spiphywarfare

Category: Church

  • Asking AI to Assess a Threat

    This websites name came about as a result of a realization of how often spiritual warfare manifests itself in the physical realm. I think this post is a bit out of the norm for me here but fits in the overall theme. After seeing a couple of things in different locations about credible threats of terror attacks, I thought this might be a good thing for AI to look at. I asked if there was information about credible attacks on March 29, 2025. The results are below:

    Key Points

    • It seems likely that there is a credible terror threat to hospitals and potentially churches around March 29, 2025, based on recent intelligence reports.
    • The threat involves a planned attack using a vehicle bomb and armed assault, possibly timed with Eid al-Fitr on March 29-30, 2025.
    • Hospitals in mid-tier U.S. cities are the primary targets, with churches also mentioned as potential additional targets.
    • The evidence leans toward Islamic extremist groups, like ISIS, being responsible, with corroboration from multiple reliable sources.

    Threat Overview

    Recent intelligence suggests a credible terror threat targeting hospitals, with potential risks extending to churches, around March 29, 2025. This threat is reportedly linked to a coordinated attack involving a Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) followed by an armed assault, possibly aligning with Eid al-Fitr, a significant Islamic holiday on March 29-30, 2025. The primary targets are hospitals in mid-tier U.S. cities (population 100,000–1,000,000), but reconnaissance activities suggest additional soft targets, including churches, could be at risk.

    Source Credibility

    The information comes from Command Eleven, a legitimate intelligence and risk assessment firm, and is corroborated by a former CIA analyst, Sarah Adams, and multiple reliable sources. Health sector organizations, such as the American Hospital Association (AHA) and Health-ISAC, have also acknowledged similar threats and are coordinating with the FBI, adding weight to the credibility.

    Unexpected Detail

    An unexpected detail is the mention of social media posts observed on March 18, 2025, indicating active planning for multi-city attacks on hospitals, which health organizations are taking seriously despite the unusual public nature of such threats from terrorist groups.

    SuperFreq on X: “@AXactual I just received this email. The source is legit. https://t.co/oFs7qItjZE” / X

    Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of the Credible Threat to Hospitals and Churches on March 29, 2025

    This note provides a comprehensive analysis of the reported credible threat to hospitals and potentially churches around March 29, 2025, based on available intelligence and recent reports. The analysis aims to inform stakeholders, including the public, about the nature, credibility, and implications of the threat, ensuring a thorough understanding for preparedness and response.

    Background and Context

    On March 19, 2025, a report from Christian Warrior Training highlighted a credible terror threat, primarily targeting hospitals in mid-tier U.S. cities (population between 100,000 and 1,000,000). The timing of the threat is speculated to align with Eid al-Fitr, occurring on March 29-30, 2025, a period historically associated with increased terrorist activity by Islamic extremist groups. This report was further supported by observations from health sector organizations on March 18, 2025, as detailed in a joint bulletin by the American Hospital Association (AHA) and Health-ISAC (Health-ISAC).

    Threat Details

    The threat involves a sophisticated attack method, as outlined in the table below, based on the intelligence provided:

    AspectDetails
    TargetHospitals in mid-tier U.S. cities, with potential additional soft targets including churches
    Attack MethodVehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) detonation, followed by a coordinated armed assault with 5-10 attackers, potentially leading to a hostage situation
    TimingWithin the next three weeks from March 19, 2025, potentially aligning with Eid al-Fitr (March 29-30, 2025)
    Responsible GroupIslamic State (ISIS) expected to claim responsibility, with possible coordination from Al-Qaeda
    Threat LevelProbability of attack on a hospital: HIGHLY LIKELY (Imminent Threat)
    Indicators of AttackUnusual reconnaissance, increased extremist chatter, suspicious vehicle activity, unverified personnel

    The inclusion of churches as potential additional targets is based on historical calls by ISIS and Al-Qaeda for attacks on faith-based institutions, though specific details on church targeting were less explicit in the reports.

    Source Credibility and Corroboration

    The primary source, Command Eleven, is described as a vetted and legitimate intelligence and risk assessment firm. Their findings were corroborated by former CIA analyst Sarah Adams, who stated that similar intelligence emerged from Afghanistan-based terrorist training camps. Multiple reliable sources also backed Command Eleven’s claims, enhancing the credibility. Additionally, on March 18, 2025, the AHA and Health-ISAC observed a social media post related to the active planning of a coordinated, multi-city terrorist attack on hospitals, prompting them to issue a joint threat bulletin and coordinate with the FBI. This suggests a multi-source confirmation of the threat’s seriousness.

    Health Sector Response

    The AHA and Health-ISAC’s bulletin, published on March 20, 2025, noted that while no information was available to fully corroborate or discount the threat’s credibility at that time, the unusual public nature of the social media post warranted caution. They recommended that security teams review emergency management plans and spread awareness internally, indicating a proactive stance. The involvement of the FBI in this coordination, as mentioned in the bulletin, underscores the threat’s elevation to law enforcement attention.

    Historical Context and Risk Assessment

    Historical data suggests that Islamic extremist groups, particularly ISIS and Al-Qaeda, have targeted healthcare facilities and places of worship in the past, especially during significant religious periods. The DHS’s 2025 Homeland Threat Assessment, released on October 1, 2024 (DHS), indicated a high threat level from domestic and foreign terrorism, which aligns with the current reports. The mention of Eid al-Fitr as a potential trigger point is consistent with past patterns, where such holidays have been exploited for attacks.

    Implications for Churches

    While the primary focus is on hospitals, the intelligence report from Christian Warrior Training noted reconnaissance at multiple locations, suggesting additional soft targets like churches could be at risk. This is supported by historical instances, such as a 2023 arrest of a radicalized individual planning to attack a church in Ohio, as mentioned in a DHS bulletin from May 24, 2023 (DHS). The report recommends nationwide preparedness, emphasizing vigilance during church services and events, given the potential for overlap in targeting.

    Unexpected Observations

    An unexpected detail is the public nature of the threat, with a social media post observed on March 18, 2025, indicating active planning. Typically, foreign terrorist groups do not publicize upcoming attacks, which raises questions about the intent behind the post—whether it’s a genuine leak, a diversion, or an attempt to inspire copycat actions. This has led health organizations to take the threat seriously, despite the uncertainty, highlighting the evolving nature of terrorist communication strategies.

    Limitations and Uncertainties

    While the threat is deemed highly likely, there is no specific official statement from the FBI or DHS directly addressing this particular threat as of March 21, 2025. The lack of such a statement could indicate ongoing investigations or a decision to limit public disclosure to avoid panic or tip off potential attackers. The AHA and Health-ISAC bulletin also noted that at the time of their report, no information was available to fully corroborate or discount the threat’s credibility, adding a layer of uncertainty.

    Recommendations for Preparedness

    Based on the reports, recommended actions include:

    • Hospitals and churches conducting emergency drills and enhancing security measures.
    • Personnel verification and increased surveillance for unusual activities, such as reconnaissance or suspicious vehicle presence.
    • Coordination with local law enforcement for additional support and resources.
    • Community awareness campaigns to report suspicious behavior, leveraging resources like the DHS Prevention Resource Finder (DHS).

    This comprehensive approach aims to mitigate risks and ensure safety, given the imminent nature of the threat as assessed.

    Key Citations

  • Different Time, Same Tactics

    I’ve been slow-reading through Acts. I consider slow-reading somewhere between reading through and in-depth study. I’ve been in chapters 11-13 for a couple of days, and some things stuck out to me today.

    But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy, and they began to contradict what Paul was saying by reviling him. (Acts 13:45)

    I read that and thought, “Man, isn’t that the same thing religious leaders do today?” When someone saying something they don’t like starts gaining listeners, they become jealous. I’m thinking along the lines of Doug Wilson here.  I’ve seen this passage before and thought it was similar to today, but this time, it stuck out to me how they conradicted him. They didn’t challenge him through reason, they did it through reviling him. They did it through verbal abuse.

    That’s not the only similarity. In Acts 13:50, we see this:

    But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high social standing and the prominent men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and threw them out of their region.

    Seem familiar? The leaders stirred up women (of high social standing), and then the men began a persecution against Paul and Barnabas. I wouldn’t call myself “highly online,” but I would say I am more engaged in social media than many of my peers. There’s a phenomenon that occurs wherein a woman will come out and say something about a man, again, thinking Doug makes a good example, and the moment she is called out for an error she is surrounded by a flock of men, clucking at the objector and shaming them. It really is pathetic when you witness it.

    The words of Ecc 1:9 are true, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” They are true in our personal lives as well as the society around us. I plead with you, if you consider yourself a Christian, please, get into the Word of God that he has provided. Deception is strong at this point in human history.

    I do not know if this is the end or if we are still in the early church age, but The Father knows. I do know He is faithful. I do know we shouldn’t be fearful. I know that we should be wise as serpents. I pray we are.

    Stay safe. Stay healthy.

  • God + Country: Big Eva’s Collaboration with Those who Hate God

    I came across this draft I had started in late January 2024. I started it because names I’ve heard for years, including Russell Moore and David French, were in on it. Those guys have been names that people at my completely normal church have trusted. I would have listened to them, oh, five years ago. Sadly, many honest believers are still as in the dark today as I was in 2019. Anyway, on to Ye Olde Draft…

    If you’re a Christian and haven’t heard about Rob Riener’s film, God + Country, and the sinnanigans surrounding it, you aren’t paying attention. The film, to release soon, purports to be a documentary on the dangers of Christian Nationalism (CN).

    If you don’t know, Reiner’s an avowed atheist. An enemy of God. Why would supposed Christians team up with an enemy to attack other Christians? That’s not just rhetorical, I would challenge you to answer that, out loud, to yourself.

    I noted in 2020 that the growing chorus against CN seemed to be a term that would be used to attack people that hold normal CHristian values and I remain more convinced of that today. A couple of other thoughts from folks are below.

    My advice is that you not watch this movie, or that you watch it with discernment, because it will offer a look at what is coming for uncompromising Christians.

    EDIT: I’m glad to say that this movie was a complete failure and I pray to God that he emboldens his people and confounds the efforts of his enemies.

  • We Need to Stop S. 3589 

    We Need to Stop S. 3589 

    An interesting bill has been filed in the Senate, S. 3589, also known as the “Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act of 2024” aims to prohibit unauthorized private paramilitary activity in the United States. Sounds good right? We don’t necessarily want or need Wagner Group-style armies running around in the U.S. Or do we? 🤔 That’s another discussion for another time. What caught my eye while reading this was that Section 9 of this legislation includes an interesting definition, it incorporates a “security services unit” within the broader category of a “private paramilitary organization” (PMO). 

    The bill provides the following as the definition of a PMO: 

    This term encompasses any group of three or more persons who associate under a command structure. Their purpose is to function publicly or train to function publicly as a combat, combat support, law enforcement, or security services unit. 

    link to section

    Why That Matters 

    As a retired peace officer, I remember at times seeing how broadly written laws can be broadly and selectively enforced. That, combined with the need for churches, or any other organization for that matter, to be able to protect themselves in this society where violence is on the rise, caused me some concern. 

    Is Your Church Security Team a PMO? 

    Do you know if your church has a security team that trains to protect the congregation during services? Does it have a team lead or person considered “in charge” of it? Under the bill’s definition, this security team could be classified as a “private paramilitary organization” due to their structure and focus on security services. 

    Effects 

    Now, what could be the impact of this bill if this team acts during a service to neutralize a potential threat (such as an armed intruder)? If the bill becomes law, their actions might be considered “unauthorized private paramilitary activity” unless their activity has been sanctioned by federal or state authorities. 

    Despite their good intentions, and rightly honorable actions, the security team could face legal consequences. As written, this bill leaves open the possibility that they could be held liable for engaging in paramilitary activity without “proper authorization.” 

    Their training and commitment to protecting the congregation could lead to imprisonment if the law is strictly enforced as written now. A violation of the law that results in death carries this penalty, “the person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life.” Imagine the hero in the opening photo being sent to prison for his actions.

    Now, under exceptions we find the law does not apply to the U.S. Armed Forces, National Guard, state militias, military re-enactment organizations, veterans in a parade, and:

    “members of an organization that is authorized under Federal or State law to provide paramilitary, law enforcement, or security services training or to engage in paramilitary activity, law enforcement, or security services when performing the functions authorized by law and, in the case of paramilitary activity and law enforcement functions, when under the direction and control of a governmental authority [emphasis added].”

    I included this section because there has to be a specific reason for that emphasized language to be in there. Why would it specify that law enforcement members can only do that when under the “direction and control” of a governmental authority? Would the feds consider an off-duty officer providing security for a church, movie theater, a Quinceañera, etc. as being under the direction and control of a governmental authority? I “know” that they are, but this language making it explicit makes me wonder.

    The only halfway good thing about this bill is that it recognizes it’s limited by the Commerce Clause so if one can manage to outfit their team with all in-state equipment, including ammunition, it is of no effect at all. But I would urge people to contact the people in D.C. that are supposed to represent them and ask them to oppose this bill.

  • Unity, CN, and Body Parts Everywhere

    I sit here writing this wondering if it will actually ever get published or will it end up being another one of those countless posts that remains eternally in the draft stage. However, this has been weighing on me for several weeks now and writing is a form of catharsis for me, even if it is never shared. I wrote a little while back about whether or not I consider myself a Christian Nationalist. The answer there, as here, is, “it depends.” I don’t denounce it, because I see a time coming when the world will make it synonymous with “Christian” whether you like it or not. When that time comes, I don’t want to look back and have set myself up to have my own words used against me.

    That, however, is not the point of this post. In fact, while Christian Nationalism (CN) is what this article is about, it is, in reality, a secondary subject. The point of this post is that it seems to me those Christian brothers opposed to using the title “Christian Nationalism” seem to ignore large swaths of scripture based on what I’ve seen. Disclaimer, as my feelings about CN are not the point, neither is the point of this post to be a gotcha with receipts against specified people yet. The sole point is to remind brothers of scripture and unity.

    It occurred to me that perhaps the best start for this piece might be, “I, Derek, an unworthy believer but by grace a follower of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Church on Twitter/X, may grace and peace abound with, and between, each of you for the glory of God the Father.” However, it took very little thought to realize that would come across poorly to some. Nevertheless, the Church on Twitter is what has inspired this based on the division that is everywhere.

    I think it only fair here that I briefly comment on The Statement on Christian Nationalism, a draft statement that is the result of efforts by some supporters to come to a working definition of CN. The Statement has 20 articles. I’ll briefly put a list of them below and whether or not I support them:

    • Introduction – agree
    • Article I – agree
    • Article II – mostly agree
    • Article III – agree
    • Article IV – agree
    • Article V – agree but have some question on the last sentence in paragraph two
    • Article VI – mostly agree
    • Article VII – agree
    • Article VII – mostly agree
    • Article IX – Mostly agree (not sure what Psalm 104:15 is supporting there TBH)
    • Article X – agree
    • Article XI – Kind of agree. Too few words dedicated to something complex and important.
    • Article XII – agree
    • Article XIII – could agree depending on what “instruct” looks like
    • Article XIV – agreee
    • Article XV – agree
    • Article XVI – agree
    • Article XVII – agree
    • Article XVIII – agree but think “holy war” should be clarified as not referring to the spiritual realm
    • Article XIX – agree
    • Article XX – mostly agree

    The Actual Point

    God’s Word is full of admonitions to love other believers. It is full of warnings to us that we’re not nearly as smart or wise as we think we are. It provides cautionary words lest we wreck ourselves in our pride.

    Judging Believers & Unity

    We are called to be discerning and to call out those in unrepentant sin (Matthew 18:15-17) and to do it publicly if necessary. We are also to disassociate from those preaching “another gospel” (Galatians 1:8). But that is not the end of it. We’re instructed on other ways to relate to brothers in Christ.

    James 4:11-12 carries an admonition to not speak against on another. It also carries a pretty weighty warning that by judging a fellow believer, you are judging the law. That particular role is reserved for God alone. “Who are you to judge your neighbor” the writer asks. As I said, this is mainly directed to the Twitterverse but any time you start a Tweet with, “Oh, he’s a brother in Christ but…” I might suggest giving yourself some extra time to consider whether or not you are about to place yourself in the role of God.

    It’s a terrible look when one boldly declares some self-assured judgment on a brother whose faith is carried out soundly but differently than theirs. “Who are you?” We are asked this again in Romans 14:4. Who are you to judge another man’s servant? God is the judge, and He will determine whether a believer stands or falls. No number of degrees or initials beyond your name can ever qualify you to make that judgment. If it’s not another gospel but rather an implementation you’re uncomfortable with, reconsider public criticism.

    Body Parts Everywhere

    “For just as in one body we have many members” in Romans 12:4 should be a pretty good clue that your function in the kingdom may be much different than mine. If all you knew was the function of an eyeball and were shown a large toe for the first time, you’d have little useful to say about it and you certainly could not understand it. Why would the church be different?

    1 Corinthians 12:4-6 tells us there are different gifts, different ministries, and different results. Why should I expect my brother living out his obedience to Christ to look like mine? Perhaps, some of those who are already anti-Christian Nationalism are in fact, wrong. They could be right as far as I know. However, it’s obvious to me that they’re frequently attacking a version of it that is not the version espoused by the person on the receiving end of that attack. The wise thing to do when you do not understand something may be to hold your tongue, observe, and learn. There is, honestly, an even better reason not to attack CN advocates.

    Fighting with God

    If you’re opposed to CN, and you are attacking people who you also call brother (I’ve seen it), then please consider Jesus’ prayer in John 17. Our love for one another serves the purpose of informing the world that Jesus was sent by God. It’s an essential belief. Calling someone brother while calling them dangerous, wolves, or racist with no supporting information other than they claim the title of Christian Nationalist is not loving.

    I find myself thinking a lot about Gamalial who had to warn the rest of the right-thinking, acceptable religious elite of his day that if they are not careful, they may find themselves fighting with God. Every time I see someone condemn a CN supporter and they offer no scriptural basis or worse, they misrepresent them, I can’t help but wonder if they are fighting God. Woe to those people if it turns out that the forming CN movement is one that God intended.

    The fact that there were Nazis should not be used to condemn every person ever with German heritage. The fact that Westboro Baptist Church exists should not be used to condemn every church with the name Baptist on it. Likewise, the fact that some people under CN may have held objectionable views should not be used to condemn everything with CN on it.

  • How Very Arrogant

    Quote from an article at American Reformer. Is Rick Warren really this arrogant? Am I overreacting?

    Warren has made it plain he considers himself more of an asset to his denomination than his denomination is to him. “We don’t need the Southern Baptist Convention,” he recently told Christianity Today’s editor-in-chief, Russell Moore, during a podcast interview. “They need the 6000 Purpose-Driven churches that are in our fellowship.”

    I mean, I agree that Christ’s Church does not need the SBC. It doesn’t “Purpose Driven Churches” either.

    Christ is King.

    Not the SBC. Not Rick Warren.

  • Am I a Christian Nationalist?

    Christian Nationalism is all the (cause of) rage at the moment. I have to admit that from my view it seems (as in, it appears probable) that many use the term as a synonym for normal, run-of-the-mill Christianity. Some things I read on it make me think, “Yeps, I guess I’m a Christian Nationalist” while other things I read make me think, “If that’s Christian Nationalism, I’m definitely not one. I don’t know anyone who favors conversions at gunpoint.” So, in light of the fact that there is no agreed upon definition I offer the following.

    1. If thinking a nation and it’s people are best served when the government operates with principles and values that align with those laid out in scripture makes one a Christian Nationalist, then I suppose I am.

    2. If voting for candidates and policies that are more aligned with Christian values over and against those that oppose same values makes one a Christian Nationalist, then I am guilty again, and gladly so.

    3. If thinking that as far as your vote determines the direction of the nation, that voting for candidates dedicated to murder and perversion aligns one, and makes one complicit, with wickedness then, once again, I am a Christian Nationalist.

    4. If the ideal form of government forces conversion to Christianity (which it couldn’t really anyway) is what one means, then I am not a Christian Nationalist.

    5. If Christian Nationalism means non-believers are treated like second-class citizens then I cannot be counted among the Christian Nationalists.

    6. If Christian Nationalism includes an idea that the Church and Government are the same institution, or melded together in some form where one holds official power over the other, then I have to say I am not a Christian Nationalist.

    7. If Christian Nationalism involves thinking in terms of race (melanin count) for value of body, soul, or ideas, then I am not a Christian Nationalist.

    The problem I see increasingly is the attacking of items 1-3 and then when called on it, the same people stating they only meant for those that hold positions 4-6. This is a form of argument I first heard of listening to a James Lindsay video. This is why the more I read, the more apparent it becomes that for the vast majority, “Christian Nationalism” is only used to make their attacks on traditional Christianity more palatable.

    I’ll be updating this post as time goes on and this idea develops more.

    May 10, 2023 UPDATE. There isn’t really anything I’ve seen to change my mind on what I’ve written. It’s only been reinforced.

  • Report of Independent Investigation (SBC)

    Report of Independent Investigation (SBC)

    The Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee’s Response to Sexual Abuse Allegations and an Audit of the Procedures and Actions of the Credentials Committee

    With everything going on in the world, why would I choose to write about an investigation into the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)? Well, because it matters to me, that’s why.

    My background is in law enforcement, politics, and mental health. I’ve spent my life writing reports on observed behavior, criminal acts, and other incidents. I’ve also spent a large part of my life reviewing reports written by subordinates. In that time I’ve learned this, there are two types of reports: those that state the facts, and those that try to evoke a particular response from the reader.

    My education is in administration of criminal justice (law enforcement, courts, and corrections) and political science. I’ve spent my entire adult life working for various government agencies which were ultimately responsible to an elected official. Sometimes I’ve worked with that official daily, other times they would never have any idea who I was. I’ve sat in U.S. Senator’s offices for private meetings, discussed issues with state level senators and representatives, and helped direct the activities of both governmental and non-governmental organizations. I am keenly sensitive to the impact public perception has on an organization and how to bear that in mind so that to act in ways that benefit the organization.

    I’ve read thousands of pages of reports in my life. I’ve found that whether the report was a single paragraph, or hundreds of pages, it has to be read thoroughly before coming to any useful conclusion regarding it’s contents.

    Bias

    I spent several years working patrol. Before that, fresh out of high school I was a direct care worker at an inpatient psychiatric facility. To this day, I recall a doctor giving me the what-for as an 18-year-old after I inserted an opinion into a chart entry. Even though it was unpleasant, she was right. What she taught me has stayed with me. That served me well when I moved into law enforcement. The goal of every report I wrote was to state the facts and nothing but the facts. If a simple statement of the facts didn’t lead the reader, whether juror or prosecutor, to think a crime had been committed, then maybe I was in error and the accused needed to be freed.

    Bias, as I showed at a young age when I said a patient “was angry” can show up in reports for two reasons in my experience. First, it can show as a unintentional bias. For example when a young, lazy kid writes, “the patient was angry” instead of taking the time to describe the actual observable behavior that will allow the reader to come to the conclusion the patient was angry. Second, it shows up when the writer uses words that are intended to evoke a certain response from the reader, usually through emotional appeals.

    The Report

    The first thing I wanted to do with this report was what I would do with any other. Is there bias in the report? If so, does it appear to be intentional or could it be unintentional? If it is intentional, what is it the writer wants you to conclude and why? If it isn’t (which is mostly okay), how could it influence your final conclusion and how, or even should, you counteract that bias.

    I said it also shows up in words intended to evoke a response. Consider the two following sentences, the first of which is from the report. Look at the missing words and consider that they are there to make you feel a certain way about the facts being presented.

    • Finally, at the 2021 Nashville Convention, calls for reform reached a crescendo – the Messengers overwhelmingly voted to approve a Task Force to supervise an independent investigation into the EC’s handling of sexual abuse allegations.
    • At the 2021 Nashville Convention, the Messengers voted to approve a Task Force to supervise an independent investigation into the EC’s handling of sexual abuse allegations.

    What additional facts did you get from those words that are not in the second sentence? “Overwhelmingly” is a characterization of a vote outcome rather than stating, “by a 5:1 margin” or some such. The others seem obvious so I won’t worry about them here.

    I use the phrase “does it appear” above when talking about bias because I cannot conclude if bias is intentional or not most of the time. One can conclude it is intentional when any other conclusion beggars belief. That said, there is bias in this report. For instance, their initial contact letters with witnesses explained that interviewees would be allowed to “express their opinions as to how the SBC can create a safer community going forward” (p. 24). Before they began their interviews, they were predisposed to thinking the SBC was unsafe. That doesn’t mean it was, it just points out that they went in expecting to find things wrong.

    Expectations are like that: They make us see the falsies that aren’t there. Decades of research have proven that expectation is a powerful force. It acts on our perceptions much as gravity acts on light, bending them in ways that are measurable by others, but, at least to us, imperceptible. 

    Psychology Today

    So they were biased. What else stood out about the report? Guidepost put a decent amount of effort into laying out the methodology they used in conducting this investigation. My opinion? Their methods were sound. By sound I mean I think they seem to have been thorough in trying to contact people they needed to interview, covering all the relevant areas of concern, and their comprehensive document review.

    A couple of the abuse stories they took pages to lay out were simply not believable. By that I don’t mean I believe nothing happened, just I believe it sounded more like adultery than sexual assault or someone molesting another person. Two issues with that: 1) the thing about using words and phrases that don’t appear in the Bible but are intended to bring to mind rape and molestation are dishonest, and 2) if you portray a willing party to adultery as a victim, and tell them they are a victim, the chance of them asking forgiveness is nil. It is an unloving lie to do such a thing.

    My Opinion

    There are two types of reports organizations generate, factual and persuasive. This was definitely a persuasive report. For me it was mostly a fail in that area as they did not focus as much on solid cases where convicted sex offenders were in the pulpit. They seemed more interested in persuading the reader that certain specific cases were sexual abuse. Either way, the outcome for me was still the same though maybe not for the reason they wanted.

    Here’s the thing, as I said, I’ve worked for, with, and around elected officials and others who work for them and I can recognize politics when I see it. As I read the report what stuck out to me was the lack of concern for victims AND for anyone falsely accused. The sole focus was on, when you get down to it, “How do we keep our power and position in light of these allegations?” That is what struck me. Zero concern for getting at the truth which as Christians they know “will set you free.”

    In the end, anything with allegations of criminal activity should be immediately referred to law enforcement. Anything short of criminal allegations but still sinful should be investigated thoroughly so the truth can be found and acted on according to Biblical principles. That is not what happened here and that is very disappointing.

    The events and behaviors on display at the recent SBC Convention in Anaheim, CA don’t give me any hope that the national leadership is anything but political.

  • Should I Stay or Should I go Now – Part II

    Earlier this week I made a post where I had laid out my frustration with the SBC (national organization) and how much some of the goings-on bothered me, especially in light of the faithfulness of so many people who actually fund them. My intent walking in that morning was that it would be my last morning there, not because of anyone there or concerns with that congregation, but because of the national organization.

    Our pastor was on a much needed vacation so that morning we had a message from a man that had previously been on staff. I had always enjoyed his teaching. He took 2 Samuel 2:12-28 and talked about conflict. It was a sermon I needed to hear.

    Some of the points made that I needed to hear:

    • All parties involved in a conflict are sinners and we need to remember that even when on the right side of a conflict, we bring our sinfulness into the conflict.
    • Both sides, like Abner and Joab, can think what they are doing is right.
    • At some point, we should stop pursuing the conflict.
    • You should still be experiencing the fruit of the spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) in the midst of conflict.

    It was the last point that really got my attention. I’ve been conflicted about all of this and had definitely not experienced fruit of the spirit in regards to this for a while. I spent this week meditating on this passage. I decided not to leave like I intended. I won’t leave the people I love, and that have loved me and my family for so many years, wondering what happened.

    I will end up leaving if things don’t change. But I will leave in peace and sadness, not frustration. And when I do, I will stop pursuing the conflict. My intent had been to sit outside of anything related to the SBC and do everything I can to expose it. Instead, I think when the day comes I want to shake my head and never think about it again (if possible).

    The events in Anaheim in the middle of next month will probably be a pretty good indication of what direction the SBC is going to take. We can see then if looks like they will continue to take money from widows, and use it to teach seminary students that those same widows faithfulness and orthodoxy is a “rotting corpse of white supremacy.”

  • Should I Stay or Should I go Now

    I walked into church this morning. Just like I have so many other mornings for the past 40 years. Same parking area. Same building. I can’t say same pew because I’m one of the few Baptist who don’t hold to the Covenant of Assigned Seating. But I walked in with a heaviness that I’d never walked in with before.

    I’ve missed services in the past when I knew my spirit wasn’t right. If I’m off-kilter and can’t get right through prayer before service, I would rather stay home to read and/or pray than bring a disruptive spirit into worship.

    This day was different though. It was different because it was just being there that was causing this heaviness. My intent was to walk through those doors, worship with my brothers and sisters, and walk out of them for the last time. Ever.

    I sat in a pew near the back, giving me a good view of the sanctuary. It was near the door and I only greeted a few people walking in. I looked around and saw no less than two dozen people that had known me for forty years. People who had watched me struggle. People I had let down. People who loved me. Even more, there were people in that building who had known me since preschool. Only a handful but they were there.

    Sitting there brought mixed feelings about my intentions. How could I walk away from this group of saints? I loved every one of the familiar faces, not just the ones I’ve known for many decades. These are my people. Yet, at the same time, my intentions were being solidified. As I looked around, I knew so many of these were not just warming a pew. They were giving of their hard-earned money or time, or both. They were investing in the church.

    In turn, the church was investing in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

    It always has as far as I know. I’d always felt a bit of pride (I know I shouldn’t have) going to a Southern Baptist Church. I felt it because in my experience we were looked down on a little bit for being too concerned with what scripture says and being a little too dedicated in our lives. As a teen and a young adult, when someone asked where I went to church, my response was often met with, “Oh.” As if to say any further conversation was unnecessary. That was especially true when Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses wanted to strike up a conversation.

    Sadly, it isn’t that way anymore. I’ve been watching the SBC fall prey to worldly ideologies for a few years now. It’s been happening for far longer than that. It is disheartening to watch people I love strive together for Christ not knowing that they are giving to an organization that is working against them.

    The latest for me, and possibly the nail in the coffin, is over abortion. The position of the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission (ERLC is funded by Cooperative Program dollars), the position of Bart Barber (SBC President nominee), and many others is that with Roe v Wade likely being overturned, states need to slow their roll on how they proceed on this issue. They, and many other “pro-lifers” have revealed themselves as who they are in a letter to all state legislatures in this country. For the record, Barber is not a signatory but his position aligns.

    Women are victims of abortion and require our compassion and support as well as ready access to counseling and social services in the days, weeks, months, and years following an abortion.

    As national and state pro-life organizations, representing tens of millions of pro-life men, women, and children across the country, let us be clear: We state unequivocally that we do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women and we stand firmly opposed to include such penalties in legislation.

    https://www.nrlc.org/uploads/communications/051222coalitionlettertostates.pdf

    They “firmly oppose” any effort to criminalize or punish women who have abortions. Their position would be that the woman who killed her newborn immediately after birth, should be fine (legally) if only she had gone to an abortionist the day before. I doubt any of them would, at least openly, support the woman in this case not being prosecuted. But they oppose any law that would punish her for killing her child the day before. What is the difference? Location, location, location.

    When I see people having to use close to 1,100 words, or just over 1,400 words to explain why their position makes sense, I tend to expect Olympic quality verbal gymnastics. The links above didn’t let me down. They could state a clear, consistent, and concise position that allows for the off-cases like Barber’s position points out. It could be <thirty words:

    Women voluntarily participating in aborting their child should be prosecuted as any other suspect and should have the same access to consideration of exigent circumstances as any other defendant.

    Me

    I’m not sure how to process this as anything other than deception.

    It angers me to know that so many of these people I love are unaware of where their money is going and what it is supporting.

    End of Part 1.