Welcome to utopia. Speaking a few years ago at a technology convention in San Francisco, Google CEO Eric Schmidt described this new world of utopia.

“It’s a future where you don’t forget anything… In this new future you’re never lost… We will know your position down to the foot and down to the inch over time… Your car will drive itself, it’s a bug that cars were invented before computers…you’re never lonely…you’re never bored…you’re never out of ideas.”

It sounds exciting doesn’t it? Computers will help you remember. Computers will keep you from getting lost. You will have a car that drives itself. Eric Schmidt even complains that the car was invented before the computer. He is thrilled we will have driverless cars. You will never be bored or lonely or out of ideas.

What could possibly go wrong? John Whitehead says that once you “strip away the glib Orwellian doublespeak” you find a world where privacy is gone. That smart phone in your pocket or purse can tell you where you are. It can also tell other people where you are as well. GPS devices help us find our way, but they also record where we have been. Satellites and traffic cameras can record our every move. Drones can find you and track you. The utopia the Eric Schmidt describes is also a Brave New World that John Whitehead documents in his book, A Government of Wolves.

In a recent column, John Whitehead talks about black boxes and V2V transmitters being put in cars. Some of the new cars coming out for next year have a performance data recorder which “uses a camera mounted on the windshield and a global positioning receiver to record speed, gear selection and brake force.” It even records noises inside the car.

As I said at the beginning, welcome to utopia. Actually, we should say, “welcome to a utopia where you have zero privacy.” The future may sound exciting, but we will all pay a price as we lose our privacy.

When the president raised the minimum wage for federal workers, lots of editorials appeared in newspapers. Jason Riley dug out an old editorial to illustrate how perceptions have changed in the media elite.

Back in 1987 the New York Times editorial read: “The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable—and fundamentally flawed. It’s time to put this hoary debate behind us, and find a better way to improve the lives of people who work very hard for very little.”

Earlier this month, the New York Times posted this editorial: “An hourly minimum wage of $10.10, for example, as Democrats has proposed, would reduce the number of people living in poverty.”

Let me say this clearly: no it won’t. Numerous academic studies show that raising the minimum wage does not help people living in poverty. Families are usually poor not because they have low wages but because they do not have a full-time job. A job is the best anti-poverty program we can implement.

Jason Riley cites one study done by Joseph Sabia of American University and Richard Burkhauser of Cornell University. They could find “no evidence” that minimum wage increases lowered poverty rates. There are many reasons for this.

First, the minimum wage increases were “not well targeted to the working poor.” Second, only a small percentage of workers who would gain from an increase in the minimum wage live in poor households. Third, of those who gain, a very large percentage “are second and third earners in households with incomes twice the poverty line.” Many are well above the median household income.

The challenge for many people below the poverty line is that they don’t have job. Their problem isn’t low wages. Their problem is no wages. Raising the minimum wage makes it even harder to get a job. On my radio program I pointed out that when I got my first job as a teenager, I seriously doubt that I would have been worth $10/hour to an employer. If people need a job, raising the minimum wage doesn’t help them.

Scott Sauls was on my radio program recently to discuss his book, Jesus Outside the Lines. In his book, he tells a story of what happened in his church (Christ Presbyterian Church) when R.C. Sproul gave a talk on how God and people come into a relationship with one another. Dr. Sproul emphasizes the sovereign, electing grace of God. Other Christians, like Billy Graham emphasize human free will.

During the question-and-answer session after Dr. Sproul’s talk, someone in the audience asked him if he believed he would see Billy Graham in heaven. He replied, “No, I don’t believe I will see Billy Graham in heaven.” There was a collective gasp in the audience. He continued, “Billy Graham will be so close to the throne of God, and I will be so far way from the throne of God, that I will be lucky to even get a glimpse of him!”

I hope you get the point. We should show respect to fellow Christians even when we might disagree with them. Within the body of Christ are different denominations and theological strains. We can disagree with one another about doctrine, but we should still maintain respect and affection for one another. Augustine put it this way: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

This helps us avoid two dangerous extremes. Many Christians (often motivated by liberal theology) emphasize unity to the exclusion of biblical orthodoxy. They want us to compromise on the essential doctrines of the faith in order to promote unity. Other Christians focus too much on non-essentials and break fellowship with other Christians who can contribute to our understanding of Scripture. We should allow liberty in non-essentials where a fundamental doctrine of the faith is not at risk.

Christians should not compromise their faith by ignoring or watering down the essential doctrines of the faith. But they should also be willing to listen and learn from other Christians even when they might disagree about nonessentials. That’s what Augustine meant when he called for unity, liberty, and charity.

When high school and college students read the section on civil disobedience in by book, Christian Ethics in Plain Language, they usually think about it hypothetically. How should Christians respond if government commanded them to do something that violates the Bible? American Christians have rarely had to consider this difficult ethical question, until now. Prominent Christian leaders warn that such a question may be just around the corner.

These Christian leaders have signed a document with the title “Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage.” Those who have signed the document are a who’s who of religious leaders: James Dobson, Mat Staver, Rick Scarborough, Franklin Graham, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Tim Wildmon, Penny Nance, James Robison, Robert Jeffress. Already more than 37,000 people have signed it.

It begins: “We stand together in defense of marriage and the family and society founded upon them. While we come from a variety of communities and hold differing faith perspectives, we are united in our common affirmation of marriage. On the matter of marriage, we stand in solidarity.”

Many of the signers went on to say that they would engage in civil disobedience. By that they meant “peaceful resistance against unjust laws and unjust rulings.”

Meanwhile other Christian groups are also talking about resisting the unjust law passed by the government of the District of Columbia. The law in question is the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act. Prolife groups in the Washington, D.C. area fear that the law would force them to hire people who are not prolife and also force them to pay for abortions. Therefore, they also plan to violate the law until it is overturned.

It appears that the biblical principles governing civil disobedience are about to move from the hypothetical to the actual.

A new book by Johnnie Moore reminds us why we should be concerned about the possibility that agents of ISIS will strike America. The title of his book explains his concern: Defying ISIS: Preserving Christianity in the Place of Its Birth and in Your Own Backyard. He not only documents the unspeakable terror at the hands of ISIS, but also explains how ISIS uses the Internet to recruit and train potential terrorists that don’t even have to leave their home country.

His warnings might have been easy to shrug off a few weeks ago. But the terror attack in Garland, Texas got our attention. Two jihadists opened fire at an event sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative. Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders were two of the speakers at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest. Fortunately, the Garland police killed the two jihadists. Otherwise, we might have had a scene similar to the jihadist attack of Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

We can have a debate about whether they were truly members of ISIS. But it is not like ISIS gives out membership cards to anyone who believes their terrorist rhetoric. They were certainly followers of the Islamic State.

This fits with the observation made recently by FBI Director James Comey. Earlier this year he was speaking to the National Association of Attorneys General. He explained: “We have investigations of people in various stages of radicalizing in all 50 states.” He also added: “This isn’t a New York phenomenon or a Washington phenomenon. This is all 50 states and in ways that are very hard to see.”

On my radio program Johnnie Moore revealed how effective ISIS has become. They are using the most sophisticated technological tools and have figured out ways that a few individuals can disrupt whole countries. The most chilling realization can be found in the subtitle: ISIS is in our backyard. It is time for Americans to wake up and demand immediate action from our government.

Yesterday I talked about how legalizing same sex marriage could affect churches and Christian organizations. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of so-called “gay marriage” would have a negative impact on the religious liberty of these organizations and on Christians in general. It would also redefine marriage.

Justice Samuel Alito asked the lead counsel in the case whether granting two people of the same sex the right to marry would lead to other marital arrangements. Here is how he put the question: “Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any grounds for denying them a license?”

The lead counsel argued that the only reason to deny these four people a license is because marriage is between two people. Of course, the traditional marriage definition was that it was between two people of the opposite sex who are of marriageable age.

Justice Alito didn’t let up. He pointed out that four people in a polygamous relationship could have a marriage. He noted that: “polygamous marriages [have] existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?”

He is asking an important question. I have said many times on my radio program that every argument for same sex marriage could also be used as an argument for polygamy and even polyamory (romantic love that involves many people). And before you respond that such an argument would never be made, just consider that lawyers before the Supreme Court are talking about legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states only a decade after the state of Massachusetts first legalized same sex marriage.

Justice Alito was right in asking what will happen once we redefine marriage. Others are certain to come along and change it again so that four consenting lawyers could all join together in marriage.

Should churches and Christian organizations be concerned if the Supreme Court legalizes same sex marriage? You can answer that question with the phrase: It is going to be an issue. Those are the words of the Solicitor General Donald Verrili.

During the oral arguments on the same sex marriage case, the question of how this would affect religious institutions was raised numerous times. At one point, the lead counsel in the case tried to assure the justices that declaring a constitutional right for so-called “gay marriage” would not require clergy to perform same sex marriage ceremonies.

Later in the oral arguments, the answers were not as encouraging. Justice John Roberts asked if “a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing to same sex couples?” The Solicitor General didn’t really answer that question by asserting that the federal government doesn’t have a law banning discrimination in housing based upon sexual orientation. But as sure as day follows night, you can be assured that such a law would be implemented either through the legislature or the judiciary. Christian colleges and seminaries, take notice.

Justice Samuel Alito asked the Solicitor General about the right of religious groups to keep their tax-exempt status. After all, the Internal Revenue Service was allowed to strip Bob Jones University of their tax-exempt status back in the 1980s, because (at that time) they had a policy against interracial dating. Justice Alito asked if the same principle would “apply to a university or a college if it opposed same sex marriage?”

The Solicitor General paused and stumbled over his answer. First, he claimed he couldn’t answer the question without knowing more specifics. But then he admitted that: “it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is going to be an issue.”

Yes, it is going to be an issue for churches and Christian organizations if same sex marriage is legalized in all 50 states. He seems to be saying that these groups can either have a biblical view of marriage or their tax-exempt status, but they can’t have both.

In many of his books, Dr. Tim Elmore argues that this emerging generation is different in many ways from previous generations due to a range of factors. He was on my radio program recently to talk about his book Artificial Maturity and explained why this generation is different.

Education is one reason. As students have been pressed into age-graded groups, they now interact mostly with peers. “The church followed suit with its programming. Social silos were the result. The downward spiral of emotional intelligence began.”

Parenting styles also have their influence. “We’ve made our kids our trophies—we hover over, emulate, serve, and congratulate them.” In previous commentaries I have talked about helicopter parents (who hover) and snowplow parents (who plow the way for their kids).

Tim Elmore also talks about chemical reasons for the difference in this generation. For example, BPA and other chemicals in plastics entered our bodies. “It wreaks havoc on kids’ bodies” since it mimics estrogen, the female hormone. Nearly 90 percent of kids today have BPA in them.

And let’s not forget the overuse of prescription drugs. Some kids may indeed need drugs for hyperactivity and depression. But consider this fact: the United States represents 5 percent of the world’s population but consumes 90 percent of prescription drugs.

Finally, we need to mention the impact of media on this generation. “Male teens spend an average of thirteen and a half hours a week” playing video games. They spend countless house watching TV, updating their Facebook pages, uploading and watching YouTube video.

Tim Elmore believes that these and other factors create artificial maturity rather than authentic maturity. This emerging generation may look more mature than they really are because they are surrounded by technology, but they are in need of real life experiences to match with their knowledge and virtual experiences.