US Constitutional right of freedom of speech, and so, oppose any silencing of an individual’s right to express themselves, let alone their right to exist. When a high profile individual is murdered, an entire society is hurled into shock, grief and anger. This is not the time to engage in the culture wars. It is a time to heal, to come together around the ideals, laws and rights we cherish for a peaceful and productive society.

#2 = When someone expresses perspectives, values and statements disagreeable to me, I try to listen and respond with a nuanced presentation. I acknowledge the right of every individual to freely express themselves. (I hail from Oregon, where public nudity is protected under the First Amendment!) This doesn’t mean that I must exercise my freedom of speech in a lewd, offensive, in-your-face way. A person vocalizing or printing messages I find disagreeable may also offer some ideas and opinions I find to be agreeable. My response should acknowledge both in a spirit of communal peace and tolerance. (I’m working on it…not even close to mastering this point.)

#3 = When someone is shot down for his/her/their message, I try to be contemplative concerning my personal beliefs, values and missions. Should I be more outspoken? Should I be more sensitive to opposing views and lifestyles? What can I do to aid healing and communal peace? Am I courageous or merely a crank? Which messages are worth my exercise of my right to freedom of speech? If I enjoy freedom of speech, then do I acknowledge that others have the same right? For which messages are ones I am willing to die? (Personally, I am willing to die for proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ and possibly for my confession of the ecumenical creeds. I am unwilling to die for cultural/social/political convictions and ideas.)

The death of Charlie Kirk is truly a national tragedy. It speaks ill of our USA society. Today the world knows that the USA emperor is naked and that the USA has skeletons in its closet. When the highest offices in the land do not understand and uphold constitutional freedoms, like the First Amendment, using the courts to silence the media and others from speaking their minds, the emperor is truly naked. Nevertheless, more and more, public nudity is a constitutional right under the First Amendment…at least in my home state.

Why art thou silent and invisible / Father of jealousy / Why dost thou hide thyself in the clouds / From every searching Eye / Why darkness and obscurity / In all thy words and laws / That none dare eat the fruit but from / The wily serpent’s jaws / Or is it because Secrecy / Gains females loud applause

You can research Blake’s personal life and faith. His poem, “To Nobodaddy,” describes a mysteriously jealous divine being, competing with the evil serpent for the love of humanity. If such a being is the God of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, then Blake’s poem stands true. But if the God of these ancient texts is other than Blake’s presentation, then Blake has fashioned a god of his own making.

Blake coined the word, “Nobodaddy,” combining “nobody,” and “daddy,” as a derisive description of the God of Abraham. This “Nobodaddy” is jealous, mysterious, and restrictive in a mean-spirited manner. Indeed, this is a view embraced by many, who have found it difficult to connect to the God of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. In most cases, those who struggle with this God, have met with disappointing experiences in the organized church, serving this God.

For those steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures, the God of Abraham is consistently and essentially the God of the covenant, which includes divine law for the good of human society - not restrictive but liberating. This God is described over and over again by “hesed,” that is, divine lovingkindness, known as “covenant love.”

In the New Testament, the love of God is nearly on every page. The Apostle John in his First Epistle, describes the essence of this God as, “God is love.” For anyone reading the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament from beginning to end, slogging through narratives and laws of divine justice, yet taking to heart the punctuating conclusions of love through redemption, reconciliation and restoration, Blake’s “Nobodaddy,” falls short of describing the God of Abraham.

To be fair to Blake, his poem sounds like many of the Psalms in the Hebrew Scriptures, where the likes of David question the love, mercy and justice of God. We should give Blake and anyone else much space to vent their accusations, questions, rants and doubts.

Ironically, if Blake is rejecting the loving God of the Holy Scriptures, then his poem is odd in that it is couched in the narratives of the Hebrew Scriptures. He seems to grant the ancient story of our first parents, especially our mother, interacting with the evil serpent. He accuses God of failing to rescue Eve from her conversation with the wily serpent. God is absent, silent, and filled with competitive jealousy. In Blake’s poem, God continues his mysterious detachment beyond Eden, into the history of his revealed word and law to humanity. Blake considers God’s speaking as cryptic, intentionally keeping distance out of spite. It’s easy for some of us to consider God to be such, as we have encountered human beings who treat us this way. But the God of Genesis is not the god of Blake’s poem.

The God of Genesis gives space for humanity to engage in conversations, even if they oppose his message, actions and being. When humanity needs God the most, this God of Genesis arrives and fixes the problem. Blake’s poem doesn’t consider the whole of Genesis 3. Yes, God is silent while the serpent is wily. But God shows up in time to curse the serpent. God doesn’t curse the man or the woman, only the serpent. God protects and sustains humanity in its predicament, and the remainder of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament tell the story of the significant depth and breadth of divine love to do so. No one who has read these ancient texts can accuse God of being silent, distant, competitive or petty. You may doubt it, but the text stands apart from you.

Blake’s final two lines accuse God of secrecy to woo a woman. In Blake’s day he could get away with such a thought. But today, he sounds pejorative. But if you agree with him that God is “Nobodaddy,” then you might turn a blind eye to his anti-feministic sentiments. The Apostle Paul, who is accused of being misogynistic, actually faults the man, Adam and excuses the woman, Eve, in his Epistle to the Romans and writings to Timothy.

Blake in no way was engaging in the gender wars of our day. He was striking against God, who he considered to be “Nobodaddy.” Who is “Nobodaddy”? I have heard about “Nobodaddy” in some communities of the organized church. I have heard about “Nobodaddy” from the lips of non-Christians wounded by the church. Atheists love to talk about “Nobodaddy.” I’ve never encountered “Nobodaddy” in the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament. You truly must read these texts in whole before you trash them or conjure a god of your own making.

In ancient literature, love is not a romantic ideal, but an unconditional, self-sacrificial offering to a relationship. It is a gift offered freely by a person devoted to another. It is not about affinity, compatibility, attraction, or conditionality. “Nobodaddy” is competing for your love while the God of Abraham is freely offering and delivering to you unconditional, self-sacrificial love.

Psalm 145 = “The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, slow to anger and great in mercy.”

Ephesians 2:4-5 = “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.”

-so many more texts like these!

Romans 8:38-39 = “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

“Nobodaddy” would never approve these words. He is a sulking, bitter miscreant, who mirrors the worst among us, those we fear for all the wrong reasons. He is a god of human invention superimposed upon the writings of those, who have discovered an altogether different divine being, who unconditionally and self-sacrificially loves all creation.

Check it out for yourself. Either remain in a “Nobodaddy” world where others are to blame or consider the God of Abraham, who has entered our world to redeem, reconcile and restore all creation for the good, liberating us from all guilt, shame, blame and more.

The actual meaning of these two terms changes depending upon the field. Consider the following fields:

#1 = Social/Moral/Behavioral Field

#2 = Judicial/Legal Field

#3 = Economic Field

#4 = Political Field

#5 = Religious Field

In each of these five fields, the two terms, “conservative,” and “liberal,” form a spectrum. We usually place “conservative” on the right of the spectrum and “liberal” on the left. A spectrum ought to in itself stop us from slinging these two terms onto those, who disagree with us.

Allow me as a “moderate, independent, non-committal free-thinker” to take a stab at defining “liberal” and “conservative” in each of these five fields.

#1 = Social/Moral/Behavioral Field A “conservative” believes in and follows a moral code of right and wrong behavior. Such a “conservative” anchors a moral code in natural law or divine law or religious law or national/international law. A “conservative” believes that such law is objective and universally apparent. A conservative would label anyone, who is more gray than black and white as a “liberal,” as someone, who is immoral, socially unacceptable and behaviorally inappropriate.

A “liberal” also believes in and follows a moral code of right and wrong behavior. A “liberal” may view the moral code to be regionally/nationally/culturally specific. Thus, a “liberal" is willing to live with fuzzy lines and gray areas. A liberal would label anyone, who is more black and white than gray as a “conservative,” who is hard-nosed, intractable, rigid, unrealistic and legalistic, if not unloving.

#2 = Judicial/Legal Field A “conservative” in the judicial/legal field believes in interpreting the law according to original intent. Presently, the Supreme Court of the United States of America is comprised of a majority of conservative justices. The majority is “conservative” because it leans toward original intent of the US Constitution. The one glaring exception to this rule, (which I learned from reading Justice Antonin Scalia’s writing) is the conservative view of the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms. Scalia, one of the most conservative US Supreme Court justices of our time, acknowledged that the original intent of the Second Amendment is the formation of a militia, not the right of an individual citizen to privately own a gun. Ironically, guns rights has become a plank in the conservative platform, though it is nearly the only exception to legal interpretation via original intent.

A “liberal” in the judicial/legal field believes in a dynamic/progressive interpretation of the law. A liberal US Supreme Court justice takes a vow to uphold the US Constitution and interprets it, leaning heavily upon the precedent of case law - how the US Constitutional law and courts have applied the law to specific situations and eras. The one glaring exception to this rule, (which I learned from reading Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, fast friend of Justice Antonin Scalia) is the liberal view of the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms. Ginsburg, one of the more liberal US Supreme Court justices of our time, acknowledged that she held to the original intent of the Second Amendment, the formation of a militia, even though she believed that the law was dynamic and progressive! (She and Scalia, with their families would share vacations during which they would hunt and target shoot.) Ironically, gun control has become a plank in the liberal platform, though it is nearly the only exception to legal interpretation via dynamic/progressive interpretation.

Do you see how these two terms are used differently in the legal/judicial field than in the social/moral/behavioral field?

Presently, some of the US Supreme Court justices, are less vested in original intent. They pose as “conservative,” only as a result of widespread confusion as to what is “conservative,” and “liberal.” For example, the US Supreme Court is to rise above political affiliation. The political affiliation of a justice does not make her/him a conservative or a liberal. His/her interpretive view of the law makes her/him a liberal or a conservative. (Recently, the US Supreme Court has become politicized, and it is a crime! Stay tuned; political affiliation usually proves an unreliable indication of how a justice will decide on any given case of law.)

#3 = Economic Field A “conservative” in the field of economics is typically bully about saving and against spending. A “conservative” is a proponent of low risk, decrying high risk investment. (My maternal grandfather was extremely to the right on the spectrum, advising me to invest in US Treasury Bonds, and never in publicly traded stocks.) A conservative would be against debt on every level. Ironically, economically conservative US citizens are proponents of increasing military defense spending by the USA federal government.

Many confuse differing economic systems as being “liberal,” or “conservative.” Conservative US citizens are largely capitalists and so they label “socialists,” or “communists” as “liberal.” This is a violent misuse of the two terms. European may be socialist in politics yet fiscally conservative. Many Chinese communists are actually conservative in economics. Most of them are impoverished, but the 2% who are wealthy are way over to the right economically. Chinese by culture are “conservative.” It’s North Americans, USA citizens, who play the lottery and take investment risks, mainly due to their amazing cash flow. Strapped for cash socialists buy cheap booze and impoverished communists purchase rice. So, who is fiscally conservative or liberal?

The “liberal” in the field of economics is bully about governmental and communal security towards a comfortable lifestyle. And so, if the government or the larger community can provide such quality of lifestyle, then the liberal is willing to pay into and receive such benefits. At the date of this post, a conservative US Senator, Josh Hawley (GOP) is pushing legislation to hand-out $600.00 to every qualifying US taxpayer from the proceeds generated by the USA Tariff profits. A true conservative would say, “All proceeds should pay down our national debt.”

Are you willing to take personal risk in investing in the Stock Market?

Are you willing to pay taxes for safe roads, beautiful green spaces, and reliable education? Do you support the funding of Veteran Affairs and military pensions, one of the most socialistic components of the USA federal budget? (An individual serves in the US military for four years and receives, for the rest of her/his life benefits and compensation - that’s socialism, not capitalism.) Capitalism is the system in which a person generates and offers a product and/or service for a profit. Socialism is the system in which a person is rewarded beyond actual production and sales of product and services. When the government awards benefits beyond the free and fair exchange of product and services, the payout is socialism, not capitalism. It’s a fact.

Can you see how these two terms, used in the legal/judicial field and in the social/moral/behavioral field and economic field differ?

#4 = Political Field A “conservative” in the field of politics should mean one, who is morally, judicially and economically conservative, as defined in the above paragraphs. But what “conservative” means today is party affiliation. In the USA, if you are a member of the Republican Party, then you are considered a “conservative.” And if you are a member of the Democratic Party, then you are a “liberal.” This is an unfortunate development. To be politically conservative means that you are “small government.” To be politically liberal means that you are “big government.” “Politically conservative” meant in an era now gone, that you were States’ Right over Federal government control. You would value local control over federal control. Presently, the “conservative” federal government in 2025, declaring marshal law, bringing federal military forces into states and cities without their consent, is creating a fuzzing line. Conservatives are confused, because the Federal government is promising to provide law and order. But politically, it is doing so, in a most “liberal” fashion. It is violating local, individual rights of governance.

In Potter Valley, CA, Pacific Gas and Electric (PGE) announced that it would significantly reduce the water flow used by farmers and ranchers in the valley and all the way down the Russian River, through California wine country. California Governor Newsome, has made an ass of himself, endorsing the cut-off and endorsing the removal of the dams at Lake Pillsbury. Thankfully, the federal Department of the Interior (DOI), has barred these actions resulting in a reprieve for numerous farmers and ranchers. That’s big government. That’s increased federal tax dollars protecting the rights of citizens. The intrusion of the DOI into and over states rights is a “liberal” move for the sake of many, who would identify as “conservative.”

Do you see how it’s advantageous for liberals and conservatives to work together?

A “liberal” in the field of politics is one who supports individual freedom and governmental support of it. Every taxpayer should provide roads, systems, infrastructure, programs and benefits for all citizens and residents towards an equitable lifestyle for all. Such an ideal demands a big government at the federal and state level in the USA. Politically, a liberal supports rights and benefits for every individual residing within the USA national borders, regardless of any classification. (Ironically, in our lifetime, member of the Democratic Party and US President Barak Obama, has deported more non-USA citizens than any other in US history.) All to say, the rhetoric and media sound bites do not determine whether or not someone in political office is “liberal” or “conservative.” It comes down to their actions and results.

#5 = Religious Field A religious “conservative” believes that his/her Holy Scriptures are the very revelation of the divine Being, given for the direction of daily life. A religious “liberal” believes that his/her Holy Scriptures are a preservation of cultural, folk history. Remember, there is a spectrum.

A religious “liberal” may have as strong a faith and practice as a
”conservative.” The devotion and spiritual intensity are not the distinguishing factors. Conservatives believe that God is actually speaking to them, while liberals believe that God is actually preserving for them a history. Conservatives are fixated upon the factual details of the history, while the liberals are fixated upon the story and message of the history.

Too much division, judgment and condemnation have been committed by religious conservatives and liberals sparring with one another. Too much polarization has resulted.

The late Dr. Timothy Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York, regularly preached the gospel, good for “conservative” and “liberal.” He would say, “The gospel transforms the thinking and lifestyle of both conservative and liberal.” He would preach towards the evaporation of the liberal/conservative divide, proclaiming the gospel to both, to the entire spectrum. He preached the gospel to the moralist and to the libertine. The gospel message of the cross of Jesus Christ, the atonement and forgiveness of sins, appeals to the moralist, who is in bondage to his/her breaking of God’s law. The gospel message of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, our assurance of new and eternal life, appeals to the libertine in search of freedom.

In other words, the gospel of Jesus Christ is good for the conservative and the liberal, transforming both into citizens of the kingdom of heaven. The conservative believes that the liberal is lost. The liberal believes that the conservative is lost. The gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ is that all are lost and can be found in the love of God through Jesus Christ. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God….but God, who is rich in mercy made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.” (Romans 3 and Ephesians 2).

Do you see how the religious field differs from these other fields when it comes to defining liberal and conservative? Both conservative and liberal pilgrims could be on the same path, pursuing God and his righteousness. Their tires hit different potholes and they may stray on different rabbit trails, yet they return to the path of following Jesus Christ, who has blazed a trail into the heavenly Father’s love forever.

If you are a liberal and see a conservative straying on a rabbit trail, would you not lovingly seek to return him/her to the straight and narrow path of God? If you are a conservative, would you not do the same for a liberal? If you do not believe in the existence of God and his holy gospel, would you not entertain conversation with a friend, who does believe and follow? If you do believe in God and his gospel, would you not engage your friend, who does not believe and follow, in a conversation towards a better faith and path? Whatever happened to open conversations? Are you open-minded or close-minded? Are you reactive or proactive?

Culturally, liberals claim to be open-minded but are actually close-minded. Conservatives typically are dogmatic, unapologetic of being close-minded. Both can choose to listen, engage and entertain. This is what it means to be open-minded. It is far too easy to label another person as “conservative” or “liberal.” It is more difficult, but more rewarding to cross the line, listen and learn from the one, who thinks and lives differently than you do.

I’m asking the question: How should we talk about fellow human beings made in the image of God?” Before I try to answer the question, I need to get a few thoughts out of my mind and a few feelings off my chest.

For a moment, setting aside what Doug Wilson has said in this description of women, I must address his language and rhetoric. Doug Wilson is also the founding movement leader for a classical Christian school movement that pursues truth, goodness and beauty. In classical methodology, the grammar stage focuses on retention of facts and language building blocks. The Logic stage focuses on critical thinking and the Rhetoric stage focuses on the polishing of language in written and verbal presentations. How can it be that Wilson as the leader of such a movement can speak the language so poorly? -so bereft of rhetorical beauty? Undoubtedly, Wilson believes that this statement is true and good. But in review of speaking it, can he say that it is rhetorically beautiful? (C.S. Lewis is one of the few in the English speaking world, who can get away with ending a sentence with a preposition.) Putting aside any snotty remarks about following the rules of English sentences, the use of the word, “people” is odd and linguistically lazy. It’s like using the word, “thing” for non-animal objects. Rhetorically, this sentence lacks refinement and clarity. It poses in the form of a well-turned phrase but it falls short using weak words and syntax. The rhetoric is impersonally general. “That” is weak compared with a more personalized and proper, “from whom,” for example.

Okay, I unloaded this rant off my chest. Whew! Wait….I have a little more…. Clearly Wilson believes what he is saying to be true and good, yet fails to deliver it beautifully. (I have been following this movement since its inception and have observed from the beginning that it has placed a value upon truth presented with crass honesty.) When educated and/or gifted writers and rhetoricians hold beliefs with conviction, they attempt to match their language to the degree of conviction. (We live in a world where those, who hold high office and positions of prestige speak crassly with little thought for matching their truth and goodness with beauty.) Okay, I’m done ranting. (I will leave this concern of mine to Wilson’s middle school English teacher rolling in her grave.)

What do you think about the meaning of Wilson’s sentence: “Women are the kind of people that people come out of.” As a teen, I learned two valuable lessons: #1 = never rummage through a teenage girl’s purse and #2 = Don’t speak authoritatively about the mysterious female gender. Wilson’s content and meaning positions himself as an authority on the nature and purpose of a woman. He is telling us who a woman is and what she does. Also in my childhood, I observed significant strides taken in the evangelical church to define and value woman as more than “mothers pumping out babies.”

Pamela Brown asks Wilson to clarify his sentence, to which he responds: “It doesn’t take any talent to simply reproduce biologically. The wife and mother, who is the chief executive of the home is entrusted with three, or four or five eternal souls.” I’m confident that Wilson believes that he is clarifying his high view of a mother’s role, by referring to her as “the chief executive of the home entrusted with… eternal souls.” But this follows a rather odd sentence - “It doesn’t take any talent to simply reproduce biologically.” I’m unsure as to what Wilson means. Is he referring to childbirth? If so, as a man, he should be careful with what he says. Childbirth is a self-sacrificial, painful labor of love. Is he referring to the sexual activity resulting in conception? My experience is that this involves a significant amount of practice, the honing of a few skills. “Talent” is an odd word choice for either of these activities that may be called biological reproduction. And when someone refers to biological reproduction, both the male and female partners in it should be included in the description and conversation. I’m unsure as to any reason Wilson needs to say in this interview, “It doesn’t take any talent to simply reproduce biologically.” It can be misconstrued as a slam against women, especially as he doesn’t mention any male involved, as if biological reproduction is the business of women alone.

Equally odd are the meanings of his second sentence in response: “The wife and mother, who is the chief executive of the home is entrusted with three or four or five eternal souls.” The term “chief executive” is a business/corporate term, never used in the Holy Scriptures or in the Christian community for the role of a woman. Any of us, who are informed on Wilson’s patriarchal views of the home and church, know that he believes, as he says in Pamela Brown’s interview, that the man/husband is the authoritative “head” of his wife and children - his family. In assigning to the woman/wife/mother the role as “chief executive,” in submission to her husband, who is the authoritative “head,” this title, “chief executive” sounds as if the following description is Wilson’s reality: The man/husband is the authoritative “head” dictating, deciding and directing his wife, “the chief executive” of the home as the one responsible for all domestic duties in the home. I suppose as the “chief executive” she can assign chores to her children, but from my experience with CREC families and the like, she is not free to assign chores to her authoritative “head.” (I have met and helped a good number of burned-out women, who have been appointed as “chief executive” of their homes.)

Also, Wilson’s response seems to betray that the realm of the wife/mother’s influence and work is the home - not the church or the state. In Wilson’s world, a woman cannot hold office in the church and she may not serve in military combat. If I’m not mistaken, she may run for political office. In Wilson’s world, a woman as “chief executive of the home” would have little time and energy to do anything outside the home, until the children were raised. Don’t misunderstand me: A woman, who decides to serve in the home, raising her children and executing domestic duties, is a valid and noble occupation. Why can’t it be her choice?

Does a woman, who marries, have a choice between bearing children or not doing so? If she marries, then is she bound by conjugal rights of her husband towards childbearing? Or, does she have a choice? (She would do well to sort this about before going to the altar at Christ’s Church in Moscow, Idaho.)

I need to return to the meaning of the sentence, “Women are the kind of people that people come out of,” and ask my question: How should we talk about fellow human beings made in the image of God?” Here are a few of my thoughts:

We should emphasize gender equality in the image of God: In the Hebrew Scriptures, in the Genesis text, the equality of the genders is clear: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.” When writing or speaking about the genders of the human race, regardless of sound bites limiting what we can say, we must say at least a little about male and female created equally in the image of God. Egalitarians make this point clear. Complementarians believe this to be true but sometimes forget to say it. Patriarchal enthusiasts hardly ever make this point. (They would do well to make this their first point should they wish to be heard and taken seriously.) Someone like Wilson, being interviewed by CNN, should say up front: “Men and women are created equal in the image of God.” (After all, the author of Genesis says it up front - Genesis 1 comes before Genesis 2. )

We should take caution in using language that could be interpreted as dismissive of a particular gender. Wilson’s sentence sounds to me like: “Women are those, who spread their legs, get pregnant and birth children.” (Now I am stooping to the crassness of Wilson’s movement.) If you listen to Wilson beyond this sound bite, then it’s worse than this crass statement. He’s promoting this one function of a woman as the definition of her womanhood. It’s dismissive. A woman could be a whole human being, productive and successful, even a follower of Jesus, serving the kingdom of heaven short of ever giving birth to a baby. To say up front: “Women are the kind of people that people come out of,” is dismissive at best. It actually sounds impersonal, as if the woman is a baby factory. This sentence supplies no honor and dignity to the significant sacrifice and privilege of birthing a baby, made in God’s image.

It’s true: our present community often speaks dismissively of men…enter the mano- sphere. Let’s speak of the male gender with dignity. (I’m particularly sensitive to the presentation of men and ordained clergy in movies. Both are regularly thrown under the bus.) I know, some of us deserve it, but we should refrain from dismissive language that would ignore the image of God in every human being.) Men should be cautious about making blanked statements about women and women ought to be cautious about making blanked statements about men. To do so, in most cases, is to stick one’s foot in the mouth.

At the birth of a child, what would the father say to his beloved wife, who bore the child nine months and travailed in delivery? Would the father say, “Women are the kind of people that people come out of,” or would he say: “Thank you! Wow! What an amazing act of love you have fulfilled! You are most blessed! You and this child are truly gifts from God’s hand! I will always cherish, dignify, honor and love you!” ….and more.