Tag: truth

“Google Doesn’t…Know What Truth Is”

Neal Pollard

It has been six years since the Netflix documentary, The Social Dilemma. This film warns of the effects of social media, social networks, algorithms, and surveillance capitalism. It is what might be described as an alarmist or even a conspiracy theory piece if not for the fact that those who are featured throughout are some of the pioneers, engineers, executive, and early contributors of such platforms as Facebook, Pinterest, YouTube, Apple, Google, Twitter, Instagram, and developers of AI.

I was most struck by a quote from someone with whom I would have little in common with ideologically. Her name is Dr. Cathy O’Neil, graduate of UC-Berkeley and Harvard, a mathematician and data scientist who understands algorithms at a level few of us do. She suggests that the data plugged into algorithms are subjective. In a TED talk, she warned of “data laundering” and “weapons of math destruction.” She warns that much is driven by money and personal bias rather than objective truth.

In The Social Dilemma, she said, “Google doesn’t have the option of saying, ‘Oh, is this conspiracy? Is this truth?’ Because they don’t know what truth is. They don’t have a… They don’t have a proxy for truth that’s better than a click. If we don’t agree on what is true or that there is such a thing as truth, we’re toast. This is the problem beneath other problems because if we can’t agree on what’s true, then we can’t navigate out of any of our problems.”

Others in the documentary echoed this existential concern that objective truth is elusive and disappearing in the world of technology and, therefore, the world as a whole. While none of them appealed to God or the Bible, I would suggest that it alone holds the key to providing what they crave and clamor for. Like modern day Pilates, growing numbers flippantly ask with a wave of the hand, “What is truth?” (John 18:38). They don’t know and don’t seem to care. Meanwhile, Jesus urges, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32). He affirms Himself as the moderator, definer, and revealer of truth (John 14:6). It is not bullying or destructive. It is comforting and protecting.

A world falling apart without objective truth–which is being noticed even by those with no interest or sympathy for Christianity–longs for an emotional and spiritual anchor they can trust. They want truth. Through His Word, Scripture, Jesus offers us the only solid rock that will hold the weight of the world. If these documentarians are anywhere close to right, we are falling deeper into a hole that offers the destruction of objective truth. As a countermeasure, Jesus offers His truth. It will navigate us out of all our problems, most of all our greatest problem (John 1:29; 8:24,34).

Books by the Pollards

A Tiny Spark Snail Mail Club (Kathy Pollard)

Why Christians Are Losing Confidence In The Bible

Carl Pollard

I’ve noticed something troubling over the last few years, and maybe you have too. More and more Christians seem uncertain about the Bible. They’re not confused about difficult passages, but genuinely unsure whether scripture is fully trustworthy, relevant, or even understandable anymore. 

There was a time when people opened the Bible looking for answers. Now many open social media first. Instead of asking, “What does God say?” people often ask, “What feels right to me?” or “What’s culturally acceptable?” Slowly, confidence in God’s Word gets replaced with confidence in personal opinion.

One of the biggest reasons Christians are losing confidence in the Bible is simple, many Christians no longer know the Bible deeply. We live in a generation surrounded by biblical content, but are starving for biblical understanding. People hear short clips, motivational verses, and catchy sermons, but they rarely spend serious time studying scripture in context.

People will quote verses they’ve never really studied. And I’ve watched Christians panic when someone online brings up a difficult question because they’ve never been taught how to think through scripture carefully. A shallow understanding of the Bible creates shallow confidence in the Bible.

Hosea 4:6 is still true today: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

Another reason is cultural pressure. Modern culture constantly challenges biblical teaching. Whether the topic is morality, sexuality, judgment, gender, or salvation, Christians feel pressure to soften what scripture says so they won’t appear narrow minded or outdated. And when people love acceptance from culture more than truth from God, compromise usually follows.

Paul warned about this in 2 Timothy 4:3–4 when he said people would gather teachers who tell them what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear. How true is that for us today?

Social media has also played a major role. It seems like doubt spreads faster than truth. A thirty second TikTok clip mocking Christianity can shake someone who’s spent almost no time seriously studying the Bible for themselves. Emotional arguments are treated as stronger than actual evidence. And unfortunately, many Christians spend far more time scrolling than studying.

At the same time, some churches haven’t helped. In many places, deep teaching has been replaced with entertainment and surface-level encouragement. People leave services feeling inspired for a moment, but spiritually unprepared for real questions. A faith built entirely on emotion usually struggles when trials or doubts come.

But here’s what encourages me. The Bible has survived every attack thrown at it for centuries. Critics have tried to bury it, mock it, outlaw it, and discredit it. Yet scripture remains. Why? Because it’s God’s Word.

The answer to doubt isn’t abandoning scripture. It’s opening it again! Reading it carefully. Studying it honestly. Wrestling with difficult questions instead of running from them.

God’s Word doesn’t fear investigation. In fact, the deeper you study it, the stronger your confidence becomes.

And in a culture drowning in confusion, Christians desperately need that confidence again.

Books by the Pollards

A Tiny Spark Snail Mail Club (Kathy Pollard)

When Pity Becomes Partiality:

The Difference Between True Mercy and False Compassion

Brent Pollard

Of the two kinds of compassion, only one heals.

That statement may seem harsh. We treat empathy as an absolute good; questioning it feels wrong. Surely, to feel another’s pain and consider his burdens is right. Yes, since if we lack compassion, we miss the heart of Christ. Our Lord, seeing the crowds, “felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd” (Matthew 9.36). But to heal, compassion must be joined with truth.

Scripture does not let us rest in sentimentality; instead, it warns us: even pity can be corrupted. Unless compassion is anchored in truth, it can fail to bring healing. It may even harm those it aims to help. Thus, true compassion requires moral clarity.

The Surprising Command of Exodus 23.3

If we wrote the Law, we might warn against favoring the powerful. God does warn about that, but He also says: “Nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute” (Exodus 23.3). The scales tip both ways. Leviticus puts it even more clearly: “You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly” (Leviticus 19.15).

There is a steel beneath the velvet of biblical mercy. Justice does not consult feelings for either party. Instead, justice seeks what is true, what is right, who has been wronged, and what must be done. These considerations stem from love that refuses to be sentimental.

The Modern Confusion

Consider a story from the news. A young woman did not cooperate in prosecuting her attacker because she believed his ethnicity and background already disadvantaged him. By today’s standards, this instinct looked like mercy. Yet the man was later accused of another attack, one that left a teacher dead.

The second victim now has a story. So does his family. So does the community that lost a teacher. Compassion that loses sight of the innocent has not become more loving. It has become morally disordered.

Modern empathy bends toward the offender. It explores his wounds and childhood, seeking causes for violence. These questions have value. But understanding does not absolve. Explanation does not exonerate. A painful past may explain wounds, but it does not permit wounding others.

The Abomination God Cannot Tolerate

Proverbs gives the verdict with thunder: “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD” (Proverbs 17.15). The symmetry matters. Excusing the guilty is, to God, the moral twin of accusing the innocent. Both invert the universe. Both call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5.20). Both grieve God’s heart.

What we excuse, we multiply. “Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil” (Ecclesiastes 8.11). When consequences vanish, the heart interprets silence as license. Any honest parent knows: a child never corrected grows entitled, not grateful. Discipline is not love’s enemy. It is love bearing responsibility for tomorrow.

The Mercy That Is Not Sentimental

Look at Jesus. No one loved sinners as He did. He ate with tax collectors. He touched lepers. He received the broken, whom respectable people threw away. Yet His mercy never treated sin as harmless. To the woman caught in adultery, He said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more” (John 8.11).

There is the mercy: “I do not condemn you.”

There is the truth: “Sin no more.”

We dare not unstitch what Christ wove together.

Zacchaeus is the same picture from another angle. Grace entered his house and stayed, overlooking his past. In response, Zacchaeus stood and said, “If I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much” (Luke 19.8). True mercy does not erase responsibility. It awakens it.

False Mercy in Daily Life

We practice false mercy often. We let loved ones keep lying, raging, neglecting, or harming because they have suffered. We call our silence patience, but it is fear. We call avoidance compassion, but it is cowardice. We tell ourselves love means never confronting or naming what is wrong.

But suffering gives no man moral immunity. The wounded can become wounders. Pretending otherwise does no kindness to him or those he may harm.

This is true in the church, too. That is not cruelty. That is wisdom, walking in the fear of the Lord.

The God Who Holds Mercy and Justice Together

We worship a God who declares Himself “compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness” (Exodus 34.6). In the next breath, He says He “will by no means leave the guilty unpunished” (Exodus 34.7). Mercy and justice are not strangers in heaven. They meet at Calvary, where God proved Himself “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3.26).

To behold that cross is to learn how mercy looks on earth. There, sin was named with terrible honesty and forgiven with infinite love: at the same moment, by the same act, in the same Savior. We will never craft a mercy that surpasses this.

A Mercy Worth Practicing

The question is not about being compassionate; we must be. The real test is whether our compassion remains disciplined by righteousness: caring for the offender without neglecting the victim, forgiving without dismissing consequences, and being tenderhearted without succumbing to naïveté.

A Christian heart should be soft, but never spineless. Merciful, but never morally confused. Willing to weep over the sinner, and yet willing to stand between him and the people he would harm.

Mercy does not call evil good. Mercy does not abandon the innocent. Mercy does not flatter the sinner into destruction.

True mercy tells the truth, protects the vulnerable, calls the sinner to repentance, and leaves room for grace to do what sentimentality never can.

Books by the Pollards

A Tiny Spark Snail Mail Club (Kathy Pollard)

It’s A Miracle!

Gary Pollard

It is tempting to believe that an incredible recovery, acquisition of a needed job or asset, or escape from a major life issue is an example of the miraculous. In the religious world, a miracle is something a few believe can be invoked with prayer, a special religious service, or even a social media post (“pray that ______ will be healed by a miracle from God”).

Despite living in an age where notions of the supernatural are considered unscientific or are chalked up to circumstances we simply don’t understand yet, there is still much confusion surrounding the miraculous.

Miracles served a specific purpose both in the Old and New Testaments: they were designed to glorify God. Parting the Red Sea, striking a rock to get water, a talking donkey, an endless supply of oil and flour, the sun standing still, and all of the other miracles were – by design – impossible to perform without divine help. The Hebrew word for miracle meant “a sign or wonder” (Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament). Its purpose was to prove to the recipient that God was in control, was all powerful, was perfect, righteous, to be feared, and to be obeyed. Miracles were also used to prove that someone’s message was actually from God or that God was with them.

In the New Testament, miracles served to prove that Jesus was the Son of God and that the Apostles’ message was certainly from God. Water was turned into wine, the dead were raised, sicknesses were healed, people who were uneducated could suddenly speak multiple languages, predict the future, read someone’s mind, etc. The Greek word for miracle meant “a deed that exhibits the ability to function powerfully” (BDAG 263). These deeds were impossible to perform without God’s help, and they served a specific purpose: to prove that a message came from God, or to prove that a purpose originated with God.

While it certainly is a nice sentiment that an otherwise unlikely recovery or escape is an example of the miraculous, it’s important to remember that miracles served a specific purpose no longer relevant to our time. We no longer need miracles to prove our message comes from God because we have His complete and perfect word in scripture (I Corinthians 13).

Not having miracles in our world may be a downer to some, but we have this to look forward to: a place without sin for those who die faithful (II Peter 3.13). A place without death for those who die in Christ (Revelation 20.14). A place without sorrow for those who sleep in God after a lifelong battle in this sinful world (Revelation 21.4).

Miracles existed because this world is fallen (Romans 8). Their purpose was to demonstrate God’s power over Satan and sin in a world characterized by all that cannot coexist with goodness. Those who are living life in view of the next find hope and comfort in the miracle of Scripture, the miracle that will bring us home if we follow it.

Books by the Pollards

A Tiny Spark Snail Mail Club (Kathy Pollard)

Jeremiah Goes To Church

Neal Pollard

In Jeremiah 7, God sends Jeremiah to preach at the front door of the Lord’s house (2). This would have been quite a spectacle as people were entering and leaving the worship services. The crux of his message, which he repeats, was, “Amend your ways and your deeds” (3,5). Jeremiah defines what that looks like.  Notice what the prophet discovered when he encountered these folks who had gone to worship.

They believed that one day of worship offset six days of unrighteousness (4,7-10). Jeremiah lists out the things they would do during the week, then have the audacity to stand before God in the temple and say, “We are delivered!” (10). The modern equivalent might be, “We’re saved, so we can do whatever we want.” Going through the motions of worship is not a substitute for righteous living. God rejects such worship and worshippers. 

They took advantage of the less fortunate (5-6). Jeremiah equates injustice (5) with oppressing three classes of outcasts–the stranger, the orphan, and the widow. All of these were alone and without others to help them. Jeremiah’s brethren saw these as people to take advantage of rather than help. This drew God’s indignation! He has always had a special place of concern for the helpless, poor, and needy. He strongly disapproves of those who refuse to be compassionate toward the less fortunate.

They ignored the lessons of the past (11-15). When Israel first conquered Canaan, the tabernacle rested at Shiloh. The people became complacent and did not think it possible for their enemies to steal the ark of the covenant, but in response to their wickedness God allowed their enemies to defeat them and the ark to be taken. Now, God is saying the same thing will happen to this temple for the same reasons. They thought they were concealing their sinful lives by sheltering at the temple, but because they did not listen to God’s messengers (13) He was going to cast them out. Sometimes, we can look at people of the past and see the fruit of their actions but fail to connect the dots to our own lives. 

Their families were united in idolatry (18-22). Fathers, mothers, and children each did their part to provoke God to anger by replacing Him with other gods. They did what God did not authorize and what He did not want. Their homes were aligned to forsake God. He did not have the place of honor and faithfulness He should have had. 

They went backward and not forward (23-28). Sin is inevitable. We all fall short of God’s glory. But the overall trajectory and direction of our lives should be progression, not regression. But, God says they “went backward and not forward” (24). How did this happen? They did not listen, but stiffened their necks (26). They did worse than their fathers (26). They did not accept correction (28). As the result, truth perished (28).

They sacrificed their children (29-34). This was the last straw. They literally sacrificed their children. He said that He neither commanded such nor did it enter His mind (31). The world has so infected their thinking that they followed it in giving their children to its gods. Is it possible to sacrifice our children today? No, we wouldn’t think of doing so by putting them in the fire (31), but we should examine if our priorities, example, and pursuits are sacrificing them or sanctifying them. 

Jeremiah had a tough assignment. To talk to his spiritual family like this and share such a message was undoubtedly wearying (see 20:9). But judgment was coming and change was necessary. The point of his sermon that day at the temple was that the God they came before in worship was the God who saw them when they left. He took as close notice over that as He did the moments of corporate gathering. What a great reminder for me! I need to be who I profess I am when assembled with the saints. The act of worship ought to be part of the transformation of my heart and my character. Worship is no substitute for righteousness. 


Books by the Pollards

A Tiny Spark Snail Mail Club (Kathy Pollard)

Learning A Lesson From A Lantern

Gary Pollard

I’m a big fan of old fashioned lighting, especially old kerosene lanterns because they’re simple. I went to light one of my lanterns and the flame wouldn’t stay alive for more than a few seconds. I thought, “Maybe the vent is covered in carbon and there isn’t enough oxygen for the flame.” So, I took it apart, cleaned it out, and put it back together. I was sure it was the vent.

To my chagrin, the flame died within seconds even after the lantern was cleaned. Next I trimmed the wick because it seemed too dark; perhaps having a fresh wick would allow the flame to stay alive. It wasn’t a stopped vent, so it had to be the wick. Sure enough, the flame died even with a fresh wick. At this point I was stumped. 

The next day it occurred to me while putting gas in my car: the lantern was just out of kerosene! It was obvious to the extreme. I knew Chelsea would never let that one go. When I got home I put the kerosene into the lantern which, of course, was the solution to a simple problem that I overcomplicated.

This is a mundane example of a profound truth: we make mistakes as humans. Worse yet, some people put words in God’s mouth that He never used. “My God is a God of love – He wouldn’t condemn me just for this one little sin.” “God doesn’t care if we live the way we want.” Some use phrases like this with great confidence while overlooking an obvious truth: God has told us what He does and does not care about in His word.

If we aren’t in the word listening to God and allowing Him to change us, our solutions will end in failure. There was only one solution to keep that flame going in my lantern. There is only one right way to follow God, and He’s told us how to do that! Life will be so much easier for those who look to God for answers before relying on their own wisdom.

 

Be Fearlessly Fervent

Dale Pollard


It takes a special individual of both breed and brand to truly impact the world. The fact is, many will live their lives comfortable and content to never break any molds or “step outside the box,” as they say. Most believers understand that God has called us out of this world to be lights and to be different, but that means being uncomfortable (James 1:2-4). We don’t like that aspect of faithful walking and at times the fire inside us and the will to go on is at the verge of being snuffed out. On every side we are surrounded by a raging current of mainstream ideologies and beliefs that drown the masses sweeping them closer towards eternity—unprepared. That familiar and depressing reality can discourage and frustrate us to the point of tears. Preachers, elders, and leaders are constantly fighting these feelings as they huff and puff under the weight of it all.

Christian fathers and mothers anxiously worry about that painfully uncertain future their children will battle. Young people are plagued with convincing thoughts that a faithful life is all but impossible today. How can we make an impact? You may wonder what difference you could possibly make as you observe such a powerful and evil force.

Here is the bad news, it’s hard. But here is the wonderful news, it’s worth it! God has given us an instruction manual on how to become mighty misfits in a culture that rejects righteousness. There are permanent footprints left by the feet of godly men throughout history, and their tracks lead to victory for those that choose to follow them.

For example, there is the trail blazer and zealous disciple, Paul. He serves as an inspiring nonconformist when he abandons his previous life of riches, respect, and comfort. His courage, faith, and determination can produce a powerful stirring in our spirits. If that man with the thorn can overcome fear and defeat the devil’s endeavors, despite his own weakness, then by the grace of God we can too. Our lives can leave an impact and they can serve as beacon of light for generations to come.

Notice how Jabez demonstrates this point in 1 Chronicles 4:9-10. Within a lengthy list of family lines that make up the sons of Judah, Jabez breaks the mold. While numerous names are given, there is something more to be said of Jabez. He stands out as one who was “more honorable” than those who were before him in verse nine. Though his name means “son of my sorrow,” a label associated with affliction, he refuses to let this name define his future. The key to his success is given in the following verse which says, “Jabez called upon the Lord saying, ‘oh that you would bless me, your hand be with me, and that you would keep me from harm so that it might not give me pain!’ And God granted what he asked.” That verse is loaded with valuable lessons for this age and every age to follow.

Lesson one, don’t interpret your future by looking at your past. It doesn’t matter what family you were born into or how you were raised. We all have been given at least three common blessings. If you are made in the image of God, and you are, then that means you have talent, opportunity, and a life. The amount of talent, number of opportunities, and quality of that life is irrelevant. You have everything you need to succeed which is precisely what our Father desires.

Lesson number two, only God can grant you gainful glory. Jabez established his lasting legacy and was victorious because he understood one thing. God is the God of impartiality. He offers a heavenly hand to help the stereotypically weak and sinful human break the stereotype. The cards of life you hold in your hand mean little to the God who owns the deck. Jabez, Paul, and many faithful others understood the weakness of humanity. Their lives are a statement and a confession— God can help anyone rise above the crowd. He can help you achieve the only recognition that counts and give you the precious gift of a future with certainty.

The path to victory is a narrow one according to Matthew 7:14. Few have found it and few have finished it, but with the right Guide it can definitely be done. Are you unsure of your current location? Look down at the tracks you are following, and the guide walking with you. If you are holding the hand of the Savior— you can be sure you’re going in the right direction. Allow that comfort to strengthen you and break out of whatever mold you are in. Let God use your weakness and failures to leave an eternal mark on a world that needs it. There is no congregation that can’t grow, no Christian that can’t improve, and no unsaved person that doesn’t deserve the chance to hear that life changing message of the cross. There’s a great day coming, and that should provoke some excitement as well as motivate us all to diligently and fearlessly work until then.

When Sincerity Isn’t Enough

Carl Pollard

I was recently watching a documentary on the life of Billy Graham, and I found myself genuinely impressed. His morality seemed consistent, his integrity stood out, and his commitment to Christ was obvious. He preached to massive crowds, spoke clearly about sin, and called people to respond to God. The more I watched, the more I felt both admiration and uneasiness.

Admiration because of his devotion. Uneasiness because it raised a hard question. Can a man be that sincere, that disciplined, and that committed to Christ, and still be wrong about something as important as how a person receives the forgiveness of sins?

Billy Graham influenced millions. He preached Christ, the cross, the resurrection, sin, repentance, and faith. That shouldn’t be denied. But Scripture doesn’t measure a teacher by how many true things he says. It measures whether he teaches the truth fully.

The Bible never holds up sincerity as the standard. A man can be earnest, persuasive, and influential, and still be wrong where it matters most. That’s a hard truth, but it’s a biblical one.

Paul warned in Galatians 1:6–9 that even a changed gospel must be rejected. Not just a completely false message, but a distorted one. That makes this serious. Because a message can sound close to the truth and still fall short at a critical point.

Modern preaching often uses language like “accept Jesus into your heart” or “pray this prayer.” But when people in the New Testament asked what to do, the apostles answered differently. They preached Christ. They called for faith and repentance. And they also taught baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). Peter said, “Repent and be baptized… for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38). Ananias told Saul, “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16). Paul wrote that we are baptized into Christ (Romans 6:3–4) and put on Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:27). Peter said plainly, “Baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21). That language is clear. It’s part of how people were told to respond to the gospel.

So what happens when a preacher speaks powerfully about Jesus, but doesn’t teach people to respond the way the apostles did? He may say many true things. He may move people emotionally. He may even believe deeply in what he’s saying. But if he gives less than the full message, he isn’t teaching the whole truth.

Scripture shows this clearly. Apollos in Acts 18 was eloquent and fervent, yet he still needed correction. Saul of Tarsus was sincere and zealous, yet he was wrong. Romans 10 says zeal isn’t enough without knowledge.

A man doesn’t have to be evil to mislead people. He can be kind, moral, and sincere, and still be wrong. That’s what makes this so sobering.

In the end, this isn’t just about Billy Graham. It’s about us. Do we measure truth by Scripture or by results? Do we care more about influence or accuracy?

At judgment, no one will be saved by admiring a sincere preacher. The question is simple. Did we hear the gospel as God gave it, and did we obey it as the apostles preached it?

Sorry, Chase (Part 5)!

Gary Pollard

This week’s article will be the last in the series. It seemed good to me to do one pillar a week for this series, but this one makes five articles. That’s a bit much for one video, and takes on the spirit of something I cannot stand: debunking. That’s not my intent with this series. As has hopefully been clear, my goal is not to debunk the video (The ancients decoded reality) in its entirety, but to correct the observations where Christianity is concerned, and the implication that Christianity is no better or worse than any other world religion. I’ve stated (ad nauseam) that the overall content is excellent, there is much to be gained from his observations. But without a sound framework, it would be very easy for a believer or seeker to conclude that Christianity is just one entree on the menu. We briefly looked at the problem of Christianity’s historical approach to the symbolism and esoterism in scripture, and the need for a framework that doesn’t merely reduce the symbolism to a prosaic or literalist or unidimensional interpretation. Today we will look at the remaining pillars in Mr. Hughes’ video. 

The third universal observation is: Your mind is not a camera, it is a projector. To support this, he cites many of the same ancient texts. 

  1. What you think, you become (Dhammapada) 
  2. The all is mind (Hermetic texts)
  3. The world you perceive is shaped by the mind’s illusions (Hindu Vedanta) 
  4. The universe arises from consciousness (Upanishads)
  5. Reality is the moving image of eternity (Plato)

He looks to quantum physics, relying on the assumptions we’ve made concerning this poorly-understood field. He notes that observation changes the behavior of physical particles. The essence of his argument is that “two people can look at the exact same moment and come away with something different.” And, “We think they’re interpretations, but what they are is filters that reshape reality before reality reaches you.” He has some good observations here — “…the moment we stop letting fear hijack the projector, we start seeing reality pretty clearly for the first time.” His point being that fear robs us of our peace and willingness to surrender control. The problem is that there’s not really any way to confirm or deny this one, so it must be placed in the category of speculation. In my personal opinion, evidence seems to point to consciousness as being non-local. God gives each person the level of consciousness he deems appropriate, that consciousness returns to him at death, and will be “installed” in whatever kind of body we’ll enjoy at the resurrection. But this is difficult to definitively prove, and I defer again to John: Loved ones, we are children of God now, but what we will be has not yet been made clear to us. We know that when he is revealed we will be just like him, and that we will see him just as he is now. Even the inspired writers didn’t exactly understand the nature of the new body, only that our new bodies would necessarily have expanded consciousness. We cannot see him now, but we will see him when he is revealed to the world. 

The fourth observation is one we will partially disagree with: The enemy is not the world, the enemy is the ego. He says, “The only real enemy is the ego. Not demons, not bad luck, not other people, not the world.” This conclusion is a false dichotomy, and does not require much refutation for most Christians. “Friendship with the world is enmity towards God.” “Our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers and powers of darkness.” To support one aspect of his point, though, we can point to James. He says that our tendency to sin comes from within ourselves — we fall prey to our own desires and become trapped in sin. So yes, our ego is an enemy, but not to the exclusion of the world and its influence or the unseen powers and their influences. The rest of his point is a discussion of the ego and its role in the psychological and social pathologies we deal with, and seems to be helpful overall.

The fifth and final observation: Everything is connected. “We see this in ancient temples and modern physics laboratories. Everything’s connected, everything’s one system, everything influences everything, that’s how everything it gets.” 

He points to the famous observation from the Hermetic texts, “As above, so below.” The Kabbalah, “All creation emerges from a single tree of life.” Again, quantum physics, “No particle is truly separate, every particle has some entanglement,” and many others. His point seems to be summarized by the following: “Nothing stands alone, so every action ripples, every emotion radiates, every intention vibrates through the whole. You are not some separate node in the universe, you’re a node in the cosmic brain firing inside of infinity. And your life is not happening to you, it is happening with you, through you, and as you.” 

The only aspect of this that we can confidently correct is the phrase, “You are not some separate node in the universe…” Scripture does teach that all things (and all consciousness) come from one Source. But this point is incompatible with Christianity in that each person faces their own judgment. Since he points to the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, we must point out that they also believed in individual judgment. Yes, we all come from one source and exist within one framework sustained by one All-Father. But this does not diminish the individuality each person has — why else would murder be considered wrong? If we’re all just “nodes in a cosmic brain”, what makes individual life special if consciousness is not anchored to unique identities within individual bodies? I would also point out that “as above so below” and other similar sentiments have more to do with the fact that things happening in the heavens have their counterparts on the earth. This does not necessarily support his supposition. 

In summary, most of his observations and conclusions are excellent overall, and would be beneficial to implement for anyone looking self-improvement in this life. However, many of his conclusions where Christianity is concerned are flawed. If this is implemented as a self-improvement tool, excellent. But to be adopted as an overall worldview or system of religion (which is functionally what this becomes) is not something a Christian can do and still be called “Christian.”

Books and bookish items from the Pollards

Subscribe to Kathy’s “A Tiny Spark” snail mail club

When the Heart Cries “Real” but the Word Says “No”

Brent Pollard

A young man recently walked away from the church. He was troubled—genuinely so—convinced that demons from his past involvement with the occult were hounding him. He came seeking baptism, and we believe he hoped the gift of the Holy Spirit would arm him with miraculous power to fight what he feared. When Scripture did not tell him what he wished to hear, he turned to YouTube “prophets” who did. He found individuals who offered “deliverance prayers” and validated every feeling he carried. In the end, it did not matter what God’s word said, because it did not match what he felt.

His story grieves us. But it also instructs us, for it lays bare a danger that threatens every soul in every generation: the temptation to enthrone experience over revelation.

The Question of “That Which Is Perfect”

This young man, like many sincere believers, points to 1 Corinthians 13.10 and argues that “the perfect” refers to the second coming of Christ—meaning miraculous gifts continue until He returns. It is not a novel interpretation; many good-hearted people hold it. But the text itself resists it. Paul chose a neuter Greek word, rendered “that” in English. Had he meant the Lord Jesus, he would have used the masculine—”He.” The members of the Godhead are never called “that.” This is not a trivial grammatical point. It is the Holy Spirit’s own precision, and we tamper with it at our peril.

What, then, is “that which is perfect”? It is the completed, fully revealed word of God—the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). When the last apostolic pen was laid down, revelation was finished, and the scaffolding of miraculous gifts, having served its glorious purpose, was taken away.

Witnesses from the Ancient Church

We do not stand alone in this conviction. The testimony of early Christian writers confirms what Scripture teaches. John Chrysostom, writing in the fourth century, observed plainly that the miraculous gifts Paul described had ceased. Those baptized in his day, he noted, no longer spoke in the tongues of all nations as believers had in the first century. Augustine of Hippo agreed, writing that such miracles “were no longer permitted to continue in our time,” lest they become commonplace and lose their power to produce faith. Cyril of Alexandria taught that the miraculous gift of languages at Pentecost was a temporary sign intended for the Jews—kept for life by those who first received it, but not passed beyond their generation.

These men were not skeptics. They were devoted servants of Christ who recognized what the New Testament itself describes: miraculous gifts were conferred exclusively through the laying on of the apostles’ hands (Acts 8.14–17), and an apostle had to meet the requirements of Acts 1.21–22. Since no one alive today meets those requirements, the chain of miraculous conferral has been broken—not by human failure, but by divine design.

We might also note a striking practical detail. Paul, who possessed the gift of healing, left his fellow minister Trophimus sick at Miletus (2 Timothy 4.20) and advised Timothy to treat his stomach ailments with a little wine rather than a miracle (1 Timothy 5.23). Even the apostle did not wield miraculous power as a tool of personal convenience. The gifts served God’s purposes, not man’s preferences.

What, Then, Are These Experiences?

If the miraculous gifts have ceased, what are we to make of the experiences people report? What of the young man who felt delivered? What of those who speak in ecstatic utterances and weep with the certainty that God has touched them?

We need not question their sincerity to question the source. The human mind is a remarkable instrument. When people pray or worship with deep intensity, the brain can enter a focused state in which the speech-filtering centers quiet down, allowing sounds and syllables to flow without conscious direction. It feels powerful precisely because it is unforced. But unforced is not the same as supernatural.

These experiences are also learned. In communities where speaking in tongues is practiced, people observe it, absorb its patterns, and are taught—directly or by imitation—how to interpret inner stirrings as the Spirit’s movement. Over time, the brain begins responding on cue. If everyone around you treats something as real, your mind learns to experience it accordingly.

Moreover, these moments often bring genuine emotional relief—a sense of belonging, closeness to God, even catharsis. A sudden thought becomes “God spoke to me.” A warm sensation becomes “the Spirit moved.” Ecstatic syllables become “tongues.” The brain, emotions, and social environment conspire together to produce something that feels deeply true. But feeling deeply true and being true are not the same thing.

Truth Is Not a Feeling

Here we must plant our feet on the bedrock of Scripture. Jesus Himself defined the matter with crystalline clarity: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17.17). Truth is not discovered through sensation. It is revealed through God’s word.

Scripture warns us repeatedly against trusting the heart’s verdict. Solomon writes, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death” (Proverbs 14.12). Jeremiah is blunter still: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17.9). Sincerity, however passionate, does not guarantee truth. A man may be sincerely wrong, and his sincerity will not cushion the consequences.

Test Everything

God has never asked us to accept spiritual experiences without scrutiny. John commands, “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4.1). Paul echoes, “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5.21). The question is never merely “Did something happen?” but always “Does this align with what God has revealed?”

Consider what biblical tongues actually were. At Pentecost, the apostles spoke recognizable human languages. Listeners understood them in their native tongues. The purpose was communication—the delivery of God’s message to real people in real words. That bears no resemblance to unintelligible sounds requiring no translation, only the interpretation of feelings.

And let us remember: God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14.33). Even when miraculous gifts operated in the first century, they were orderly, controlled, and intelligible. If an experience bypasses understanding entirely, that alone should give us pause.

The Spirit and the Word Are Never at Odds

The Holy Spirit does not operate independently from the word He revealed (John 16.13). He will not contradict what He has already spoken. If an experience cannot be verified by Scripture, it must not be attributed to the Spirit, no matter how vivid, how comforting, or how tearfully sincere the one who claims it.

God never asks us to choose between truth and experience. If something is truly from Him, it will stand in perfect agreement with His word. Where the two appear to conflict, it is not the word that must yield.

Let us, then, be a people who love truth more than feeling, who treasure revelation above sensation, and who test all things—not because we lack faith, but because we possess it. For the God who gave us His word did not give it so we might set it aside when something more exciting comes along. He gave it because it was enough. It has always been enough. And by His grace, it will carry us all the way home.

Cut Flowers Die

Carl Pollard

There is something beautiful about cut flowers. For a little while, they still look alive. Their color remains, and their shape stays intact. But everyone knows the same thing about cut flowers, they are dying. Why? Because they have been separated from their source of life.

Isn’t that a fitting picture of morality without God? A person can cut off the flower and still admire it for a while. And in the same way, a society can cut itself off from God and still hold on to certain moral values for a time. People may continue speaking about honesty, kindness, fidelity, justice, compassion, and decency. Outwardly, the flower is still there, but cut flowers die.

If morality is the flower, then God is the root. If righteous living is the fruit, then God’s word is the seed. Once people sever morality from the authority of Scripture, they may preserve the appearance of goodness for a generation or two, but it will not last! Morality can’t survive long when it’s disconnected from the One who defines what is good.

God Is The Source Of What Is Good

The Bible doesn’t present morality as something man invented. Goodness doesn’t begin with culture, education, public opinion, or human consensus. It begins with God! 

Psalm 119:68 says, “You are good and do good; teach me Your statutes.” Good is rooted in God’s character. He is the standard.

James 1:17 says, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights.” If every truly good gift comes from above, then moral truth does too. Man doesn’t discover morality by looking within himself. He learns morality by reading the Word of God. Micah 6:8 says, “He has shown you, O man, what is good.” Micah doesn’t say man figured out what is good, he says God has shown him. Moral truth is revealed truth! 

Morality Without God Cannot Stand

Many people want the flower without the root. They want the benefits of biblical morality without submission to biblical authority. They want strong families without God’s design for the family. They want justice without acknowledging the Judge of all the earth. They want dignity, value, love, sacrifice, and truth, but they don’t want the God who gives those words meaning.

But once morality is detached from God, it becomes unstable. Why is honesty good? Why is murder wrong? Why is sexual purity honorable? Why should someone sacrifice for another person? Why should the strong protect the weak? Why should truth matter more than desire?

If theres no God, then those questions have no fixed answer. Morality becomes preference, tradition, social convenience, or majority opinion. And what one generation calls virtue, the next generation may call oppression. What one culture honors, another may reject. Without God, morality becomes negotiable! 

Judges 21:25 describes the chaos that results when God’s rule is cast aside,

“Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” That is the natural end of morality cut loose from God. When man becomes his own standard, he doesn’t gain freedom, he finds confusion. 

Proverbs 14:12, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” What “seems right” isn’t enough. Human instinct isnt a trustworthy moral compass. Feelings change, cultures drift, and hearts deceive.

Jeremiah 10:23 says, “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.” Man can’t author a lasting morality because he was never meant to be his own god.

Cut flowers are beautiful, but eventually they whither and die. Moral decency without God is doomed to fail. 

The Tongue, The Truth, And The Tangled Web:

Why Honesty Is Not Just A Policy But A Posture Of The Soul

Brent Pollard

Sir Walter Scott warned us well: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” There is a reason this line has endured for two centuries. It endures because it is true, and truth has a way of outlasting the cleverest fabrication. A lie is not a single act; it is a seed that demands constant tending. The deceiver must water it with more lies, fertilize it with half-truths, and build an ever-expanding greenhouse of falsehood to keep the fragile plant alive. And yet, for all this labor, the harvest is always the same—exposure, shame, and broken trust. The liar works harder than the honest man, and his wages are ruin.

The Anatomy of Deception

We must be honest about dishonesty. People lie for different reasons, and those reasons matter—not because they excuse the lie, but because understanding the disease helps us apply the remedy. Some lies are born of cowardice. Others spring from vanity. Still others are calculated instruments of plunder.

Consider the pathological liar—a person so enslaved to falsehood that he fabricates elaborate stories without any discernible motive. Clinically, this pattern must persist for more than six months to warrant the label, though we are tempted to apply it more liberally. The pathological liar is not scheming for profit; he is performing for an audience that exists largely in his own mind. He seeks to appear grander, more interesting, more worthy of attention than reality permits. His is a pitiable bondage—chained not to external gain but to an internal compulsion that even he may not fully understand.

The scammer, by contrast, is coldly deliberate. While the pathological liar deceives from compulsion, the scammer deceives from calculation. His target is your wallet, your identity, your trust—anything of value he can extract and exploit. He is the wolf who has studied the sheep’s gait and practiced the sheep’s bleat. One thinks of the elaborate call-center operations where criminals masquerade as computer technicians, preying on the elderly and the trusting. The scammer’s lie is a tool, sharpened and wielded with precision, and it is wielded without conscience.

The Colors We Give Our Lies

It is a curious thing that our culture has developed an entire color wheel for deception, as though assigning a shade to a lie could soften its edges. The “white lie” lubricates the gears of social interaction—a small, supposedly harmless falsehood meant to spare another’s feelings. The “black lie” is its dark counterpart: intentional, exploitative, and universally condemned. Between these poles lie “gray lies,” told for mixed motives—partly to help another and partly to help oneself. These are said to be the most common variety, and perhaps the most insidious, because their ambiguity allows us to excuse them.

Then there is the “blue lie,” told to benefit a group—covering a colleague’s mistake, protecting the team’s reputation. And the “red lie,” which is deception as a weapon, driven by spite so consuming that the liar will injure himself if it means injuring his enemy. This last variety reveals the darkest truth about lying: it is not merely a moral failure but a spiritual sickness. A man so enslaved to vengeance that he will set fire to his own house to burn his neighbor’s—that is a soul in desperate need of deliverance.

But here is the point we must not miss: this spectrum of color is a human invention. God does not grade our lies on a curve.

What God Says About Lying

Scripture treats deception with an unsparing directness that should arrest every honest reader. Solomon declares that “lying lips are an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 12.22, ESV). That word—abomination—is not casual disapproval. It is visceral revulsion. It is the word used for the most grievous offenses against the holy character of God. And John, writing from Patmos, places liars in the company of the cowardly, the faithless, the murderers, and the sexually immoral, all of whom face the lake of fire (Revelation 21.8). There is no footnote exempting the “white” variety.

The reason is not arbitrary. Lying is an assault on the very nature of God. He is truth (John 14.6). He cannot lie (Titus 1.2). And the devil, that ancient serpent, is identified as the “father of lies” (John 8.44)—the original architect of deception whose native tongue is falsehood. Every lie, however small, however well-intentioned, speaks a word in the devil’s language. Every lie, to some degree, allies itself with the one who deceived Eve in the garden and who continues to deceive the nations.

And yet Scripture does not categorize lies by color. It categorizes them by function. Bearing false witness perverts justice and destroys the innocent (Exodus 20.16). Hypocrisy dons a mask of righteousness to conceal a rotting interior (Matthew 23.28). Flattery deploys smooth words as instruments of manipulation (Psalm 12.2). And self-deception—perhaps the most dangerous of all—convinces us that we have no sin, thus cutting us off from the very grace that could heal us (1 John 1.8).

When Survival Demands the Impossible

We would be dishonest ourselves if we did not acknowledge the hard cases. Rahab lied to protect the Israelite spies at Jericho (Joshua 2.4ff), and James commends her for her actions (James 2.25). Certain Germans during the Second World War—Oskar Schindler, Karl Plagge, and others—lied to the SS to rescue Jews from the gas chambers. These are the extreme edges of moral experience, where the preservation of innocent life collided with the command to speak truth.

But we must be careful not to build a theology of exceptions from a handful of extraordinary moments. Most of us will never face the Gestapo at our door. Most of our lies arise only to spare someone’s feelings or shield us from inconvenience. When survival is genuinely at stake, we may find ourselves trusting in God’s grace to cover what necessity demands. But we must never mistake that trust for permission, nor should we pretend that a lie ceases to be a lie simply because the motive was noble. Even in the direst circumstance, we are speaking a falsehood—and we do so in the sober awareness that we need mercy, not congratulations.

Practical Disciplines for Truthful Living

Practice the discipline of silence. The simplest way to reduce the frequency of our lies is to reduce the frequency of our words. Solomon understood this. Even a fool, he observed, can pass for wise if he keeps his mouth shut (Proverbs 17.28). And again: “When words are many, transgression is not lacking” (Proverbs 10.19, ESV). James echoes this counsel with an urgency that suggests the early church needed the reminder as badly as we do: “Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak” (James 1.19, ESV). When Elijah stood on Horeb, God was not in the wind, the earthquake, or the fire—He was in the still, small voice (1 Kings 19.12). There is something about silence that makes room for God to speak. Words are powerful, and power must be handled with care. The man who speaks less has fewer opportunities to sin—and more opportunities to listen, which is where wisdom begins.

Cultivate a radical simplicity of speech. Elaborate explanations are the breeding ground of exaggeration. Complex oaths are the refuge of the uncommitted. Jesus cut through all of it with surgical precision: “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’” (Matthew 5.37, ESV). In His day, men would swear by the temple if they wanted an escape clause, but swear by the gold of the temple if they actually intended to keep their word (Matthew 23.16–22). Jesus condemned the entire charade. Our speech should be so plain, so dependable, that oaths become unnecessary. Solomon warned that there is more hope for a fool than for a man who is hasty in his words (Proverbs 29.20). Let us, then, be deliberate. Let our yes mean yes and our no mean no, and let us leave the embellishments to novelists.

Guard the heart from which your words flow. Jesus warned that the mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart (Matthew 12.34). If the well is poisoned, it does not matter how fine the cup—the water will still be toxic. Truthful speech begins not with technique but with character. It begins with the prayer of the psalmist: “Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!” (Psalm 139.23–24, ESV). It continues with the daily plea: “Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips!” (Psalm 141.3, ESV). The man who invites God to search his motives will find that honesty becomes less of a discipline and more of a disposition.

Establish a practice of immediate confession. When a lie escapes—and it will, for we are fallen creatures—the remedy is swift confession. Confess to God, who is faithful and just, to be forgiven (1 John 1.9). Confess to the person wronged, for healing comes through the honesty we should have practiced in the first place (James 5.16). Immediate confession prevents a pattern from forming. It breaks the cycle before the web can be woven. And it must be paired with the commitment to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4.15)—for honesty without love is cruelty, and love without honesty is sentimentality. Neither one honors the God who is both perfectly true and perfectly kind.

A Posture of the Soul

Honesty is not merely a policy. Policies can be revised, suspended, or abandoned when they become inconvenient. Honesty is a posture of the soul before a God who cannot lie and who will not be mocked. It is the daily, deliberate alignment of our words with reality, which is to say, the alignment of our words with the character of the One who created reality and sustains it by the word of His power.

In a world that grades deception by color and excuses it by circumstance, we are called to a higher standard—one rooted not in social convention but in the very nature of our Creator. Let us, then, be people whose words need no footnotes, whose promises require no collateral, and whose speech reflects the One in whom there is no shadow of turning. For when we commit ourselves to truth, we do more than avoid sin—we bear witness to the Father of lights in a world darkened by the father of lies.

Sorry, Chase! (Part 3)

Gary Pollard

At long last, we’re going to look at the five pillars — the main observations of Hughes in his video The ancients decoded reality. In case this is the first article you’re reading in the series, a brief explanation is in order. This content creator clearly spent a great deal of time and effort in studying all of these ancient texts and looking for similarities between them (over 180 sources spanning multiple cultures, epochs, languages, and religions). Most of his observations are excellent and intellectually stimulating! Some of his conclusions, where Christianity is concerned at least, are erroneous. Because (reference the first article) he posits cross-compatibility between all religions, this would make Christianity just another in an ocean of faiths. Jesus, in this framework, would be just another wise man, no different from Siddhartha Gautama or Lao Tze or Solon. The problem, from a Christian’s perspective, is that this denies Jesus’s status as God-man. No message is from God if it doesn’t acknowledge Jesus as coming from God. It comes from the enemies of Christ, the ones you heard were coming and are in the world right now (I Jn 4.1-3). 

I don’t for a second believe that Mr. Hughes is intentionally leading the Christians in his audience away from truth. He seems to be wholly genuine and has provided helpful (even life-changing) material for millions of people. But if the foundation isn’t solid, the message will be flawed. Whether with intent or as a result of ignorance, the potential for damage to a Christian’s faith is the same. Ironically, he quotes a passage from I John in the video in the same short chapter as the verse quoted above. 

Anyway, the first main observation is this: “You are not separate. You never were, you never could be.” He cites: 

  1. Upanishads: “You are that” (not connected to it, not loved by it, you are the thing itself.  Jesus said, “The entire kingdom of God is within you, not in a building or a book, in you”)
  2. Sufi texts: “You are not a drop in the ocean, you are the entire ocean in a drop.” 
  3. Hermetic texts: “All is one” 
  4. Taoism: “Everything is the Dao, expressing itself in ten thousand forms” 
  5. Popul Vuh: “Heart of sky, heart of earth” 
  6. Buddhism: “There is no separate self” 
  7. Kabbala: “Creation is one emanation divided only in appearance” 

On the face of things, this argument is not a bad one — and it certainly contains elements of truth. Jesus very often quoted from the ancient texts of the Jews, and used the ίερα γράμματα to establish eternal principles. Yes, the kingdom of God isn’t in any building or exclusively contained within any book. But his kingdom is also not comprised of all people allowing reality to experience itself through their eyes. Multiple times in the gospels he clearly taught that some will inherit that kingdom, and some will not. He told one teacher of the law, “You are close to God’s kingdom” (Mk 12.34). 

According to Mt 3.2 and 4.17, personal changes have to be made to be accepted in God’s kingdom. 

In Mt 5.3, that kingdom belongs to certain people (poor in spirit, persecuted because of faith). 

In 5.20, anyone who isn’t morally better than the Pharisees is barred from God’s kingdom. 

In 7.21, not everyone who claims to serve him will enter the kingdom. 

Multiple times, he says that God’s kingdom is “almost here” (3.2, 4.17, 10.7), and instructed his followers to pray that God’s kingdom would come (6.10, 33). If it existed exclusively within them (and/or within all people), how would some be excluded and some not? Why pray for and anticipate its arrival if it was already within them? We know it was something tangible because he said, “Some of you will still be alive when they see the Son of Man come with his kingdom” (Mt 16.28). 

God’s kingdom ≠ The Universe expressing itself in ten thousand forms. It is the new, someday-perfected, ideal form of personal and cultural identity. This is an identity that won’t be realized fully until Jesus returns (and is today made up of his followers). It transcends national borders, cultures, languages, and any other barrier that historically has prevented people separated by these things from playing nice with each other. It’s a return to the relationship we had with each other and with him before humanity fell. 

Besides this (critical!) aspect, the rest is good general advice — isolation is not fundamentally real, obsession with self leads to unethical behavior, etc. We are not, however, one field of consciousness expressing itself through billions of different viewpoints. The extreme emphasis in the New Testament on others-above-self calls for more concrete distinction between individuals than this worldview allows. We are truly, though, one. Not by our very nature, but because Jesus made it possible for everyone to be unified through his name, by his power. This means that there are, unfortunately, people who will not be one with him. Our hope is that by doing for others what we want them to do for us, we can lead them to the Source who is Truth and who will unify all of creation in himself when earth’s number is up. 

The Invitation

Carl Pollard

Revelation 3:20, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.”

This verse is one of the most well known invitations in Scripture, but it is often misunderstood. Many assume Jesus is speaking to unbelievers about initial salvation. While the principle certainly applies, the context shows that Jesus is actually speaking to Christians who have grown spiritually indifferent.

Revelation 3:20 is part of Jesus’ message to the church in Laodicea (Revelation 3:14–22). The Laodiceans believed they were spiritually healthy. They said, “I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing” (Revelation 3:17). Yet Jesus exposed their reality they were, “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.”

Their problem was lukewarm faith (Revelation 3:16). They were not openly hostile to Christ, but they were not passionately devoted either. They had allowed comfort and self sufficiency to push Jesus to the margins of their lives.

Jesus uses a powerful image, He is standing outside the door knocking. The church belonged to Him, and yet He was outside.

This idea is one of patient persistence. Jesus isn’t breaking the door down. He’s knocking and calling. The responsibility rests on the individual, “If anyone hears my voice and opens the door.” Faith is personal. Each person must respond.

Jesus promises something beautiful, “I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.” In the first century, sharing a meal represented fellowship, acceptance, and relationship. Jesus is offering restored intimacy.

The Laodiceans had religion without love. Christ was offering them the very thing they lacked, true communion with Him!

This verse forces an uncomfortable question, Is Jesus really at the center of our lives, or have we pushed Him outside? It’s possible to attend church, know the Bible, and still live spiritually distant from Christ. Like the Laodiceans, we may feel self sufficient while our relationship with Him grows cold.

But the good news is that Jesus still knocks. He calls us back through His Word, through conviction, and through moments that soften our hearts. When we respond, He doesn’t reject us, He restores us.

Christ doesn’t want our attendance or routine. He wants our fellowship! The door only has one handle, and it’s on the inside. The question is simple, Will we open it?

THE EXCLUSIVITY OF JESUS

Sorry, Chase (Part 3)!

Gary Pollard

Last week we looked at the problem of language and its inability to capture the infinite (or even things on much larger scales/broader scopes than we’re used to). Chase Hughes, whose video The ancients decoded reality we’ve been examining, gives valuable insights into the many similarities between ancient cultural parables, mythologies, and symbolism. These similarities certainly do exist, and were very probably the result of each culture witnessing the same events. Since we are Christians — and Christianity is one of the ancient traditions he discusses — I think it’s important to examine some of his conclusions and try to establish the boundary of legitimate speculation on the topic. 

As has already been said, the line must be drawn at the conclusion that all world religions are more-or-less interchangeable. Many of the pillars of these faiths are mutually exclusive, at least in their current forms. Jesus made it clear that he was the only path to the Father, so this precludes worship of any other god(s). However, all humans are made in God’s image, and all witnessed the same displays of his power. Comparative mythology/religion is an extremely useful tool in trying to understand the events of the past — many of which the Bible (and several non-canonical sources)  corroborates, often through symbolic and apocalyptic terminology. 

In the past couple of articles, I’ve made it clear that Chase’s work is otherwise excellent, at least as it relates to this topic (which has been my only exposure to his material). However, because of his well-earned popularity, it is likely that other Christians will or have watched this video (as of today it has 2.8 million views) — and there are many others like it on other similar channels. Because most people don’t have any interest in the actual content of these ancient writings, because he presents his arguments in a very compelling way, because it can be difficult for some people to “spit out the bones,” and because the way many exegete the Bible (with little or no acknowledgment of the symbolism in accounts considered exclusively historical) can present difficulties in justifying physical and literary evidence with the text of scripture, I felt it was important to point out where, in my opinion, his conclusions (where Christianity is concerned) were erroneous. This is not intended to be a “debunk” series as much as a “clarify” series. 

So, to finish out last week’s consideration of the language problem, we’ll look at his concluding remarks. Next week we should be able to get into his main observations. 

[Imagine] standing in front of a sunrise so massive and overwhelming that words feel absolutely stupid to describe it. Now imagine trying to explain that sunrise to somebody who has never seen light before. This is why ancient texts seem contradictory — the problem wasn’t the message, it was the translation. Different cultures, different metaphors, different symbols. It was the same truth filtered through different, and extremely human, limitations. And when you finally zoom out far enough, the differences disappear. The metaphors line up, the symbols overlap, and — in my estimation — the contradictions dissolve. You start to see that these were fragments of maps, and once I noticed that something insane happened. The patterns in these texts started connecting like constellations across all these continents, across millennia, across belief systems that supposedly are against each other. They weren’t opposing each other at all, they were completing each other. And that’s when these five truths revealed themselves (08:25-09:38). 

As with the last two weeks’ observations, this is mostly true! Where we’ll have to disagree is at the alleged disappearance of contradictions and at the complementary nature of supposedly-opposed belief systems. By this logic, anything at a sufficiently low resolution is indistinguishable from anything else. Is it a bird or a plane or a flying superhuman? Those are three very different things — even though operating in the same domain — when viewed from a great distance, but the truth of what that thing is is fixed regardless of observational errors. 

The ancient religions of the world, by and large, observed the same phenomena and came away with slightly different conclusions. It didn’t take long for those conclusions to morph into identity systems, with cults loyal to one god or set of gods becoming hostile toward other cults who followed their gods’ antagonist. In the very oldest stories and mythologies, it seems that much of the basis for these religions was a cosmic drama with heavenly bodies being personified to preserve the story and scope of the event. Nearly all of them identify their chief gods with the planets, the sun, and the moon, and described the way their gods had interacted with earth in the ancient past — nearly always in catastrophic ways. 

So while their observations were originally mostly true, they degraded over time into the actual worship of these stars, planets, and “hosts of heaven”. The acts of worship, as we’ve already said, were often extremely dysfunctional. Human (even infant!) sacrifice, ritualized prostitution, and other harmful practices were not-uncommon expressions of devotion when the highest power was perceived to be no greater than some created thing in the heavens. Christianity fundamentally differed from its contemporaries and predecessors in that it called for devotion to the Creator rather than to any aspect of his creation. 

Because of their close cultural and linguistic ties (and probably the shared trauma of living through “days of the Lord”), even the Jews often had difficulty avoiding the worship of the “queen of heaven” (Venus) and other personified heavenly bodies worshipped by their neighbors. But when they actually followed the divine law they were given, they were wholly incompatible with neighboring cultures. All people originally worshipped the one true God (Gen 4.26), which is likely why we see so many similarities between the ancient religious systems. There is only one Truth, and deviations from it (because of human nature) are inevitable. Those who still wanted to align their aims and behavior with Truth would either leave the corrupted system or reform it. Either way, there are divisions — sometimes for good reason. 

So while it is certainly true that most perceived contradictions are the result of interpretation or translation errors, it is not true that those difference dissolve entirely at a certain resolution. Those differences exist precisely because of a deviation from truth. Even though much of the content of these texts aligns with the teachings of scripture, much is also totally incompatible. As we’ll see when we get to his main observations (the five truths), the rest of the world sometimes missed the point of the human experience. This life is a trial run! Compared to immortality, 100 years is a microsecond. The point is to emulate the Creator to the best of our ability and to love others selflessly. The enlightenment and realization of Truth that the rest of the world focused on is not something we can achieve in this body. We all want the same thing, but the only way to get it — and the most fundamental difference between the religions — is through Jesus. 

The Power Of A Name

Dale Pollard

An angel appeared to Gideon while he was threshing wheat in winepress to hide from the Midianites, calling him a “mighty warrior” (Judges 6:12).

Gideon initially doubted his ability, noting how his clan was the weakest in Manasseh and he was the least in his family.

God instructed Gideon to reduce his army from 32,000 to only 300 men to ensure the glory was given to God, not human strength.

So, using only trumpets, jars, and torches, Gideon’s small force caused the Midianite army to panic and flee.

To this day he’s remembered as the judge who brought 40 years of peace to Israel, overcoming his own fear to act with God’s strength. 

Rachel was dying during childbirth on the way to Ephrath (A.K.A. Bethlehem).

Before she dies, she names her son Ben-oni, which means “son of my sorrow” or “son of my pain.” A boy would struggle in many ways if he was forced to grow with a name that marked him as a bringer of pain and served as a constant reminder of grief.

Thankfully, his father, Jacob, changes his name to Benjamin; meaning “son of my right hand.” A name change that no doubt shaped his life growing up for the better.

It’s interesting how names or nicknames can shape our identities from a young age. When children are trying to find out who they are or what their place is in the world, they often internalize observations about themselves given by those they’re closest to. 

God has allowed us to wear the Name of Christ (Romans 13.14)– an unbelievable honor. Anybody carrying His name has a future brighter than the rest. 

When Good Things Become God

Carl Pollard

Tradition is not the enemy. In fact, Scripture speaks positively about certain traditions. Paul wrote, “Stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us” (2 Thess. 2:15). The early church passed down apostolic teaching, patterns of worship, and faithful practices. In that sense, tradition can be a gift, a guardrail that keeps us rooted in truth. Tradition in this sense was truth handed down by Christ to the apostles (John 16:13).

But there is a difference between biblical tradition and traditionalism. I once heard it described as, “tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”

The clearest warning comes from Jesus Himself. In Mark 7:8–9, He rebuked the religious leaders: “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” They weren’t condemned for having traditions but for elevating them above God’s Word.

The Pharisees believed they were preserving holiness. In reality, they were nullifying Scripture. Their traditions became filters that distorted God’s intent. Whenever our customs carry more authority than the Bible, we step into dangerous territory.

Traditionalism says, “We’ve always done it this way.” “That’s just how church is supposed to be.” And, “If it changes, it must be wrong.” Scripture tells us, “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).

Traditionalism often confuses preference with principle. Worship location, order of service, dress expectations, building designs may be wise or meaningful. But when we bind them where Scripture does not, we risk adding to God’s Word.

In Colossians 2:23, Paul warned about man-made regulations that “have indeed an appearance of wisdom” but lack true spiritual power. Human systems can look holy while missing the heart. Traditionalism tends to resist biblical correction. It fears cultural engagement. It can prioritize comfort over mission. Ironically, many traditions that feel “ancient” are only decades old.

Traditionalism becomes especially harmful when it alienates younger Christians. When faith is presented as a rigid preservation of forms rather than a relationship with Christ, it breeds either rebellion or apathy.

The church is called to guard the gospel, not freeze cultural expressions in time. The message must not change. The methods often must.

At the same time, we should guard against the opposite end of the spectrum, novelty for novelty’s sake. Not all change is healthy. Scripture calls us to contend for “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Stability matters. The accumulated wisdom of the church matters.

The solution isn’t to abandon tradition but to submit every tradition to Scripture. Does this practice clearly flow from the Bible? Does it help us glorify God and reach people? Or are we defending it simply because it’s familiar?

Traditionalism becomes sin when it binds where God has not bound. It divides over matters of preference (or conscience). It replaces obedience with ritual. It protects comfort over Gods mission.

Jesus didn’t die to preserve our customs. He died to redeem people. Faithfulness isn’t measured by how tightly we cling to the past, but by how fully we submit to Christ in the present. May we cherish biblical tradition, reject human traditionalism, and build churches shaped not by nostalgia, but by the Word of God.

“Absolute Truth”

Gary Pollard

This week we’ll look at the problem of Language, continuing our criticism of aspects of the video The ancients decoded reality by Chase Hughes. I want to reiterate here that Mr. Hughes is an excellent researcher and has provided valuable information in his work. I believe his conclusions are flawed where Christianity is concerned, however. Similarities between writings and observations do not constitute universal compatibility, as will hopefully be demonstrated in this series. 

After positing that Truth exists in every tribe myth and scripture (04:12), he says, “We got lost in the arguments, differences, translations, rituals, politics, and fear. We started defending our favorite books, rather than noticing what they were all trying to say.” 

To some extent this is true. “Die for Christ, die for Allah, die for Jerusalem, die for Torah; father and son, marching in rhythm, firing bullets through the skulls of the children. Holy war, mortars and martyrs; holy war, unholy followers.”1 Religion weaponized is a potent plague, always leaving millions dead in its wake. The brilliance and beauty of Jesus’s teachings — when they’re actually followed without human interference — is their non-compulsion and self-sacrificing love. There is only one way to truth: Christ. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life — no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). But it was never to be forced upon anyone, and personal death was always demanded over the use any kind of violence. “To me, the only important thing about living is Christ. And even death would be for my benefit” (Php 1.21). 

Since Chase says, “…rather than noticing what they were all trying to say,” we have to point out that many of these religions are mutually exclusive — at least in their current form. Most of the ones predating Christianity seem to have been based on genuine, profound observations of reality in their original forms. But these were corrupted over time, with personified forces of nature eventually venerated as gods and goddesses. The original meaning of their symbolic language devolved into rituals and often-dysfunctional forms of worship. Jesus came to earth at “just the right time” to bring Truth back to the world for good (Gal. 4:4). But in their current forms they are not compatible. 

Where Christianity will most fundamentally disagree with Mr. Hughes: Truth (with a capital T) is not fully knowable in this body; at least, not the kind of Truth he’s talking about (universal knowledge and enlightenment). I Corinthians 13 says, “Now we see God as if we are looking at a reflection in a mirror. But then, in the future, we will see him right before our eyes.” Chase correctly points out the severe limitations of our ability to capture and delineate the infinite using human language. This is the core of today’s look at his video. 

He correctly and eloquently describes language as “a net with holes too large to capture the infinite.” He cites Lao Tzu, “The dao that can be spoken is not the eternal dao.” Then he says, “The moment you try to describe ultimate truth, you’ve already distorted it, filtered it, and tried to contain it.” This is precisely why Truth is personified in Christianity. Truth is Jesus, and Jesus is Truth. We won’t be able to digest what that means until he returns (I Jn 3.1-3), but we can at least understand that he is the embodiment of universal Truth, an exact reflection of the nature of God. 

Chase says, “Knowledge was hidden, but not the way we think and not for the reasons we think. It was hidden because they were trying to describe the indescribable, and the human brain was not designed to handle these truths. Language is the core problem” (05:40-06:15). I’m writing this series in large part because of these next lines: “Jesus understood this [problem of language’s limitations]. He told his disciples, ‘I speak to them in parables because most people aren’t ready to comprehend the Truth directly.’ They didn’t have language for quantum physics or non-duality or consciousness models like we have today, in our still-infantile language. They had to compress the infinite into words” (07:02-07:14). There are a few problems with this. 

  1. Jesus wasn’t talking about quantum physics or non-duality. Even through a modern lens, this interpretation stretches the text beyonds its limits. Jesus spoke in parables to filter out true seekers. He even spoke in parables to his own followers because they weren’t spiritually mature enough to understand why he was there. He gave them the job of spreading everything — his parables AND his plain, uncoded teachings — to the world through their writings after his ascension. His teachings give us the path to enlightenment, but make it clear that that is something only fully realized in the expanded consciousness of our resurrected bodies. That path is selfless love, self discipline, loving God and helping people as often (and covertly) as we can. 
  2. The ancients’ view of consciousness is one that resonates even today. Origen argued in favor of non-local consciousness in Peri archon, and suggested the possibility that genetics influenced this in some way (Traducianism). The concept of soul in the New Testament has more in common with a consciousness model than we might think (or teach). We still use the transliterated form of this word today: psyche. The ancient Egyptians expressed this through concepts like ka and ba. It was understood that our bodies are powered by a life force (spirit/breath) that came from God, and returns to the Source after death. They understood that our consciousness is what makes us the “image of God”. They knew that death only expands this consciousness and its capabilities, and those who follow God will enjoy the benefits of this in an upgraded, indestructible body of some kind. We’re the ones lagging behind the ancient understanding of consciousness, not the other way around. 
  3. Few, if any, modern languages are improvements on their ancient ancestors. English is one of many well into its declining stage. West, Schwaller, and others like them convincingly demonstrated the superiority of ancient symbolism over modern scientific jargon, which is often used to obfuscate ignorance. Look at the opening lines of John’s gospel (“in the beginning was the Word…”), and compare that to how we might express the same in modern language.2 Our ability to grasp the infinite has degraded over the centuries, not improved. 

Finally (for today), Chase says, “All ancients hit the same wall. How do you describe an experience bigger than thought itself, using a language that’s built out of thought? How do you describe God, Unity, Infinity, Consciousness with a vocabulary built for farming and weather and trading spices and chickens with each other? How do you tell someone the universe is One before they understand atoms or galaxies or even their own mind? You can’t. So [the ancients] spoke in metaphors and symbols and myths and stories and poetry and parables and riddles — and sometimes silence. They didn’t do this to hide the Truth; the Truth was just too large to fit through the doorway of our primitive little language” (07:23). 

He makes several good points! Language is wholly inadequate to express the infinite, and symbolism is the best way to express the “eternity written on our hearts.” But symbolism is not accessible to the masses, and still falls short of actually capturing the infinite. Jesus presented Truth (or the path to it) to the masses using those stories and parables and mysteries. The early church recognized the multi-layered nature of Christ’s teachings — accessible to the masses on its surface level, while giving the esoterically-minded something to really chew on at its deeper levels of meaning. We do the text disservice to stop at a literal reading (derived through exegesis) to the neglect of any symbolic, allegorical, or spiritual teachings that may also be present. 

So while I think we would generally agree with his statement, there are some problems as well: 

  1. Knowledge of atoms, galaxies, etc. does not impact anyone’s capacity for spiritual understanding.3 Much of that is intuitive anyways, which he would likely agree with! Anyone with physical senses mostly intact can understand that reality is composed of parts and wholes, ascending to an ultimate unity, the one God and Father of all who is above all, through all, and in all things (Eph 4.6). 
  2. As stated earlier, it is not the purpose of this life to fully understand Truth (all there is at the universal scale). Our potential for understanding Truth will only be realized in our new bodies. 
  3. Language does not seem to have been originally designed for “trading spices and chickens”. The ancient Aymara language (still spoken today, but dates to pre-Incan times), for example, is so computer-program-like that it was used as the bridge language for translation software for decades. My point in nitpicking this is that our modern understanding of the world and our cosmic environment — and the ancients’ different understanding of the world and our cosmic environment — have little bearing in the grand scheme on our capacity for spirituality. Civilizations rise and fall, and we are very likely not the most advanced to have existed on this earth. 

As for the last statement (“they didn’t do this to hide the truth”), I would point to the ancient Egyptian practice of guarding secret knowledge. In the Old Kingdom, it was accessible only to kings. In the Middle Kingdom, non-royal elites (also Moses, cf. Acts 7.22) were included. The later Pythagoreans (who got everything from Egypt) were said to have guarded aspects of their knowledge with deadly force. Secret societies have existed in some form for all of human civilization. Jesus differs from the ancient esoteric traditions in that he made it available to everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear. Truly complete knowledge isn’t possible in this life, but we will enjoy that benefit in our new bodies. 

1 Holy War, Thy Art is Murder

2 ”Today, in modern terminology, we can say: at the incomprehensible and, by human faculties, unimaginable but nevertheless expressible and logically necessary instant of the Primordial Scission, the absolute being conscious of itself, created the manifest universe, whose fundamental formative aspect is vibration, a wave phenomenon characterized by movement of variable frequency and intensity between oppositely charged poles. This movement is not to be considered as separate or distinct from the poles but rather as that which by its existence produces or compels the significance of the respective poles, since negativity and positivity require an underlying concept of opposition/affinity in order to render them meaningful; the three aspects or forces thereby are assumed as inherent within the original Unity, which is the Absolute or Transcendent cause. This may not be an improvement upon St. John.” — West, J. (1979). Serpent in the sky. The Julian Press, Inc.p. 81

3 Atoms were posited by Democritus in the fifth century BC; inside Sepi III’s coffin (1900 BC) is the Vignette of Re, likely a depiction of a heliocentric solar system — with its planets — long before modern rediscoveries of this fact. These observations don’t seem to have impacted their ability to discern truth in positive or negative ways. 

The Seven “I AM” Declarations: Jesus Reveals Himself (Part 2 of 2)

Brent Pollard

In Part 1, we examined the first four “I AM” declarations: Jesus as the Bread of Life who satisfies our deepest hunger, the Light of the World who dispels our darkness, the Door through whom we enter salvation, and the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep. Now we turn to the final three declarations, where Jesus addresses our mortality, our confusion about reaching God, and our need for spiritual vitality.

The Resurrection and the Life (John 11.25)

“I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies.”

Standing before Lazarus’s tomb, Jesus did not say, “I will give you resurrection” or “I believe in resurrection.” He said, “I AM the resurrection and the life.” He is not merely its provider, but its embodiment.

Death seems so final. It is the great enemy that takes everyone we love and awaits us all. But Jesus declares that death has met its match. For those who believe in Him, physical death becomes a doorway, not a dead end. The body may sleep, but the person lives. One day, even the body will be raised.

This is not wishful thinking. John saw Lazarus leave the tomb. The early church witnessed Jesus’ rise. This hope transforms how we face mortality. Death is real, but Christ is ultimate.

The Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14.6)

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.”

In an age of religious pluralism and moral relativism, this verse stands as either supreme arrogance or saving truth. There is no middle ground. Jesus does not claim to show us a way—He claims to be the way. He does not point us toward truth—He is truth incarnate. He does not offer us a program for better living—He is life itself.

The claim is total. He is the Way to God. He is the Truth—God’s final revelation. He is the Life—now and always. Not one of many. Not one voice among teachers. Jesus is the only bridge to God.

This exclusivity may offend modern sensibilities, but it should thrill our seeking souls. For it means salvation is not a maze of a thousand dead ends. It is a straight path. It is Jesus Christ.

The True Vine (John 15.1, 5)

“I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.”

Throughout the Old Testament, Israel was depicted as God’s vine—a recurring metaphor found in passages such as Isaiah 5.1-7 and Psalm 80.8-16, where the nation is described as a vineyard planted and tended by God, intended to produce righteousness and justice as its fruit. However, the prophets repeatedly lamented that Israel failed in this calling, becoming like a wild or unproductive vine and thus disappointing its divine caretaker. Against this rich literary and historical background, Jesus now declares Himself to be the true Vine in John 15; He positions Himself as the faithful and fruitful source of spiritual life that Israel, despite its privileged status, could never fully realize. The “Vine” metaphor here thus carries deeper theological significance: Jesus alone enables true spiritual growth and fruitfulness, succeeding where Israel, as God’s original vine, fell short.

This image teaches us a vital truth: Christianity is an organic connection to Jesus Himself, not simply a matter of performing religious works. The branch does not strain and sweat to produce grapes; it simply remains attached to the vine, which supplies everything needed. Our job is not to manufacture spiritual fruit through sheer willpower, but to abide—to stay connected, remain in fellowship, and continually draw life from Him. The “branch and vine” metaphor shows our dependence on Christ for spiritual growth.

Apart from Him, we can do nothing of eternal value. Connected to Him, we become channels of His life and love to the world around us. This is the secret of the Christian life: not self-improvement, but abiding in Christ.

The Pattern of Grace

Do you see the pattern woven through these seven declarations? Jesus meets us at every point of our deepest need.

We hunger—He is the Bread of Life.

We stumble in darkness—He is the Light of the World.

We need safety—He is the Door.

We are lost and scattered—He is the Good Shepherd.

We face death—He is the Resurrection and the Life.

We are confused about the path to God—He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

We are weak and fruitless—He is the Vine from whom all fruit flows.

But notice something more profound: In every statement, Jesus does not merely give something—He is something. He does not distribute bread; He is Bread. He does not shine a light; He is Light. He does not offer life; He is Life.

This is the great truth that transforms everything: The Christian faith is not primarily about principles to follow or rules to keep. It is about a Person to know. That Person is Christ Himself, offered freely to all who will come, believe, and receive.

The great “I AM” who spoke from the burning bush has spoken again—this time from Galilee, from Golgotha, and from the empty tomb. And He still speaks today to every soul who will listen:

“Come to Me. Follow Me. Enter through Me. Trust Me. Believe in Me. Abide in Me. For I AM.”

ONE GOSPEL, MANY RESPONSES

Neal Pollard

The killing of Stephen was the grim harbinger of a new era for the early church, spawned by the actions of the young man introduced to us in Act 7:58. Saul inadvertently helped the church to further its move to do as Jesus foretold, going from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria (Acts 1:8). Ironically, it would be this man Saul who would help Christianity and the Lord’s church go to “the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8; 13:1ff; Rom. 10:18; Col. 1:23). For now, Saul stands opposed to Christ and His people.

Acts 8 gives us the specifics. He “was in hearty agreement with putting [Stephen] to death” (1). That very day a “great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem” (1), scattering it. While they took time to bury Stephen, Saul “began ravaging the church” (3). This was invasive, violent, and life-altering for Christians, but they responded by “preaching the word” (4).

One of the seven men selected to help the church feed the Grecian widows in Acts 6, Philip, “went down to the city of Samaria and began proclaiming Christ to them” (5). They paid attention to what he said as they saw the signs he performed (6). His deeds were so remarkable that it brought great joy to the city (8), even a renowned magician, Simon, was among the many believers who believed Philip’s preaching and submitted to baptism (9-13). With so many new disciples in the city, word reached the apostles who sent Peter and John to Samaria to lay hands on them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit (14-17). This caught Simon’s eye, as one widely proclaimed in the city as “the Great Power of God” (10), and he sought to buy this gift (18-19). Peter rebukes Simon, urging him to repent of such wickedness so that he might be forgiven (22). Simon was poisoned and enslaved by his unrighteous desire to have the gift possessed by the apostles to cause faith in the gospel (23-24). 

There is only one message being shared by Philip and the other Christians. It is called “the word” (4), “proclaiming Christ” (5), and “preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (12). Yet, there are three distinct responses to that singular gospel. Saul represents one response–hatred, opposition, and violence. Simon represents another–an opportunity to enrich and exalt self. The Samaritans represent yet another–faith, obedience, and rejoicing. It is incredible that this one message could elicit such diverse reactions from different people, but it still happens that way today.

Some are totally turned off by the message, others want to use it for personal means, and still others are deeply convicted by its truth and desire to follow it. Our job is not to judge who is or isn’t worthy recipients; instead, as they did in Acts 8, we are to spread it. It is still God’s power to save believers (Rom. 1:16). We leave that part to Him. Our part is to preach and proclaim it.