How does God transform the lives of Christians? If you think the answer to that question is easy, perhaps you should talk with George Barna. Six years after beginning what he assumed would be a relatively typical research process that sought to better understand how God transforms people’s lives, he discovered he had tackled a deeply challenging and amazingly revealing journey. The end product was his book, Maximum Faith.

After lots of research and exhausting surveys, he was able to describe what he calls ten stop points on the journey to wholeness. Stop 1 is ignorance of the concept or existence of sin. Millions of people grow up oblivious to the fact that God exists and that we have a sin nature. Stop 2 is an awareness and indifference to sin. As life goes on, people gain exposure to the idea of sin, but many do not accept it as valid or significant. Stop 3 is concerned about the implications of personal sin. And stop 4 is a decision to confess sin and ask Jesus Christ to be savior. It is worth noting that about 2/3rd of Americans are stuck in one of these four stops.

Stop 5 is a commitment to faith activities. A believer gets involved in church activities. Another quarter of Americans are at this stop. This means that nearly 90 percent of Americans are stuck at one of the first five stops.

Stop 6 is a prolonged period of spiritual discontent. Stop 7 is an experience of personal brokenness. Stop 8 is a decision to surrender and submit fully to God. Stop 9 is enjoying a profound intimacy with the love for God. And stop 10 is experiencing a profound compassion and love for humanity.

It is worth noting that only a fraction of a percent find themselves in these last two stops. In general, Christians in America are not experiencing what God intends for them. Put another way, most Christians are captive to the culture and therefore unwilling to seek godliness.

Anyone looking at the political landscape would probably conclude that gun control legislation would have no chance. Republicans control both the House and the Senate, and many members of Congress who supported gun control legislation lost in the last election. That is why gun control advocates are changing their branding and strategy at the state level.

Genevieve Wood talks about sneaky gun control in The Daily Signal. She says that gun control advocates are using a strategy in the states they adopted from gay activists who want same-sex marriage legal in every state. They plan to get the public on their side in the states and eventually influence the courts and Congress.

The first step is to change the brand. They have stopped using the term “gun control” in favor of the term “gun safety.” That is probably a smart marketing move. After all, who would go on record as being against gun safety? The second step is to focus attention on state legislatures by talking about the need for gun safety and by calling for the expansion of background checks.

Still, this gun safety movement has to contend with a public that believes that gun ownership is a good thing. The Pew poll taken in December found that a majority of Americans believe it is more important to “protect the right of Americans to own guns” than to “control gun ownership.” Also, a majority of Americans believe gun ownership does more to “protect people from becoming victims of crimes.” A much smaller minority believed guns “put people’s safety at risk.”

Kelsey Harkness, also writing for The Daily Signal, says that firearms sellers say they are being choked off from payment processors like PayPal, Square, Stripe, and Spark Pay. Some processors publicly state their policy against gun sales, and it is quite possible that gun control advocates will work to get other payment processors to refuse to process gun purchases

All of this to say that the battle over guns and gun control continues even if less visible than in the past.

The fire department is supposed to put out a fire, but the mayor of Atlanta has decided to fan the flames by firing Atlanta’s Fire Chief. His offense? The mayor and some members of his department were angry over Kelvin Cochran’s book written for a men’s bible study that addresses sexual sin. Although the mayor insists that his decision to fire Cochran has nothing to do with his faith, most people don’t buy the mayor’s argument.

The mayor’s office was flooded with emails and phone calls, just days after the decision to fire the 30-year veteran firefighter and former Obama appointee. Two weeks ago, hundreds of people gathered in the Georgia state capitol for a “Standing for our Faith Rally.” The protesters then marched to city hall and delivered a petition with 50,000 signatures.

Reverend Franklin Graham stepped forward to say the Cochran “was persecuted and denied his career because of his privately-held religious beliefs.” He went on to describe the mayor’s actions as “true discrimination.”

At the press conference Cochran said: “I was fired for having the audacity to believe that sex was created for procreation and should be in the bonds of holy matrimony between a man and woman.” Bishop Paul Morton was one of the black pastors who warned the city: “We cannot allow this country—we cannot allow Atlanta—to become a communist country.” He added: “If they can stop us from talking about the Bible, then the next step is they’ll take our Bible. And if they take our Bible, and heard you talking about the Bible then they’ll try to penalize us. But I’m here to tell you, we’re not going out this way.”

The firing of the Atlanta Fire Chief who had a long and distinguished career makes the case for states adopting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The federal government enacted this legislation in the 1990s, and now various state legislatures (like Georgia and Texas) are debating similar laws. Public servants like Kelvin Cochran need this protection.

The eight Oscar nominations for “The Imitation Game” will no doubt encourage more people to watch the film and learn about the debt we owe to mathematician Alan Turing. After all, we all use a Turing machine in our daily lives. Today, we call them computers.

He developed the machine for decrypting the Enigma machine that was used by the Nazi military. In the movie he asks the intriguing question: “What if only a machine could defeat another machine?” Indeed it took his machine to defeat the Nazi Enigma machine, especially since the settings on the Enigma machine were changed everyday.

The movie has a few historical inaccuracies that didn’t need to be added. The real story of Alan Turing and his machine are fascinating enough. Some have said that Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays Alan Turing, is like a superhero. His skills are not physical but mental. The action in this movie is in the mind. When he figures out what is necessary to program his machine and cracks the first code, you are tempted to cheer just like you would when a Marvel superhero defeats a villain.

The difference is, this is reality. The film ends with the estimate that cracking the Enigma machine probably shortened the war by two years and saved 14 million lives. That is the legacy of Alan Turing and his machine.

You might wonder why you haven’t heard of Alan Turing. There are two reasons. First, his work was classified, so he received no public recognition. He probably deserved a Noble prize. Second, he was a homosexual and persecuted for his actions. In the 1950s, he was convicted of indecency and stripped of his security clearance.

There is the remaining irony that the machine he developed now allows governments to do electronic surveillance of us today. Decoding and defeating the Nazi war machine was an important goal. Advanced technology today came from his machine and allows governments to decode us.

This country has been at war with radical Islamic terrorists since the late 1970s. We may not feel we have been at war. The terrorists know they have been at war with us.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich argues in a recent column that we need to develop a clear mission and strategy by holding congressional hearings. He reminds us of the “Long Telegram” written in 1946 that outlined the nature of the communist threat. More than 13 years after the 9/11 attack on America, we still do not have such a document as it relates to radical Islamic terrorism.

He says Congress should investigate the following issues. First, what is the current strength and growth rate of radical Islamists around the world? He is correct in saying that we need a detailed sense of the total picture.

Second, Congress needs to provide a country-by-country analysis of the danger from radical Islam. Just consider this one fact. Boko Haram has killed thousands more people in Nigeria than Ebola has killed in all of Africa. The American people would be shocked to discover the powerful influence radical Islam has in many countries.

Third, Congress must define and evaluate the role of the Muslim Brotherhood. Congress should also learn from some Arab countries (like Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco) about how to contain and minimize the threat of radical Islam.

Congress also needs to identify the primary sources of radical Islamist funding. And it needs to investigate the radicalization that is taking place in many of this country’s mosques that were built with that money. And it needs to investigate the radicalization that takes place through social media.

Finally, Congress also needs to assess the potential cyber-threat from radical Islam. The hacking of the U.S. Central Command should be a warning to the government about future attacks.

Congress has an opportunity to study radical Islam and set forth a strategy for America to follow. If the current administration does not embrace the strategy, then the recommendations should become part of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Newsweek began 2015 with a cover story on the Bible. In the lead article, we get a heavy dose of liberal theory and secular skepticism about the Bible. But the author is correct in arguing that very few Americans are biblically literate. Many Christian ministries have documented this through various surveys as well as lots of anecdotal stories.

Two writers with The Federalist decided to follow the lead of Newsweek and write about “The Eight Biggest Myths About the Bible.” Here are just a few of the cultural myths so many have accepted.

Many people believe the Bible teaches: “money is the root of all evil.” That is not what Paul taught (in 1 Timothy 6:10) which says: “For the love of money is a root all kinds of evil.” The Bible does not condemn money or wealth, but does admonish us to be generous and not to make money an idol.

Another myth is the pervasive belief that Christians are never to make moral judgments. One of the most quoted verses these days is Matthew 7:1. Jesus says,
“Judge not, that you be not judged.” He is not telling us not to make moral judgments. In the following verses, he explains that we are not to be hypocritical. We may only see the speck in another person’s eye and not notice the log in our own eye.

One of the current myths being spread by many atheists is that the Bible condones slavery. This is hard to accept if you just look at history. Most abolitionists in this country or Great Britain were Bible-believing Christians. Paul Copan has chapters in many of his books addressing the misunderstanding of the concept of debt-servanthood or indentured servitude that is nothing like slavery. He also addresses another one of the myths listed: that the God of the Old Testament is an Angry Tribal Deity.

Newsweek is correct that much of America is biblically illiterate. And the writers in The Federalist are right that many have accepted these cultural myths about the Bible. That is why we need to study God’s Word and take the time to read some good books that destroy these myths.

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. When the Supreme Court removed most state restrictions on abortion more than forty years ago, who could have predicted the world we live in today.

When the ruling came down, few understood the long-term implications. I remember speaking on the issue in college classrooms a few years later and wondering when the Supreme Court would reverse its decision. By the 1980s, it seemed like only a matter of time that abortion would once again be restricted in America. That did not happen.

A whole generation of young people has grown up never having known a time when abortions were illegal. They may have seen some protests and may have heard some debate about the subject. But that is perhaps the sum total of their experience.

Those of us who are older can see the impact. Abortion has left a scar on the soul of this nation. In the 18th and 19th centuries, slavery was a scar on America’s soul. Today abortion leaves the same scar, even though it may be invisible to many people.

I see the evidence of these scars when I take phone calls from women who were exploited by abortion. I see evidence of these scars when I hear the cavalier comments of young people about human life. I see those scars when I hear people debate related issues like stem cell research and physician assisted suicide.

But I also see the healing when I see the good work of pregnancy resource centers. I understand from people working in this area that there are three times as many pregnancy resource centers in this country as there are abortion clinics. In many ways, the pro-life movement is winning the war of ideas.

And I am encouraged that so many young people (our future leaders) are pro-life and understand the importance of being pro-life. So there are some encouraging signs even as we see the scars left by abortion.

When the Affordable Care Act was debated years ago, one of the most compelling arguments for its passage was a claim that it would make health insurance affordable for people with lower incomes. Now that the employer mandate begins to kick in for 2015, we are finding that it is people with these modest incomes who are being hurt the most.

Dr. John Goodman has (for decades) provided expert testimony before Congress on health care issues and health insurance. His survey last month of 136 fast-food restaurants with nearly 3,500 workers tells the story. The regulations in Obamacare forced the employers to make tough financial decisions that had an adverse impact on their employees and families.

Let’s take a before-and-after picture. Before 2014 about half of these 3,500 workers were “full time” (according to the Obamacare definition). In other words, they worked 30 hours or more a week. By the end of 2014, only 58 employees were “full time” and thus eligible for health insurance in 2015.

The companies then offered the remaining “full time” employees health insurance. What they offered was a bronze plan with very large deductibles (over $6,000) and copayments. Hardly anyone wanted a high deductible plan. Actually that’s an understatement. Only one of the 58 remaining “full-time” employees enrolled in a bronze plan. The rest may end up in a Minimum Essential Coverage plan.

This survey bothers me for two reasons. First, John Goodman and many others predicted this would happen years ago. Congress did not listen. Second, it is appalling that it had to be done by a private citizen. Where are the news bureaus and government agencies? Why haven’t they done a similar study on the impact of Obamacare? We have not been well served either by politicians, bureaucrats, or the media.