The Metastasizing Technocratic State: Governance, Technology, and the Jettisoning of Accountability

Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer

Guest: Dr. James Spencer

Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 4/27/26. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.

Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.

Sam Rohrer:

Hello and welcome to this Monday edition of Stand in the Gap today as we enter the final week of April. Now today, my special and returning guest is Dr. James Spencer. He’s the president of the Useful to God ministry, as well as president of the DL Moody Center. Now, today’s theme is the second in a series of programs. It’s going to go for multiple programs after this, but it’s the second in this series broadly titled The Metastasizing Technocratic State. Now, in this series, it’s my hope and prayer to provide a carefully considered response to the very fast moving changes that we’re all witnessing, not just here in America, but globally as technology driven by artificial intelligence, AI, computers and the internet is quickly transforming our entire way of life. And through the advent of robots and data centers and predictive profiling of people, digital surveillance, digital money, biometrics and AI driven everything, all of life is quickly changing in ways that we just can hardly imagine.

Everything from buying and selling, financial transactions, the fighting of wars through the usage of satellite driven drones to the formulation of media graphics, White House tweets, and the literal creation of official narratives about everything from weather to economics to finances to the way justice is enacted or withheld, the rules of each are being strategically rewritten. And this is the underlying reason why people, I believe, are confused, being confused, and a state of hopelessness and desperation intentionally being created. It’s into this scenario that I am through this emphasis seeking to connect the dots and show how the world is changing and being changed with the goal of a new world order template already laid with its components being implemented right here in America in literal preparation for the biblically prophesied governance system, which we know biblically the antichrist will commandeer upon his formal arrival. Now, part one of this series on April nine, earlier this month, and has focused on governance, technology, and the disappearing church.

Today’s program, I’ve entitled this, The Metastasizing Technocratic State, Governance, Technology, and the Jettisoning of Accountability. And with that, I welcome to the programming on Dr. James Spencer. James, thank you so much for being back with me today. It’s a real privilege to have you on the program and to walk through this series of considerations that we’re doing.

James Spencer:

Yeah, thanks. Always a pleasure to be here, Sam.

Sam Rohrer:

Ladies and gentlemen, before we get into the meat of today’s focus on this theme, governance, technology, and the jettisoning of accountability, there was an event in Washington DC over the weekend that I need to make some comment about. An individual, very surprisingly, took the time to send an email to family members just 10 minutes before rushing a security checkpoint at the Washington Hilton where the annual White House press gathering was taking place. Now, in this email, he cited his surprise at a lack of security as he allegedly traveled from California to DC. Now, fortunately, in that event, no one was injured in this much publicized event, though commentary, I’m going to say, is occurring on all sides with multiple different versions, suspicions and commentaries and all of that. However, as to official comments, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, gave multiple comments. I’d like to recite one of his verbatim comments that he made yesterday morning in ABCs this week as somewhat of a summary.

He said this, “The system worked, law enforcement and the Secret Service protected all of us. The man barely got past the perimeter, and so when you have a perimeter designed to keep people safe, like President Trump and it works, that’s something that should be applauded.” And for that, I know we can all be thankful while remembering that we live in a sinful world made up of sinful people, all in need of redemption, possible only through faith in Jesus Christ. And let us all pray that this event brings to mind again that life is short, that God is in control, and in part is why we are all commanded in scripture to pray for all of those in authority that we can live a quiet and peaceful life and that all those who investigate, consider or even comment on this event, remember this command in Micah chapter six and verse eight where it says, “He has shown the oh man, what is good and what does the Lord require of thee of all of us really, but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God.” I’m just going to leave it there for now.

There’s a lot that’ll further unfold, but those would be my brief comments. Dr. Spencer, the last time that we were together, I asked you a question. If you have any comments about what I just said, answer that. But I’d like you to start the program off with this because we are talking about the retreating church, talked about the comments that every president going way back all promised some change. George W. Bush had his compassionate conservatism. Barack Obama had his audacity of hope and change. Donald Trump in his first term had his ultimate deal maker. Joe Biden had his restoration of the soul and then on Donald Trump’s second term, the branding has changed to the golden age architect. Now, this was my question that I asked you again. Why from your perspective, do all presidential hopefuls include some type of promise change and why are people and citizens so hungry for political and policy change?

James Spencer:

Well, first, I think the events over the weekend at the White House Correspondence Dinner reflect not only someone who is probably a little unbalanced, not many of us would go and try to shoot someone, but I also think it reflects the deep angst that’s growing in the country. I think that there’s a deep sense of unrest and even some folks who are … My wife and I are blessed with a relatively comfortable life. I think we even feel the angst and the pressure sometimes. Our home insurance was just dropped the other day because we’ve made two claims in the last six years. And so we sort of step back and say, “Wow, this is a really interesting way to do business.” But I think that all of those little slights are adding up and my hope is that these things won’t continue to happen, but my fear is that they actually will, that the angst is going to run over us on some level.

And so why do I think that presidential hopefuls always include some type of promise change message? It’s because real people are feeling real pains and to get elected, what you do is you promise to get rid of those real pains, to somehow fix the country. And on some level, I just think that’s the wrong message. I think part of what the government should be doing is saying that life is going to be difficult no matter what we do, and that we’re here to support and help and move people forward, but often to get elected, we’re looking at a context in which people are feeling real hurts and so appealing to those hurts, promising that they can get rid of them is one of the best ways to win votes. And so I think that’s largely why we see all these change messages.

Sam Rohrer:

Yeah. It’s almost like as individual people, James, we’re all needy and so it all kind of blends together. And ladies and gentlemen, that kind of goes to the heart of our program today as we talk about this move in governance, which we’re seeing and we’re focusing on today the jettison of the concept of accountability. Stay with us. I think you’ll find this to be very helpful and interesting. Well, if you’re just joining us today on this program, thank you so much for being with us. If you missed the introduction, you have to go back and pick it up. And my special guest today, again, is Dr. James Spencer. He’s the president of the Useful to God ministry and also the DL Moody Center website that I’ll give you to go to is useful togod.com for more information about him and that particular ministry. The theme today is this, the metastasizing technocratic state, governance, technology, and the jettisoning of accountability.

Now, we’ve covered a lot of things on this program about technocracy. We’ve talked a lot about artificial intelligence from different aspects and how that’s finding its way into everything from health to finance to everything. We’ve all heard the words of new world order, new governance and every previous president from our current one to Barack Obama, to Joe Biden, to George Bush, to George Bush’s father, they all talked about a new order of governance. And within the context of that, we also know biblically that there will be a global government that will be here that will come into being, actually will be taken over by what the Bible says and calls as the antichrist. All right. So the thing is, are we watching it? I have a contention that yes, we are watching put into place. Matter of fact, it’s not my opinion. It’s very, very clearly stated.

And in this series we’re going through attempting to lay this out and how governance is being changed. Usurped ultimately by a centralized control, but how can that be done without people rising up in opposition? Well, we’re seeing it happen. And if it were very obvious, people would, but it’s not obvious. And that’s why we’re doing the effort on this. Two weeks ago on April the 9th, Dr. James Spencer and I focused on the issue of the retreating church, how the role of the church and not doing what the church should do is factoring into why this whole thing is allowed to happen. Today, we’re talking about this concept of accountability. Now, from the founding of America, the concept of accountability, it’s been very key as it relates to government was deeply rooted in the theological and the philosophical understanding of the depraved nature of man.

That’s very key. The American founders operated under the conviction that because human beings are inherently flawed and prone to the lust of power, as they would say, no group or individual could therefore be trusted with absolute authority. Now, this negative view of human nature became actually the positive foundation for the various state constitutions and the US Constitution and our whole framework of government. It necessitated a system of checks and balances. The separation of powers designed to make ambition counteract ambition. They put things into place because of that. They believed that if men are depraved, giving total power to one person or branch of government was nothing but an invitation to tyranny. They believed that governments had to have some internal controls to ensure that those who govern are as accountable as those they govern. The founders were clear. Now here’s one example you just gave.

There’s many of them. James Madison said this, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Samuel Adams said this, “The depravity of mankind is such that ambition and lust for power above the law are predominant passions in the breasts of most men.” Okay. James, I’d like for you to kind of link now the depravity of man’s heart, this concept, the unbridled lust for power with the biblical threat of accountability and how this tension has been present through really all of human civilization. And while you’re at it, answer this, is accountability that really works, is it voluntary or can it be imposed?

James Spencer:

Yeah, so let me start. I think accountability ultimately starts with God. We read this in Romans 13 is the easiest place to go, Romans 13: one through four, and we see that governing authorities are operating under the authority of God and that these authorities are given the power, the position, the authority that they have. They are not taking that, they are instituted by God. And so they are ultimately accountable to him. And so in that sense, I would say accountability is almost always imposed. Because of the relationship that we have with God, there is an implicit claim that he has on our lives. If we reject that claim, there will be consequences and thus he will judge people based on how they exercise the authority that they’ve been given. That doesn’t just apply to people within the church, that applies to institutional leaders as we see reflected there in Romans 13: one through four.

We can see that in the humbling of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel and in various other places in scripture. So accountability is always going to be imposed. What we often think of though is a leader who doesn’t recognize that they are sitting under the authority of God. And so how do we keep that leader accountable from a human perspective while we’re perhaps waiting on God to hold him ultimately accountable? So I guess what I’m saying there is no one really escapes accountability when it comes to theology. Everybody is always accountable to God, but when we think about the practical systems that we can set up, yes, I think there is a sense in which we can have an actionable accountability that is voluntary. People can submit themselves to systems and say, “I will put myself under the authority of the system and whatever the system decides, I will go along with it.

” We largely have that with American laws, for instance. When people enter the justice system, they are essentially submitting themselves to the American justice system. Now there’s a course of element to that. We might say, “Well, that doesn’t seem very voluntary, James,” but the reality is it’s as voluntary probably as it’s going to get. So as we look at this sort of unbridled bus for power and the biblical thread there of accountability, I think it’s important for us to recognize that this is not new. These things are always sort of working in the background, that our American set of checks and balances have actually done a pretty adequate job over the last couple of hundred years in curbing some of these things, but it doesn’t catch all of them. And we might even argue that it’s increasingly not catching as many of them as are being put into place now.

So I think we could argue that there is more bad behavior, more questionable ethical behavior now, or at least we’re more aware of it now. And so part of the tension we need to wrestle with is, can accountability systems actually keep up with the pace of bad behavior that is made possible in this new technological world?

Sam Rohrer:

Okay. We’re going to talk more about that in the next segment, ladies and gentlemen, the technology part, because that is being brought to bear. All right, so we’ll go more into that next segment. So James, there is something about that. The system of government put in place actually is there for the purpose of, as you just said, forcing accountability. That’s really the underpinning of justice, but guys like William Penn, and other of our founders said this, our frame of government, really, this is the part I’m going to, they said, unless individuals and those in leadership, unless they voluntarily submit themselves to the 10 commandments of God, we’ll never be able to see whether or not a Penn’s holy experiment in freedom will ever rise. So there is an element of that voluntary submission that actually coordinates with a government that carries it out, but it depends on, as I said, the 10 commands of God, understanding who God is.

Tie that together.

James Spencer:

Yeah. I think I’m much more Augustinian on this point. Augustinian wrote the city of God. And one of the points that he makes in that book is that the city of man can never really become the city of God because it simply doesn’t start with love of God. If we look at the way that we’re supposed to order our lives, everything is supposed to be immersed under a love for God. Now that love, and particularly in Deuteronomy, speaks to loyalty and allegiance far more than it does what we think of as romantic love. And so we are supposed to be fully allegiant, give all we are and have to the God of the Bible.

That is the kingdom of God. That is doing on earth what is done in heaven, right? The cities of man, these earthly rulers that are instituted, I think that it always works best if they have some sense that they are answering to some sort of higher power, that they have some sense that they are going to be rewarded or have negative consequences in the afterlife for what they do here. But that’s far different than saying that they need to adhere to the 10 commandments. Adhering to the 10 commandments assumes that you are going to devote yourself fully to the Lord God. And I don’t think that’s what most of the time we mean by that. What we tend to mean by that is, let’s stick to a relatively Christian moral order, but whether or not someone believes in Christ is really more of a religious decision than anything else.

And so I would tend to agree with Augustine that the city of man can never become the city of God because ultimately they are going to diverge. They’re going to go in different directions. Whereas the city of God is rooted in this love for God, this allegiance to God. The city of man is always rooted in a love for self. And we shouldn’t read that totally negatively, that this idea of loving oneself, we can often think of just selfishness in general, but what it really is, is that we are setting the terms of the engagement and we can do that in better and worse ways, but ultimately we’re going to diverge. Anything that we do in our own eyes that we think is right is ultimately going to diverge from what God wants us to do.

Sam Rohrer:

Yep. There we go. Ladies and gentlemen, that is the essence of the depravity of man. That’s at one’s heart. We’re not generally led towards God, we’re led away from him. But anyway, we’ll go further onto that when we come back and focus now on the emergence of, instead of accountability, but efficiency and technology. Well, if you’re just joining us again, our theme today is this, the metastasizing technocratic state, governance, technology, and the jettisoning of accountability. This is the second in a series that we’re doing, Dr. James Spencer, the president of the Useful to God Ministry, which usefultogod.com website, and he’s also president of DL Moody Center. He and I are walking through the series. This is the second one, the first one we did a couple of weeks ago on April the 9th, and that was on the retreating church. And again, the bigger view is say, where are we going in this world?

Every president, including the one that we have before us now, for a long time anyways, have all talked about their view of and their vision for a new world order. Some change to what we have. Some call it a global order. George Bush Jr. Called it a new world order. The current president calls it, well, a number of different things, the golden age, however, it is being termed, but a new order and members of his cabinet are using that word, the new order. So there’s a number of things happening on that regard, but in the middle of all that, it’s kind of like, well, what do we mean? And how’s that happen? And what is taking place and what’s going to be better about this new order? The World Economic Forum, remember them, they’re real live, they’re here, they’re around, but they’re the ones who brought to us the COVID lockdown that occurred under the first Trump administration.

Their statement was a reset. They’re talking about a reset happening, and they’re still talking about that. And really we are in the process of that. So as we’re approaching this, whole concept of governance, because the focus is on government, state government, federal government, global government, it’s under this umbrella, and we’re dealing with what is happening in the interjection or the whole concept of what’s happening of technology and AI in particular is driving and putting on steroids this change. And we’re trying to link together some of those elements. Now, from the pages of scripture, I’m going to start here again, like try to do always. We know that God has an established form of ranked authority. Dr. James Spencer, I guess, referred to that in the last segment, Romans 13. Romans 13: one says, “All authority is, it says ordained of God.” Literally means ranked and ordered.

It’s ranked and ordered and authored by God himself. So God makes it clear from this passage and others that justice is the highest duty of a government. What’s the primary purpose of government to enact justice? Why? Because it’s the primary character of God himself. What is that comprised of when you get to human government? Well, scripture tells us it’s to praise those who do well, to praise and protect those who do well. Literally means those who act righteously or in accordance to God’s definition of good and to bring swift justice and punishment to those who break the law as defined by God. Now that’s the responsibility of those who serve as ministers of God at any level of authority in government. The problem with the world and the world’s system of governance is that God is rejected. Fearing God is ridiculed, replaced with the concept that man is God, the tower of Babel mentality.

Good is redefined according to the rules of pragmatism, not unchanging biblical truth. That’s been discarded. We know that. It’s important to understand though, justice is subverted by those in government embracing bribery and corruption, just like I spoken about in Ezekiel chapter 29, verses 25 to 29, where those who embrace biblical truth are punished and those who embrace bribery and corruption and pride and those things that God hates actually becomes protected. Now think about that because that’s what the Bible says. Is that not what we’re seeing? All right, James, let’s now go to the results of jettison accountability and the underlying truth of sin and the depravity of the human heart and also we see happening around us in this metastasizing of technology. But in a technocratic executive state, which is being established before us as we speak and those who are pursuing it, folks like the World Economic Forum people, our own president, as a business concept CEO type of an approach, they’re calling for the dismantling of the slow moving administrative state consumed by unelected bureaucrats and they offer in its place efficiency and progress in exchange.

So in a sovereign CEO boardroom approach, which is what we’re kind of approaching and what’s actually happening, this promise is in fact, it’s taking place. So in your opinion, why does the promise of efficiency over the slower rule of law, which is what we’ve had in place, seem to be so successful and what benefit do so many people who love freedom actually believe they will get by this move to an efficient government? That’s generally why it’s sold.

James Spencer:

So this is a pretty complex topic and so I’m going to approach it from one angle and just say this, I think that technology and corporations are moving far faster than they used to. The acceleration of change, the progression in technology, there’s something new coming out every day, AI, which is widely misunderstood even within its own industry, and that there are minority reports who would say that super intelligence simply isn’t possible and that the LLMs we have now are basically as good as they’re going to get. We’re in an incremental change phase and there are others who say, “Nope, AI can still grow and take over the world.” I think all of that is demonstrating that a slower form of governance simply isn’t going to deliver. And I think that people are afraid enough of what’s going on in the technology space. They see it as being more effectively run than government.

They see it as moving things forward faster than government and the promises are far more compelling on the technological side, not true necessarily, but compelling. And so it makes perfect sense to me that what we need is we need something that isn’t going to get bogged down in all of the administrative bureaucracy. It makes sense to me that we don’t need something that the people are going to have to decide on. What we need to do is get really, really smart people in the room who have a lot of money and a lot of power and have them do what they do best, make decisions that are good for everyone else. That’s why I think we’re seeing this move right now. I think things have gotten so out of control of normal operating governing processes that the government simply can’t hold it all together and it gives an opportunity for folks to come together and say, “Well, how do we want to govern technology?

How do we want to see this go? ” And for people who enjoy shaping the future for everyone else, this is almost an unavoidable temptation.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay. I think that that’s excellent. And it is too big for us to deal with expressly here, but there is this concept that a boardroom type of an approach with a CEO, which applied to government means, well, you call it a dictator or one guy making all the decisions, more or less, as speedier, better than the current system, which was never designed by our founders, never designed for efficiency. It was designed for effectiveness, a deliberate process. It was not designed to go at lightning speed, but into this walks the technology, which provides AI delivered algorithms that can replace slow justice with an immediate code driven decision making, and that’s what’s being offered. So we have AI make immediate financial decisions and make immediate decisions of all types, and they’re faceless. There’s nobody there, so therefore they say justice can be applied equally to all. We have better justice as an example.

So what’s actually traded off from your perspective when technology and algorithms replace people with process and accountability taken out and really an unaccountable algorithm code, because ultimately that’s what’s taking place as a process. You don’t have much time to speak to that. We need to carry it over we will.

James Spencer:

No, I think what’s given up, it creates what’s called an accountability sync. Essentially, these bad things can happen to people, systems can’t work right, but nobody’s really to blame, and nobody knows how to fix it. And so you essentially go into this vortex of just no one taking responsibility and no one being able to make a change. It’s going to create problems if we’re not careful. But I would just say that anytime we outsource to an algorithm outsource our lives to a set of zeros and ones, we are fundamentally avoiding what it means to be human. We are human beings. We are each individual human beings. Yes, we need to aggregate ourselves to have some form of management, but outsourcing this to an algorithm is not the solution. It is an increase in the amount of the distance between our government and the actual people that government is supposed to be serving and I cannot see how that is a good thing.

Sam Rohrer:

And really what you’re saying, and we’ll go further in the next segment, James, is that it actually robs almost human civilization of being human. Ladies and gentlemen, think about it. If you can eliminate accountability by blaming it on a code, well, wow, that’s pretty incredible because now who’s God? The programmer, the coder, or the person who sits on top of it? This is a big issue worthy of significant thought. We’re just giving it a brief touch today. Stay with it. We’ll be back in just a moment. Well, as we go into the final segment now, you can see why this theme that we’re trying to deal with here on the matter of governance and technology and how that is modifying our entire approach to governance, government, and why we’re seeing it occur here in our nation at lightning speed, as well as the nations around the world.

And as I alluded to earlier, there is actually a template that is in place, sanctioned, recognized, and is the model for the new approach to leadership that puts a CEO in a boardroom type of an approach without any accountability into place, severing what we have seen in this country, and certainly most Western nations. This is real. So that’s why we’re dealing with this. And again, having to deal with it in multiple programs. So if you’re listening to this and didn’t catch everything from the beginning, the first program, they’re talking about the relationship of the church to government, how previous presidents dealt with the church and how they viewed it and worked with it. We did it with G.W. Bush and Barack Obama and Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Didn’t go back further, but every president has viewed the church with a specific role, necessarily the same, but we talked about the church retreating.

That was in the last program. Today’s program, we’re talking about the matter of accountability, because sitting under accountability or the concept of accountability is everything when it comes to governance. And so we’ve been talking about that. So as we wrap up the program here, James, I’d like you to provide some final comments. If there are anything that you’ve commented on that you want to add a little bit more about, go ahead and do that now, but then take the balance of the program to take in, if you want to fill in what we would say would be the impacts, the future of individual liberty, as we’ve known it, or anybody has known it, if they’ve had it, and the jettisoning of accountability. Last week, I asked you that very same … I’m going to say it again here. This is what I ask you. When it comes to civil freedom and God’s blessings on a nation, and then to make it personal, say America, but the principles apply beyond that clearly.

When government decisions become transactional and based on pragmatism, not principle, and not relational, where the church leaders, and this is what I said before, when the church leaders actually prefer the promise of protection by government and government leaders, as is the case today, rather than maintaining their prophetic independence as the moral auditor of government, speaking truth to power. And when accountability now today is replaced with the promise of efficiency, what happens to true liberty and civil freedom? So you can kind of work together the church and accountability because they do work together, but what happens when these things back up or are replaced as it relates to individual liberty and freedom?

James Spencer:

I think what we’re going to find is, and this is something that I’ve worked on a number of different times. It’s a gentleman named Albert Bortman wrote a book called Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life, I believe is the title. One of the things he distinguishes between is the difference between a device and a thing. And his metaphor is that a thing is something like a wood burning stove. A wood burning stove requires us to put wood into it, which means that we have to cut that wood. It means that when we’re using a wood burning stove, it’s usually used for more than just heating a home. It’s used for cooking, particularly in a pre-modern era. And so the family had to gather around it. There were social interactions that happened around this stove and a transparency that was created in those relationships that you won’t get with the device.

And he would contrast a device as something like our thermostat to turn the heat up in our house. Not many of us probably gathered together as a family to turn the thermostat up or down. And so we’ve eliminated a particular sort of social interaction by moving toward a device. Now that doesn’t have to be good or bad, but I think the dynamic that he is suggesting is really instructive for what we’re going through right now. The more disconnected that we become from those who are creating these technologies, the more disconnected we become from the people who are making governance decision related to these technologies or through these technologies, the more we are going to be misrepresented and the less we’re going to understand what’s actually happening. I couldn’t tell you how I get wifi into my house, but I’m sure that there is someone out there who is doing that work.

I just don’t know who they are. That ambiguity, that anonymity is really problematic when we look at it from a governing perspective. And so when we get turned into zeros and ones, when all of this is driven more by technology than it is by actual people representing other actual people, we are going to be separating ourselves from one another and losing a real context and texture to accountability that I think is very real and very significant. As far as the aspect of people preferring that sort of protection from church leaders as opposed to having a prophetic independence or being a moral auditor, I think that’s deeply problematic. I think it represents the sort of compromise that we do see in the book of Revelation, where people are deciding that there are ways to participate in government that will both keep them safe and comfortable and avoid persecution when really what needs to be happening is that we need to have an uncompromising faith.

And by that, what I mean is that we are going to obey even when there are negative consequences to that obedience and we’re going to obey God. I should clarify that. We’re going to obey God, even when there are negative consequences to obeying God. And so at the end of the day, where does all this go? I think that it puts the technology and ultimately the governance in the hands of people who are rather aloof from us, who are relatively unaccountable to us, and who are going to be shaping the … I’ll go back to the word texture of our daily lives in ways that may seem innocuous, especially when we look at them like one-on-one, but if we look at them in aggregate, I think they’re going to be deeply problematic. And so that’s why this efficiency, this speed, this quickness of progress is really difficult for us because we’re making a series of small decisions that will have bigger long-term consequences than we understand, but we’re being pushed into making them anyway.

And so I think this goes to what’s normally referred to in the academic circles as theological anthropology. What does it really mean to be human? How is it that these humans are arranged? Who governs these humans on earth and who governs them in heaven? And I think we’re starting to confuse a lot of these categories to the use of technology. We’re doing so in the name of self-sufficiency. We can be more self-sufficient, but I think in giving up what we’re giving up to technology, we’re actually just becoming more vulnerable to the effects the technology that will have on us than we’re actually becoming self-sufficient.

Sam Rohrer:

James, that brings us right up to the very end. Thank you so much for that. And I don’t have much time to comment and I won’t. So ladies and gentlemen, I’d encourage you to go back and get this program and listen to it again, standinthegapradio.com or on our app, Stand in the Gap. And with that, then you can get a transcript printed out. You can read through it, listen to the program again, because all of the elements that we’re going through, Dr. James Spencer from usefultogod.com ministries, you can find usefultogod.com. But what we’re going through is a process that cannot be stated nor understood in a minute or an hour or two hours. It is at the heart of what we need to do as those who fear God and are committed to keep his commandments. God gives us the wisdom and discernment and we’re trying to walk through in that effort.

Dr. James Spencer, thank you so much for being with me today. Always a blessing.