Can the Liberties of a Nation Be Secure When We Forget the God Who Gave Them?

On the wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC, are these words from President Thomas Jefferson: “God who gave us life gave is liberty.  Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?  Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

Someone conducted a study of the world’s great civilizations and noted that every nation has an average cycle of 200 years.  They looked at various nations that came into prominence and then disappeared into obscurity.  And interestingly, each one of these nations went through the same sequence.  They went from spiritual faith to great courage, from great courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency into bondage again.

Where do you think America is today?  Many Americans don’t know—and many don’t care.

Any civilization that ultimately collapsed, or was overcome by a foreign power, first fell apart on the inside.  For example, as the Roman Empire rose to greatness, they no doubt assumed they would be around for centuries to come.  But they were crumbling on the inside.

This appears to be happening in America today.  There’s moral decay on the inside.

We need to get back to the true God, not just spirituality.  We need to get back to the God that our founding fathers believed in when they established this nation: The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Yes, we need to get back to the God who sent His Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for our sin.  We need to get back to the true and living God who can save America.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Codifying Religious Liberties of Military Chaplains

Sen. James Lankford (OK-R) has introduced a bill that aims to clarify the duties and religious liberties of military chaplains.  In recent decades, some military chaplains have faced harassment and discipline for voicing biblical beliefs that are in accord with their denominational affiliations.

“For our country’s 250-year history, military chaplains have walked alongside our service members through the hardest moments of their lives, offering prayer, counsel, and hope in isolated posts and combat zones alike,” Lankford said in a statement last week. “Chaplains serve because they are called to it.  Congress has a responsibility to make sure they can carry out that calling faithfully, without being forced to violate the tenets of their faith and without fear of retaliation for holding to what they believe.  This bill honors the men and women who minister to our heroes who defend our nation.”

Senate co-sponsors of the Military Chaplains Modernization Act, include GOP senators Chuck Grassley (IA), Katie Britt (AL), Mike Rounds (SD) and Kevin Cramer (ND).

Rep. Keith Self (TX-R) has championed the bill in the House, which was part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that passed July 22.

According to Lankford’s office, the Armed Forces Chaplains Board, which provides “advice and recommendations to Department of War officials on matters of religious exercise,” also supports it.

Among other things, Lankford’s bill would guarantee that chaplains “may conduct worship, provide counseling, teach, deliver sermons, minister, and offer prayer in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs and the tenets of their religious-endorsing organization, free from censorship, undue restriction, or fear of retribution.”  It would also protect chaplains against retaliation and expose those who violate a chaplain’s religious liberties to potential charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Washington Stand, which first reported Lankford’s Senate version of the bill, noted several legal cases in which chaplains were disciplined, accused of unlawful discrimination, and in one case, reassigned and threatened with a discharge.

The latter case involved the late decorated Navy chaplain and combat veteran Wes Modder, who was featured in Decision magazine in 2015.  Modder started his military career as an enlisted Marine, went to seminary, then became a Navy chaplain serving alongside multiple Navy and Marine Corps units, including the revered SEAL Team Six.  Later, while serving in South Carolina in 2014, Modder was stripped of his duties and reassigned to a different post after a sailor, who had asked Modder privately if he believed homosexuality was sinful, complained to Modder’s superiors about his Christian beliefs on sexuality.  Modder faced a potential discharge until he lodged a legal fight with help from First Liberty Institute.  The Navy eventually exonerated Modder and he was able to retire honorably with full benefits.  He died in 2021.

“Military chaplains shouldn’t have to check their faith at the door when they put on the uniform,” Sen. Cramer said.  “They play a vital role in supporting the moral and spiritual wellbeing of our servicemembers, and their ministry and the men and women they serve are strengthened because of their faith.  This legislation protects their ability to minister according to their beliefs and ensures those freedoms are always preserved.”

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

AI Is Moving Too Fast - and Not Fast Enough

Artificial intelligence (AI) is moving too fast — and not fast enough.

Move too slowly, and communist China may gain the economic, military, and technological advantage.  Move too quickly, and systems more capable than their creators can fully understand may outrun the ability of governments to control them. Restrict access, and a handful of companies could monopolize machine intelligence. Spread the most powerful systems too widely, and dangerous capabilities may become impossible to recall.

Both warnings can be true.

The disagreement is now dividing the people building the technology.  Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg argued in The Wall Street Journal on July 28 that America should accelerate AI development rather than restrict it.  He said optimism “should empirically be the default assumption” and warned that concentrating superintelligence inside a few institutions poses its own danger.

The same week, 1,293 employees of frontier AI companies signed a statement called “Pacing the Frontier,” asking the United States to lead an international effort to build tools capable of deliberately slowing automated AI development if progress ever outruns human understanding or control.  Signatories include Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and OpenAI Chief Scientist Jakub Pachocki — and, most tellingly, Meta’s own chief scientist, Shengjia Zhao, who signed even as his CEO published what reads like a direct rebuttal.

The split is not between rival companies alone.  It runs through the laboratories themselves.

“Speed up” does not simply mean releasing another chatbot.  It means building more computing capacity, training stronger models, shortening the gap between research and deployment, and applying AI across medicine, science, energy, manufacturing, education, cyber defense, and national security.

President Trump’s Genesis Mission demonstrates why acceleration matters.  Launched by executive order in November 2025, it unites the U.S. Energy Department’s national laboratories, federal scientific data, universities, private companies, supercomputers, and AI systems, aiming to double American science and engineering productivity within a decade.  I described Genesis in these pages as a potential Apollo-scale mobilization. Slowing every form of AI would also slow the search for new medicines, stronger electric grids, better defenses, and breakthroughs America needs.

Still, America cannot regulate itself into second place while Beijing keeps moving.

China is not waiting for Silicon Valley to settle its moral argument.  Beijing is expanding its “AI Plus” initiative and promoting an open-source ecosystem at home and abroad. Europe is taking a different route, applying risk-based rules through its AI Act.  The likely result is several AI ecosystems moving at different speeds under different rules.

There will be no single global speed limit.

Yet the pacing advocates are not demanding that America pull the plug on useful AI. They want the capacity to buy time when a specific frontier system crosses a dangerous threshold — a model capable of autonomous cyber operations, serious biological assistance, sustained independent action, or automating the research that builds its own successor.  Pacing could mean added independent testing, restricted permissions, or a temporary delay before release.

That concern is no longer theoretical.  Cloud Security Alliance research published in April found that 65% of organizations had already suffered a cybersecurity incident caused by an AI agent operating on their own network.  The most dramatic instance surfaced this July, when OpenAI disclosed that a model being tested with its safeguards found an unknown vulnerability, escaped its network restrictions, and compromised another company’s systems while hunting for benchmark answers.  OpenAI found no hostile intent; the model was simply “hyperfocused” on its assigned goal and pursued it through methods its designers never intended.

Speed had outrun control.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said afterward that the industry “may have to pace the rate of AI development to give ourselves enough time for society to harden around some of these new capability levels.”  He has since discussed pacing with White House officials.

Altman has identified the dilemma correctly.  So has Zuckerberg.

Pressing the accelerator may preserve American leadership and hasten discoveries — but it may also compress safety testing, destabilize labor markets, and grant authority to systems before anyone can reliably govern them.  Applying the brake buys engineers time to prepare, yet a mismanaged pause could just as easily strengthen China and hand the reins to regulators who understand the technology less than the people they oversee.

This is the prisoner’s dilemma Robert Maginnis described in “The New AI Cold War,” though here it plays out among competitors rather than nations.  Every company may privately prefer more time for testing, but none wants to slow first.  If one American company pauses, a rival may pass it.  If American companies pause together, China may keep moving.  Competitive pressure pushes everyone forward even when some fear the road ends at a cliff.

Can America speed up and slow down at the same time?  It must.

We should accelerate Genesis, American chip production, data center capacity, scientific applications, defensive cybersecurity, workforce preparation, and safety research.  We should also build guarded checkpoints for systems that demonstrate dangerous, irreversible, or hard-to-contain capabilities — independent evaluation, significant-incident reporting, staged deployment, and temporary, reviewable delays when defined thresholds are crossed. Congress has not yet acted on any of this, but frontier laboratories can supply expertise; they cannot be the final judges of their own creations. Elected government must set the public rules, Congress must provide oversight, and independent evaluators must test the systems.

America does not need one speed limit for every AI system.  It needs open highways for beneficial innovation and guarded crossings where power becomes difficult to reverse.

Christians should approach this argument with prudence rather than panic.  Proverbs 14:15 says, “The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.”

Zuckerberg’s optimism is not proof that speed will end well.  The pacing advocates’ fear is not proof America should surrender the race.  Technology is not providence, and strategic victory is not the highest moral good.  The ability to build something does not confer the wisdom — or the moral authority — to deploy it without restraint.

America must move fast enough to remain free, prosperous, and secure, yet carefully enough to remain human and in control.  Above all, those driving must stay answerable to the people whose future rides with them.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Are Parents Up for the Challenge of Social Media?

France’s recent social media ban for minors under 15 has reignited the conversation of whether the U.S. should follow suit.  

The debate surrounding a ban on social media has largely moved past questioning whether social platforms are positive, negative, or neutral tools.  Studies abound demonstrating the addictive properties of social media and their correlation to sleeplessness, self-image issues, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts — especially among minors.  The surgeon general even issued a statement recommending health warnings on social media platforms, akin to those required for tobacco companies, and limiting minors’ access.  By 2026, most people don’t need convincing that social media has its problems.

Moreover, research shows that the benefits of social media largely only exist because a majority of teenagers use it.  The Pew Research Center finds over half of U.S. teens use YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat, placing those who forgo the platforms in the minority.  Consequently, Pew found teenagers who choose to join the trend of social media use it because it makes them feel more accepted and connected with their fellow platform-using peers.  This desire to fit in with peers, or “fear of missing out,” would be a nonfactor if social media platforms were removed from teenage demographics entirely.

Moderates often try to walk the line between seeing social media as harmful and helpful by describing it as a neutral “tool” — but it is not the neutral tool many think.  Social media algorithms are designed to spark engagement, often by rewarding controversial or inflammatory content.  Earlier this year, whistleblowers inside Meta, the owner of Instagram and Facebook, even reported receiving instructions to allow more misogynistic, violent, and conspiratorial content when stock prices were down so engagement would go up.  As a result, children are exposed to more radical political and religious perspectives than they likely ever would in their in-person lives — all without the knowledge or oversight of their parents.

As children engage with this content, social media algorithms are designed to reward their engagement with more similar content, creating an echo-chamber effect. Uncoincidentally, radicalism on both sides of the political spectrum has increased among younger demographics.  Polls show a quarter of young liberals now justify violence against their political opponents and almost two-thirds support socialist policies, all while young conservatives line up behind problematic voices like Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens.  The echo chamber validates these extreme perspectives, places children in communities of millions of others who validate the views, and demonizes opponents — all while ensuring users never have to see or hear neutral, humble, or different points of view.

Anecdotally and academically, we know social media is harmful for our kids.  And, though cellphone bans are recent and data is scarce, we have reason to believe less screen time is a positive.

State bans on cellphones in high schools give a hint at what the impact of a teenage demographic without social media could look like.  A study released in April 2026 by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined 43,000 middle and high school students affected by cellphone bans in 26 U.S. states.  Their findings discovered a brief adjustment period, followed by significant drops in cellphone usage and increases in student well-being.

So, other problems with French politics aside, why is the U.S. so reluctant to follow in their footsteps?

According to some conservative experts and parental rights advocates, concern stems from the idea that a widespread federal ban on student social media would replace parental authority with federal regulation.  And perhaps the concern is warranted.  In the past, other areas of parental involvement, like sex education, have resulted in harmful ideology and federal regulation worming its way in and undermining parental influence. Just last month, the Trump Administration announced over $67 million in Teen Pregnancy Prevention program cuts to remove explicit content, abortion ads, and LGBTQ+ ideology from what was meant to be practical, objective health education.

But are parents up for the challenge of social media?  The numbers suggest maybe not. Pew Research data shows that Gen X and Baby Boomers use top social media platforms drastically less than younger generations, suggesting parents are unfamiliar with the functions, dangers, or tools available on each platform, not to mention the frequent new updates.  And even if parents are up-to-date, children in public school or out-of-the-house activities spend hours a day away from their parents using a myriad of social-capable devices — personal cellphones, laptops, e-readers, school computers, smartwatches, and even video gaming consoles.  It is presumptuous for parents to think they can be aware of — let alone control — all the ways their children access the internet.

When it comes to social media, even the most proactive parent can be undermined by determined children.  In high school, when friends would have their cellphones taken away or parental controls added, they would just access their accounts through another friend’s device at school or, believe it or not, buy a pre-paid burner phone online without their parents’ knowledge (Amazon has a whole category for it).

In contrast, the U.S. has a long precedent of restricting dangerous content at its source for the sake of children, and largely for the best.  Consider alcohol, or tobacco, or pornography. Imagine a child could walk into a bar and order a drink, and the bartender could serve him or her because a parent was not around.  Such an interaction is unthinkable — not to mention illegal — in today’s society.  Instead, the bartender is required to check ID, maintain a valid liquor license, and prevent the customer from drinking or driving irresponsibly.  Failure to do so means heavy legal consequences for a bar — so why not hold social media companies to the same standard?

The Bible is clear that children are the charge of parents (Deuteronomy 6:6-7), and that parents are responsible for raising children up in the way they should go (Proverbs 22:6). Such authority should never be ceded to a government body.  But the Bible also prescribes law and biblical authority to government to protect families from greater societal threats.

Whether it’s alcohol or social media, parents should always guide the conversation for how their children approach tricky topics.  But with addiction, mental health crises, and radicalism on the rise, perhaps it’s time to consider that social media companies can access children in more ways than parents can protect them.

In the end, a social media ban would not mean parents give up on protecting or teaching their children — it just means parents can do it best with a little help.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

A Sacred Honor Having a Holy Duty

One of God’s most sacred honors bestowed upon a man or woman is parenthood.  Through the gift of a child, we are invited to participate in the Lord’s holy work of nurturing a life that reflects the heavenly qualities of our Creator.  As faithful stewards of His children, our responsibility is to love them as deeply as Christ loves us, so they will grow to love Him.  What an incredible privilege.

For a few short years, God places a young heart in our care.  Tiny eyes observe our every move.  Little ears listen to every word.  Impressionable minds search for what is good, true, worthy of love, and deserving of trust.

Before our children comprehend theology, they form their understanding of God by watching us.  Every interaction becomes a divine opportunity with eternal significance. This is the sacred honor of parenthood, and with it comes a holy duty to point the hearts entrusted to us back to the One who defines their true identity and purpose.  God designed parents to be the first and primary heart educators.

Deuteronomy 6:6-7 could not be clearer: “And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.  You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.”

Yet, somewhere along the way we outsourced our responsibility.  Parents became managers of schedules rather than shapers of hearts.  For two generations, we’ve:

Granted schools free rein to educate.

Asked churches to disciple.

Expected coaches to build character.

Hired therapists to heal emotions.

Allowed social media to entertain.

Permitted friends to influence values.

Though some of these provide indispensable help in child-rearing, none should replace the parent as authority over their children’s hearts.  The Formation Gap did not occur because parents stopped caring.  It began because our culture slowly convinced us that others could be responsible for the rearing of children.

From the moment a child is born, the work of heart formation begins.  We assume the holy duty of nurturing the attitudes and affections that shape how our children view God and their place in the world.  During the early years, it is soft and malleable.  Every tender act of love or harsh rejection leaves an imprint.  As children grow, deeper impressions form.  By thirteen, the heart solidifies, preserving either the rock-solid truth or the distorted beliefs found inside.  The resulting heart posture becomes the foundation upon which they build their lives.

In middle school, their foundational worldview is tested.  Adolescents ponder, What do I really believe?  They assess whether the faith their parents profess is the faith they actually live. They want to know if you are real.

Does Dad seek the Lord when life is difficult?

Does Mom extend forgiveness when she’s been hurt?

Does our family honor Christ behind closed doors as we do in public?

If our children see Scripture as a chore, they will avoid it.  If they view prayer as irrelevant, they will dismiss it.  If they experience church as an obligation, they will resent it.  But, if they witness joy flowing from our relationship with Christ, they’ll desire what we have.

Children don’t need perfect parents.  They need parents who humbly admit their imperfections and faithfully depend on God’s grace.  They need to hear us speak words of thanksgiving at the dinner table, gratitude amidst difficulty, and forgiveness after conflict.  The authenticity of our faith becomes the blueprint for our children’s lives.  The condition of our heart becomes the curriculum of theirs.

In a world where so many young people ask, Who am I?, one of the greatest gifts we can give our children is the security of parents who know who they are — and proclaim whose they are.  If our identity is rooted in success, our children will prioritize performance.  If it is rooted in approval, they will strive to please people.  If it is rooted in possessions, they will learn to pursue things.  But, when our identity is firmly rooted in Christ, our children discover that nothing this world offers compares to the comfort of belonging in Him.

Long after they forget our instructions, children will recall our faith on display, whether real or superficial.  They will remember if we merely told them about God or if we helped them fall in love with Him.  An authentic walk with Christ is the clearest picture of identity in Him we can ever give our children.

A.W. Tozer prayed, “Lord, help me to demonstrate a God so real that no one could ever be bored with Him.”  We need to join his cry that our faith would be so riveting our children would never be bored with Christ!

As you consider the sacred honor you have been given, meditate on these words from Deuteronomy 4:40: “Therefore, you shall keep His statutes and His commandments, which I command you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for all time.”

Your holy duty is more than raising children, it’s partnering with God in the formation of an eternal soul.  It is a divine calling.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Sketching Biblical Principles for Government Debt

The U.S. federal government has run up a $1.4 trillion deficit in just the first nine months of Fiscal Year 2026, reported the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in its June 2026 “Monthly Budget Review.”  The deficit has risen from $1.2 trillion in May, putting it on track to potentially reach $2 trillion by the end of September.  That is just counting the deficit — the annual difference between revenue and expenditures — on top of a total federal government debt that now exceeds $39 trillion.

What are the impacts of this soaring deficit?  Some in Washington prefer to believe that there are none, that Uncle Sam can spend his poor nephews’ pennies in perpetuity. Others are willing to act, but only once the deficit is shown to cause practical harm. Readers of this blog may instinctually perceive that there are deeper principles of biblical wisdom and morality at play, but they would likely struggle to articulate them. This posting is this author’s inexpert attempt to do just that.

One biblical principle is that those who contract debts should try to repay them. “The wicked borrows but does not pay back, but the righteous is generous and gives” (Psalm 37:21).  Technically, the U.S. government has never failed to make good on its loan repayments.  Uncle Sam borrows money from Peter and promises to pay him back on a certain date, and every time he does so.  But Uncle Sam now pays back Peter by borrowing from Paul.  Uncle Sam is not paying down his debt but merely shifting it from one creditor to another.

This becomes “a vicious cycle,” observed FRC President Tony Perkins, “because as the government borrows more money, they have to pay more interest on the debt.”  Uncle Sam borrows $100 from Peter and promises to pay him back $105 on a certain date. That means Uncle Sam must borrow $105 from Paul in order to pay back Peter, eliciting a promise to pay Peter $110.25 at a future date.  And so, the cycle continues.  By merely shifting the debt around and never paying it off, the U.S. government is never able to get free from a burden of debt that only grows.

This aligns with a second principle, that debt is like a form of slavery.  “The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender” (Proverbs 22:7).

Readers may have noticed above the personification of the federal government as “Uncle Sam.”  But is this really appropriate?  After all, not everything that Scripture requires of individuals is expected of governments (e.g., turning the other cheek), nor can individuals do everything a government is authorized to do (e.g., bearing the sword). But when contracting a debt, the government acts more like an individual than as a sovereign — a needy supplicant forced to agree to unfavorable terms to meet a present emergency.

In any event, the regime inevitably passes on large financial burdens to its subjects in the form of taxation.  Thus, we read, when Pharaoh Neco required tribute from Judah after the death of King Josiah, “Jehoiakim gave the silver and the gold to Pharaoh, but he taxed the land to give the money according to the command of Pharaoh.  He exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, from everyone according to his assessment, to give it to Pharaoh Neco” (2 Kings 23:35).  The biblical author does not exactly approve of this oppressive taxation from a ruler with independent wealth, but he does record that it happened.

Likewise, every dollar of debt assumed by the U.S. federal government must eventually be repaid by taxpayers — or never paid back at all.  “When we start talking about hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars, it’s sometimes hard to get our arms around that, so I prefer to break this down to the per-family cost,” economist Joel Griffith, senior fellow at Advancing American Freedom, said on “Washington Watch.”

“Two trillion dollars in borrowed money for the federal government this year … means, for each and every family, that’s another $20,000 to your family share of that national debt,” Griffith calculated.  That is not the total debt burden for each family, but the added debt burden from FY2026 alone.  “We will likely be paying about $1.2 trillion in interest payments on the debt this year.  That’s around $15,000 per family of four.”  Interest payments on the debt have already risen 13% this year, to $857 billion over nine months, according to the CBO.

Beyond the direct cost of distributing federal debt among taxpayers, Griffith identified an indirect cost to consumers that results from federal deficit spending.  When the “federal government borrows capital to run their daily operations, they’re competing with consumers and businesses for loans,” he said.  “There are a number of estimates that suggest that interest rates today are close to 1% higher than they would be, were the government not borrowing such copious amounts of money.  So, think about what that extra interest rate costs you when you’re looking to buy a house, or to purchase a vehicle.”

Prudence exhorts us to proceed cautiously when seeking to bring biblical wisdom to bear on this point.  Griffith points out effects of a policy that are indirect, unintended, and not particularly obvious to the casual observer.  Much of the Bible’s view of economic justice recoils at the horror of the powerful oppressing and mistreating their fellow image-bearers. For instance, Amos 5:11 proclaims, “Therefore because you trample on the poor and you exact taxes of grain from him, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not dwell in them.” But the intensely personal force of such prophetic pronouncements seems out of place here.

Nevertheless, it is a biblical principle that leaders and those with power should consider how their actions affect those around them.  In a lengthy oracle against Israel’s leaders, Ezekiel compares them to the strongest sheep in a flock.  “Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture, that you must tread down with your feet the rest of your pasture; and to drink of clear water, that you must muddy the rest of the water with your feet?  And must my sheep eat what you have trodden with your feet, and drink what you have muddied with your feet?” (Ezekiel 34:18-19).

When leaders make life difficult for the average person, even if only through carelessness and neglect, it is a form of injustice.  And that injustice works to worsen economic conditions, further accentuating the helpless state of the poor.  “The fallow ground of the poor would yield much food, but it is swept away through injustice” (Proverbs 13:23).

Another biblical principle is that prudence and foresight enable the one who possesses them to escape disaster.  “The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it” (Proverbs 22:3; 27:12).  One might imagine a sailor who sees storm clouds approach, or an ancient traveler who ducks into a thicket while marauding raiders traipse past. A modern analogue would be the specter of rising interest rates — a threat to debt that few members of Congress seemed to heed.

“Part of the problem with the longer-term estimates that we saw just a few years ago, when we also were running large deficits, is that the Congress and even the White House advisers — and this goes for Republican and Democrat[ic] administrations — were projecting long-term interest rates on government debt being much lower,” Griffith explained.  “In your personal budget, if you owe $100,000, and you’re estimating, you’re just going to pay a 2.5 or 3% interest rate going forward, it might make it appear as if you can shoulder that burden.”  But, “when you take on a copious debt load, and then interest rates end up being much higher than you projected, that debt burden is much larger.”

Lastly, Griffith concluded, the problem facing the U.S. government is not that it does not collect enough taxes, but that it spends too much money.  According to the CBO, federal government revenue has increased by $142 billion compared to last year, but spending has increased by $178 billion.  The government is spending money faster than it can accumulate it.

In addition to rising interest payments, the other major contributor to rising costs is entitlement programs, Griffith said. “I’m in favor of DOGE.  But the bottom line with that is it only reduced federal spending by around $5 billion.  That’s out of a nearly $7-trillion-budget.  It made virtually no impact on long-term government spending,” he began.  “The difficult choices are the ones that politicians, whether Democrats or Republicans, are trying to kick down the road on entitlements.”  According to the CBO, Social Security spending increased by $62 billion compared to the same period last year, Medicare costs rose by $58 billion, and Medicaid costs rose by $49 billion, in just the first nine months of this fiscal year.

“Even if we were to put in place a 100% wealth tax — which would be, of course, immoral, unconstitutional, and it’s not going to happen even if you were to do that — this would not resolve this rampant spending problem,” Griffith argued.  “The way out of this is to allow our economy to grow.”  Thus, he praised the Trump administration for regulatory reform and tax cuts but criticized its push for tariffs and its affinity for “partially nationalizing companies.”

Yet another biblical principle is relevant here: saving is wiser than expensive living. “One pretends to be rich, yet has nothing; another pretends to be poor, yet has great wealth” (Proverbs 13:7), Solomon observed.  Even more pointedly, “Precious treasure and oil are in a wise man’s dwelling, but a foolish man devours it” (Proverbs 21:20).

By its continued support for unsustainable welfare programs, the U.S. government is pretending to be rich, when in fact it is digging itself — and the American people — deeper and deeper into the hole.  The larder is empty.  Foolish policies have devoured America’s “treasure and oil.”  A course correction is inevitable, but it will involve hard, painful, and even unpopular choices clothed in humility.  That humility — humility to admit our sorry financial plight — may not come until the economic pain of suffocating debt becomes acute and unmanageable.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Social Emotional Learning or Counterfeit Gospel?

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) has become one of the fastest-growing initiatives in American education.  What began as a program ostensibly intended to help students manage emotions and build healthy relationships is now embedded in the vast majority of K-12 schools, influencing classroom instruction, teacher training, school climate, and student assessments.  But is SEL as ideologically neutral as supporters claim?

Supporters describe SEL as a research-based framework to improve student well-being, reduce behavioral problems, and prepare children for success in school and life.  Few parents would object to teaching children kindness, self-control, or empathy.  Yet behind these widely accepted goals lies a deeper question that warrants careful examination: What worldview is shaping these programs, and what vision of human flourishing are they ultimately advancing?

That question is especially important for Christian parents, pastors, and educators. Every educational system teaches more than academic subjects; it also communicates beliefs about human nature, morality, identity, purpose, and transformation.  These foundational assumptions inevitably shape children’s hearts and minds.  True Christian education values both academic knowledge and biblical wisdom, as Proverbs 9:10 declares, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” Children need rigorous academic fundamentals in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and history, alongside spiritual truth rooted in God’s Word, not a false clinical psychology disguised as “emotional learning.”

SEL’s origins trace back to collaborative efforts in the 1990s that drew on New Age influences. The Fetzer Institute, founded by John E. Fetzer with the goal of confirming New Age beliefs through science, hosted key conferences that led to the creation of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) in 1994.  Fetzer was an avid devotee of Alice Bailey, the influential occultist and theosophist who founded Lucifer Publishing Company (later Lucis Trust) and authored “Education in the New Age,” which advocates using schools to prepare children to be global citizens under a new spiritual, eco-political world order and a spiritual hierarchy.

Daniel Goleman, author of “Emotional Intelligence,” co-founded CASEL.  Goleman and the Dalai Lama have co-authored books promoting Buddhist meditation for emotional regulation, viewing Buddhist traditions as desirable, asserting that all religions are one, and embracing Marxist economics alongside diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice (DEIJ).  The Dalai Lama’s SEE Learning (Social, Emotional, and Ethical Learning) program, developed in collaboration with Emory University, extends SEL with compassion practices rooted in his Buddhist vision for globally culturally ethical education.

The roots align with holism (interconnectivity of all entities into one universal whole) and New Age spirituality rather than biblical revelation.  As Scripture warns, “There is a way that appears to be right to a man, but in the end, it leads to death” (Proverbs 14:12).

SEL serves as the “human software” for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which emphasize global peace, equity, and unity under centralized frameworks.  These goals present as benevolent, but echo Nimrod’s Babel-like vision of one world government, religion, and economy ruled by self-selected elites — contrasting with God’s design for distinct nations and families with free will (Genesis11; Acts17:26).

This U.N. model parallels Plato’s “Republic,” where philosopher-kings rule for “peace and safety,” and aligns with broader shifts toward state control over education and family life, inverting God’s omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence through extensive surveillance and data systems.  A discipleship system offering a counterfeit gospel, SEL targets children’s souls, imposing false identities and global citizenship while undermining biblical family authority.  It mimics the gospel’s promise of transformation, peace, and community, but it delivers a false path and a destructive end.

1. Replaces Sin with Emotional Dysregulation

SEL frames human brokenness as “trauma” or “dysregulation” or other pathologies, addressed through mindfulness, not repentance, and Christ as Lord.  Healing comes through self-awareness, psychology, or pharmaceuticals, not the cross.  Scripture declares: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23; see also Isaiah 53:6; Psalm 53:2-3; Romans 5:12).

2. Offers Self-Redemption instead of Grace

Children learn “self-regulation,” “self-soothe,” and “self-actualize” — a false salvation by works, rebranded as psychology and Eastern mystical rituals.  This echoes humanism and ancient heresies such as Pelagianism (which denies original sin).  Ephesians 2:8-9 stands in opposition: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works.”

3. Substitutes Emotional Intelligence for the Holy Spirit

CASEL’s five competencies — self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making, replace the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).  These flesh-based skills cannot produce true spiritual fruit.  Jesus promised the Holy Spirit as Helper (John 14:16, 26), not competencies from fallen humanity.

4. Promotes Global Unity over God’s Kingdom

Programs like SEE Learning foster planetary citizenship and worldly universal ethics, prioritizing allegiance to a “global ethic” over Christ’s exclusive lordship.  This conflicts with Exodus 20:2-3 and James 4:4: “Friendship with the world is enmity with God.” Revelation 18:4 calls God’s people to “come out of her.”

5. Imposes a New Moral Code via DEIJ

SEL catechizes children in a redefined understanding of equity, diversity, inclusion, and social justice that contradicts biblical impartial justice, holiness, and identity in Christ (Leviticus 19:15; 20:26; Romans 12:2).

6. Elevates the State/School over Family and Church

Schools become providers of basic needs, emotional support, and authority — replacing parental authority and discipleship (Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:1-4) and God’s supply (Philippians 4:19).  This fosters dependency on the state rather than the Lord as Shepherd (Psalm 23:1).

7. Replaces Sanctification with Secular Psychology

SEL uses biometric surveillance programs to assess, predict, and diagnose mental and behavioral health issues, and it employs “corrective” secular psychological methods to alter children’s identities, values, and behaviors.  The goal is generational conformity under the veneer of a harmonious global community.

SEL further imports Eastern mysticism through specific Mindfulness curricula: MindUP’s Brain Breaks (Buddhist mindfulness), body scans echoing Vipassana, and other practices that revive heresies such as Quietism, Gnosticism, and Pelagianism.  Curricula such as MindUP incorporate Buddhist Anapanasati breathing practices.

Perhaps the most advanced of the programs is MindLift, which “combine[s] Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Self-Affirmation Theory, and AI technology … to provide mental health program interventions,” with the claim that “[o]ur AI adapts to your unique needs and circumstances” to provide “inclusive support.”  In the K-12 setting, the program says it provides “a student-specific AI-powered mental health assessment and intervention platform.” This platform includes an AI-driven chatbot that assesses student mental health by “create[ing] a real-time, multimodal system that can assess mental health through the use of behavioral pattern tracking, audio tone analysis, facial expression recognition, and text sentiment interpretation.”

When AI mental health programs gain “personalized” surveillance/assessment data from another AI program and then deliver an AI-based remedial program, it is not “student-specific.” It is AI-specific.

While these are only a few of the many mindfulness programs currently used in K-12 education, all mindfulness programs share the same marketing strategy: they come equipped with expert recommendations and numerous studies, making them appear to be the answer to the growing mental health crisis facing many students today.

SEL disguises itself as neutral “well-being” but functions as a rival religion with its own creed (emotional regulation over new birth), clergy (counselors and trainers), discipleship (daily mindfulness, surveillance, and predictive diagnostics), and sacraments (journaling and breathing rituals).  Satan masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), and Paul warns against “another gospel” (2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:6-9).

From a biblical perspective, SEL bears demonic fruit by denying sin, redefining identity apart from the Imago Dei, and offering humanist self-salvation without Christ.  It falsely promises peace and unity but leads away from the narrow way (Matthew 7:13-14). Christians must discern and reject SEL, train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4), and provide strong academic foundations paired with biblical wisdom.

A greater proportion of K-12 schools are delivering SEL training to children.  By the 2023-2024 school year, 83% of school principals reported that their schools used an SEL curriculum, up from 76% in the 2021-2022 school year.

In practice, SEL crowds out rigorous academic instruction with endless emotional processing, mindfulness exercises, and social engineering activities.  Far from building mental health, it destabilizes children by fostering emotional fragility, self-focus, and dependence on external validation and state systems rather than on resilience through Christ and disciplined learning. The result is a generation increasingly deprived of real knowledge and left more anxious, confused, and spiritually adrift.  God’s way is perfect (Psalm 18:30); His grace is sufficient (2 Corinthians 12:9).

SEL is not education.  It is religious deception.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Change the Nation’s Character, and Its Politics Will Follow

Speaking to the rise of socialist candidates within the Democratic Party, House Speaker Mike Johnson (LA-R) warned that “the barbarians are inside the gate.”  He went on to explain, “We are fighting right now in Congress over whether we’re going to maintain our status as a constitutional republic ... or go down this dark road of death to communism.”

The Speaker isn’t crying wolf; the threat is real.  But the battle to preserve the Republic will not ultimately be won in Congress.  There will be legislative fights.  There will be elections where your vote could determine the balance of power and whether socialist policies further undermine our freedoms.  But if the barbarians are already inside the gate, we need to ask: How did they get in?  And how do we get them out?

Congress reflects culture more than it creates it.  Laws can restrain evil, but they cannot create virtue.  A constitutional republic depends on citizens with the moral character to govern themselves and families that instill virtue in the next generation.  Culture is ultimately shaped by what people believe about God, truth, and morality.  When those foundations erode, political institutions follow.

To understand how this ideological and spiritual challenge gained traction in America, we have to look beyond politics to the forces that shape a nation’s character.

In his 1983 book “The Gravedigger File,” author and social critic Os Guinness warned that secularization was hollowing out the institution that had long guided Western civilization: the church.  As biblical faith weakened, society’s moral foundations weakened—creating a vacuum secular ideologies would inevitably fill.

A little more than a decade later, Judge Robert Bork approached the same crisis from a different direction.  In “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” he argued that America’s moral and cultural foundations were being eroded by radical individualism and radical egalitarianism, weakening the institutions upon which constitutional government depends.  Nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan in 1987, Bork was rejected because of his originalist view of the Constitution.  Though writing as a constitutional scholar rather than a theologian, he arrived at a remarkably similar conclusion.

So how did the barbarians get inside the gate?  Through the church’s loss of its preserving influence as the salt of the earth.  And how do we secure the gate once again?

Jesus said, “You are the salt of the earth.”  Salt preserves what would otherwise decay. History has confirmed what Christ taught.  The decisive battle for America’s future will not ultimately be won in Congress, but in the church as it once again shapes the nation’s moral character.  Change the nation’s character, and its politics will follow.

“In God We Trust” cannot remain merely a motto etched in stone.  It must once again become the conviction written upon our hearts and reflected in how we live.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

In the Midst of a Fleeting World There Is an Unfailing Hope

Optimism is insufficient to hold you up against the harsh reality of telling your daughters you won’t be alive long enough to walk them down the aisle or letting your parents know they’ll have to bury their son, Ben Sasse shared in The Wall Street Journal late last year.

Sasse, is a 44-year-old former senator from Nebraska, who was diagnosed with metastasized, stage 4 pancreatic cancer in December 2025 and given mere months to live.  He is also a husband and father of three children.

“I already had a death sentence before last week too — we all do,” Sasse said.  “As a Christian, the weeks running up to Christmas are a time to orient our hearts toward the hope of what’s to come,” he continued.  “Death and dying aren’t the same — the process of dying is still something to be lived.”

Sasse’s response to his diagnosis created shockwaves.  While optimism is insufficient for Sasse, there’s one thing that isn’t: the hope, security, and comfort found in Jesus Christ.

“We [Christians] hope in a real Deliverer — a rescuing God, born at a real time, in a real place,” he wrote.

For the believer, Sasse’s response is not confusing — it makes sense.  A Christian’s inheritance is the perfect peace of Christ.

“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you.  Not as the world gives do I give to you.  Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid” (St. John 14:27).

“The way in which the former senator and his family are clinging to Christ in the midst of profound suffering is a vivid reminder for so many of us that a Christian’s hope is not rooted ultimately in favorable circumstances, but really in the character of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” David Closson, the director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand.

In a recent survey, the American Bible Society asked respondents if they turn to the Bible when they encounter difficulties in life or if they blame God for their troubles and reject any religious expression.  The organization found an increase in Bible reading, which directly results in an increase in hope for those who have put their trust in the Lord.

“From a biblical perspective, this makes sense.  Scripture never promises that Christians will be spared suffering.  In John 16:33 Jesus tells His followers that in this world you will have tribulation,” Closson said.  “But Scripture consistently teaches that suffering has a way of stripping away false securities, and reminding us of our dependence on God, and then we could also say trials often expose the inadequacy of the other things we are tempted to trust in, such as our health, careers, finances, relationships, or sense of control.”

The report shows that those who experience difficult life circumstances and trauma are even more likely to read the Bible and rely on their faith for peace and healing than those who haven’t dealt with hardships.

“Steadfast faith does not deny the reality of pain,” Closson said.  “It rather demonstrates that suffering does not have the final word.”

Bible reading was recorded to be 48% for those who faced a life-threatening illness or injury, like Sasse, compared to 37% for those who have not.

The report also found that 38% of those dealing with a life-threatening illness or injury said that their faith was “a great source of comfort to them” as they navigated “life issues,” compared to 31% of those not experiencing a tragedy.

“The mind regulates more effectively when attention is gently anchored to something safe, meaningful and true,” Joanna Hargreaves, a Christian psychotherapist, posted. “Regular Biblical Meditation soothes your amygdala.  The amygdala is your brain’s alarm system triggering fear, stress, and anger.”

It is the natural tendency of the heart of the believer to turn to God in the midst of trials and tribulations.  It is a mark of spiritual health to lean on the promises of eternity found in God’s word rather than looking to the world for comfort during times of impossible pain.

Closson also observed that unique opportunities for gospel ministry are presented when people are confronted with their own mortality.  “As believers, we should be prepared to meet those moments with compassion and care and share the hope that’s ultimately found in the gospel,” he argued.  “This report confirms something that Christians have believed for centuries, which is that while God does not waste suffering, he often does use it to draw people closer to himself.”

Because of sin, we live in a world where dads lose their lives to cancer too early, where divorce is common, and confusion about gender and sexuality runs rampant.

“The testimony of many believers is the suffering that has become the very context in which the promises of God become most precious.  Bible passages that maybe seemed abstract in times of ease suddenly become more personal when read from a hospital room or while caring for a sick loved one,” Closson mused.

Take heart, for I have overcome the world, Jesus tells His followers.  He calls us not to be discouraged.  Sasse is a living example of what it means to embrace this.  Amid the trial, he understands what we could all benefit from as a reminder: though we live in a fleeting world, there is an unfailing hope.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Look at the Evidence on the Abortion Pill

In his address to the nation on election integrity, President Donald Trump declassified compelling evidence that America’s elections are vulnerable to manipulation, from noncitizens voting to foreign interference.  The president argued that the evidence demands action by Congress to protect one of the most sacred rights of American citizens, the right to vote.

The principle applies elsewhere.  When the evidence is clear, it demands action.

Compelling evidence of a different kind was presented this past week during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing for Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche. More proof was presented that unborn babies are losing their lives through the abortion drug mifepristone, and increasingly, the drug is being obtained through the mail by men who secretly administer it to the mothers of their unborn children.

AL Senator Katie Britt (R) recounted the story of Jona Affholder.  After Jona refused to abort her baby, her boyfriend, Hassan-James Abbas, an Ohio medical resident, allegedly used his ex-wife’s identifying information to obtain abortion pills online to poison Jona and kill their unborn child.  As Senator Britt observed, “Her story is one of many.”

Last month, Army Captain Brandon Jones-Adams was convicted of secretly placing mifepristone into the drink of a junior enlisted soldier he had impregnated, causing the death of their unborn child.

These are not isolated crimes.  They expose the deadly consequences of policies making abortion drugs easier to obtain through the mail with fewer safeguards and less accountability.

Why was this evidence presented during the Attorney General’s confirmation hearing? Because the Department of Justice (DOJ) has the authority to reverse one of the key policies making this possible.

Following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022, the Biden Administration sought to undermine the decision by expanding access to chemical abortion.  It relaxed the FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), removing the long-standing requirement for in-person dispensing and medical oversight.

But another obstacle remained: the Comstock Act, an 1873 federal law prohibiting the use of our mail system to send articles intended for abortion.  Rather than enforce that law, the Biden Justice Department issued an opinion concluding that abortion drugs could be mailed unless the sender specifically intended an illegal abortion.  In effect, the government said, “Presume lawful use and ask no questions.”

That DOJ opinion remains in effect today under the Trump Administration.  Unlike the FDA’s REMS policy, which is being challenged in court, the DOJ can withdraw and replace that opinion without waiting for Congress or the courts.

The evidence also shows these cases are part of a much larger trend.  Since Dobbs, abortions have increased by roughly 20% nationwide, with the abortion pill now accounting for approximately 65%.

The evidence demands action.  If evidence of election vulnerabilities justifies action to protect the right to vote, then evidence that existing federal law is being ignored to the detriment of women, unborn children, and the laws of nearly half the states demands action as well. President Trump should direct the DOJ to review the Comstock Act, withdraw the Biden policy, and enforce the law as Congress enacted it.

If safeguarding the right to vote is fundamental, and it is, safeguarding the right to life is foundational.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The New Name for the UMC—Ichabod

A common trope from classic cartoons featured characters sawing off the tree limb on which they were standing.  Last month, the United Methodist Church (UMC) tried to pull the same stunt in real life.  At a closed-door meeting in Nashville, TN, from June 17-18, the UMC University Senate decided to remove Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, KY, and Northeastern Seminary in Rochester, NY, from its approved list of seminaries.

The UMC University Senate is the denomination’s organ for determining which institutions of higher education meet the criteria for affiliation with the UMC.  It is comprised of 27 voting members, who are elected from among faculty at UMC-affiliated institutions and who meet twice yearly.

“The decision to delist both institutions followed findings from their respective quadrennial reviews, which included an examination of the curriculum and direct dialogue with institutional leadership,” said Roland Fernandes, a top executive for the United Methodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry, which assists the University Senate.  “The University Senate’s decision is intended to ensure that United Methodist candidates for ministry are formed in settings clearly aligned with United Methodist teachings, theology, leadership and values.”

“The Senate’s requirements, particularly those related to the UMC’s 2024 Social Principles concerning ‘Human Sexuality’ and ‘Marriage,’ are not aligned with Asbury Theological Seminary’s institutional ethos and the historic witness of the Christian faith,” responded Asbury Theological Seminary President David Watson on June 25.  “We affirm marriage as sanctioned by God, which joins one man and one woman in a single, exclusive union for life, as delineated in Scripture, and provides the sole context for sexual intimacy, helping to ensure the blessings of that relationship as God intended.”

Asbury Seminary’s “Ethos” also affirms “God’s design for holy living” and “that Scripture clearly prohibits certain acts, including but not limited to … engaging in sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage (including but not limited to premarital sex, adultery, and same-sex sexual behavior).”

On the issue of transgenderism, “We believe God wonderfully and immutably creates each person as either male or female,” Asbury declares.  “We do not affirm theologically the adoption of a psychological identity discordant with one’s birth sex as a result of the tension between one’s biological sex and one’s experience of gender.  Similarly, we do not affirm attempts to change one’s given biological birth sex via medical intervention in favor of the identity of the opposite sex or of an indeterminate identity.”

This stand on biblical principles is part of the reason why “Asbury Theological Seminary was first approved in 1946 by The Methodist Church, one of the predecessor bodies of the UMC, to educate those seeking ordination.  Beginning in 1981, Asbury Theological Seminary received approval from The United Methodist Church.”  The university was only founded in 1923, meaning that it has been affiliated with the UMC for most of its institutional history.

Strangely, however, the denomination seems to be drifting into liberalism more rapidly than the seminaries — reversing the ordinary trend.  Since 1972, the UMC had affirmed that “the practice of homosexuality… is incompatible with Christian teaching.”  But, in 2024, the United Methodist General Conference removed that language from its Social Principles, redefining marriage “within the church” as “a sacred, lifelong covenant” of “two people of faith, an adult man and woman of consenting age, or two adult persons of consenting age.”

The UMC’s updated Social Principles also declares that “Human sexuality is … expressed in wonderfully diverse ways from birth to death” and “shaped by a combination of nature and nurture.”  It continues, “We further honor the diversity of choices and vocations in relation to sexuality.”  To further signal their cultural capitulation, the document also recognizes “that families come in a variety of sizes and forms.”

With regard to transgenderism, the UMC now states, “We support both gender equality and gender diversity as important goals” and “promote the leadership of all people, regardless of gender.  We also urge governments, businesses, and civil society to enact laws and policies to ensure that all members of society are afforded equal access, opportunities and protections.”

These ethical statements differed so sharply from the biblical ones expressed by Asbury that the UMC decided it could no longer associate itself with the school.

The UMC’s 2024 revision of its principles to approve homosexuality and transgenderism is directly traceable to the 2022 schism in American Methodism, which resulted in the liberal churches kicking out orthodox congregations.  From 2019 to 2023, more than a quarter of UMC churches left the UMC to either become independent or to join the new conservative alternative, the Global Methodist Church (GMC).

According to its website, “The Global Methodist Church exists to spread scriptural holiness across the globe and to carry forward the faith once delivered to the saints.” The UMC apparently stands for this faith no longer.

No symbol of the UMC’s decline into liberalism is more poignant than its dissociation from Asbury Seminary.  The school was founded in 1923 in a conservative response to the growing liberalism in older Methodist seminaries.  Ironically, this time it was the seminary that stayed faithful, while the denomination strayed into a theological mush indistinguishable from the culture.

The school is named after Francis Asbury, a prominent Methodist preacher during the Second Great Awakening.  From its theological roots to its recent revival, Asbury (both the university and seminary) retains the Wesleyan tradition’s spirit of holiness and obedience to Scripture.

In other words, Asbury has stuck to its guns, which makes it different from the culture at large. That very difference makes it attractive.

The UMC’s total break with Asbury Seminary will have a minimal immediate impact on either institution.  The UMC currently runs 13 seminaries and has approved education at 25 other schools.  Asbury associates with dozens of denominations, and only 9% of its student population is affiliated with the UMC.  These students (and any starting this fall) will be grandfathered into the UMC.  Meanwhile, Asbury remains approved in the GMC and other denominations.

Nor will the change make much difference to Asbury in the long run.  “Our theological commitments, including our commitment to Scripture, remain unchanged,” Asbury President Watson pledged.  “As an independent, multi-denominational seminary in the Wesleyan tradition, we have remained steadfast for more than a century in teaching the unchanging truth of orthodox Christianity.  Our mission and values are the same today as they have been for more than a century.”

However, the decision may have a great long-term impact on the UMC.  By cutting its future ministers off from one remaining light that holds to the true gospel, the UMC has stifled the possibility that a conservative minority might remain to object to further leftward slide.  With this move, the UMC may have hastened its decline.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel