Wearables, Health, and Continual Monitoring:
Healthy or Unhealthy?
August 6, 2025
Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer
Guest: Dr. James Spencer
Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 8/06/25. 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 Wednesday edition of Stand In the Gap Today, regardless of where you’re living, we welcome you, whether you’re in any one of the 50 states or in Africa, and specifically the nation of Kenya and some of the surrounding nations where people there listen daily to this program as well as our Stand in the Gap weekend and stand in the gap minute programs and listen to them on local radio in all 50 states. That can happen as well as overseas, let alone those of you who may be listening via the internet. Now, for all of you listening to me right now, I trust and I pray that the Lord will bless you and deliver to you truth. That will help to know better how to think and act biblically in these increasingly perilous days. That is the purpose of this program, and I trust that if you stay tuned with us, the balance of the program, that you will know more and how to think more biblically in these days.
Now, as always, there’s so many directions in which I could go in regard to relevant headline news or cultural trends or biblical prophecy that have occurred. I’m going to say just from Monday of this week, however, I felt led to pursue an issue mentioned briefly in last Monday’s program on July 28th with independent investigative journalist Leo Hohmann about the astounding recommendation made by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, about a recommended usage of what is being referred to as wearables, wearables to help monitor individual health factors. Now, because of the advance of technology and the inclusion of artificial intelligence to provide instantaneous analysis, people around the world and specifically now here in America, due to the recommendations of Robert F. Kennedy, every person must consider, I submit with great care whether the embracing of such monitoring technologies is actually good. Not so much for your physical health, but I’m going to say for our spiritual health and the social health of our nation.
And you say, I don’t get all that. Well stay tuned and hopefully we’ll break that out. So today I’ve asked Dr. James Spencer, president of the Useful to God Ministry with a website@usefultogod.com to join me. Dr. Spencer is also president of the DL Moody Center and they have a website@moodycenter.org. Now, Dr. Spencer though not a medical doctor, I’m just making that clear, he’s not a medical doctor, so we’re not talking physical health directly, but here’s the point. He’s got a developed focus on technology, biblical theology, and as a part of his mission is helping the church defy the world and follow Christ by inspiring unqualified devotion to the triune God through biblical and theological instruction and discussion. Now that’s directly from their mission statement. The tide I’ve chosen to frame our conversation today is this wearables health and continual monitoring, healthy or unhealthy. And with that, Dr. James Spencer, thanks for being back with me today.
James Spencer:
Yeah, it’s a pleasure, Sam. Thanks for having me on.
Sam Rohrer:
James. Let’s get right into our focus here today. I’m going to play this little clip in just a moment, but I’m going to use this recent proclamation by secretary Robert F. Kennedy who did it before Congress. It was on June 24. A little over a month ago, Congressman Balderson from Ohio presented, I’m going to say an orchestrated question to Secretary Kennedy for this purpose, and it’s obvious I don’t have this whole question, but it was very clearly set up as a softball for the secretary to respond to it. Now, let me play, ladies and gentlemen, just one minute of a portion of the question from Congressman Balderson to Secret Secretary Kennedy and then his response about continual monitoring and what he’s referring to as wearables.
Congressman Balderson:
I believe American consumers in line with the 21st Century Cures Act should be able to access these innovative wellness tools. Secretary Kennedy, do you agree that consumers should continue to have access to these tools? Absolutely.
Robert Kennedy, Jr.:
In fact, we’re about to launch one of the biggest advertising campaigns in HHS history to encourage Americans to use wearables. It’s a way of people can take control over their own health, they can take responsibility. They can see as you know what food is doing to their glucose levels, their heart rates, and a number of other metrics as they eat it, and they can begin to make good judgements about their diet, about their physical activity, about the way that they live their lives. We think that wearables are a key to the MAHA agenda of making America healthy again, and my vision is that every American is wearing a wearable within four years.
Sam Rohrer:
Alright, Dr. Spencer, you heard Secretary Kennedy’s announcement that this health and human services push to encourage the use of wearables by all Americans, pretty inclusive within four years. That means sooner really in reality as part of the Make America Healthy Again, would be one of the largest HSS campaigns and history, which means something. Here’s my question. What is your response to this push or I’m going to say any government push to embrace any type of, well 24 7 individual and personalized digital monitoring. This just happens to be for health here.
James Spencer:
Yeah, I think my response is sort of twofold. Number one, I think that there are some people with conditions, let’s say like diabetes who could probably use more frequent glucose monitoring and that really does have some significant implications for their health and that maybe this would be something good for them to do, particularly as their body isn’t really responding to food in the way that normal bodies respond to food. So I think there is application for wearables. I think there are instances and scenarios where I would say, yeah, somebody having access to this sort of data, this very specific sort of data makes good sense and that would actually help them improve their health. On a broad scale though, what I would say is that, I mean I’ve had access to wearables for a long time. We all have. I don’t wear one, I don’t really need to know what my heart rate is 24 7.
I don’t really need to know what my cholesterol is after every meal. I mean, at some point being healthy has to involve having a peace of mind that you’re not constantly referring to data all the time. And so even if I want to say do something like let’s say monitor my calories on a daily basis, I might do that for a couple weeks with an app or something like that and then I sort of get used to that level of food, what that looks like, how that goes, and then I’m not freakishly obsessed with exactly how many calories I’m putting in my body. I just think that 24 7 tracking can become an obsession very quickly and I would say an unnecessary obsession for the vast majority of people. So I don’t love the push to 24 7, everyone doing it, sort of all the hype around this will make us a healthier people. Yes, I think we need to have better checks on what we’re putting in our bodies, what kind of activity levels we’re getting. But I don’t know, the 24 7 individual and personalized digital monitoring is going to accomplish that at all.
Sam Rohrer:
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, if you’re just joining us, our theme today is Wearables health and continual monitoring. Is it healthy or unhealthy? Alright, we’re just getting into it. Dr. James Spencer’s my guest. We’ll be back in just a moment. And we talked a little bit about the what now we’re going to talk about the trend and where else this concept is actually headed. If you’re just joining us here today on the program, thanks for being with us. My special guest today is Dr. James Spencer. He’s the president of the Useful to God Ministry with a website@usefultogod.com. He does a lot of other things as well, but I’ll just leave it at that for the moment. But our theme today where he’s joining me is on this the theme of wearables and we just talked about that in the last segment where Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, is recommended.
He said before Congress that in four years he wants to see all Americans wearing a health monitor of some type. So all Americans, he says within four years and there’s going to be a push coming out of HHF, he said, which will be historic from the standpoint of the amount of time and effort that’s going into it. So when you hear all those things together, everybody within four years, it means way before then and Mons no object. So it’s a big deal. We need to look at this. We already set that up in the last segment. If you didn’t catch it, I played the clip from him before Congress. It’s only a minute long. It won’t take you long to listen to it. You can find the last segment. But the concept of monitoring, I want to go a little more broadly now, using that as a platform, but the concept of monitoring of individuals on a continual process, of course directly impacts the expectation of privacy.
Does it not? In addition, the collection of individually identifiable data in the system, it’s referred to as disaggregated data, meaning the data collected that you can actually take it right to the individual person name and everything, but that data permits the collection and storage of this data. Then the predictable. When that happens, when it’s identifiable personally, then that information from that comes predictable and an analysis of this information because if you have it but you don’t analyze it, what good is it? So you have the information, then you provide analysis to it, and then when you have an analysis, then you can draw conclusions and from that, it leads to the usage of this information. And for those who can access and manipulate this information with it, as you can imagine, comes the ability to control the people about now whom private information make sense.
The innate problem, well, information or knowledge is power. We often hear that it’s true. Obviously God knows all and records everything we do and say and think and even in our heart and before him one day we’re all going to have to give an account including ASEs 12, 13, 14 talks about that. Now to this point, mankind, humankind has not had this ability that’s been reserved to God to know all and record all, but mankind has always had this desire. Now the evil desire, desire, this is an evil desire since it’s in God’s domain I think. But now this evil desire is increasingly possible through the use of technology and the power of government that has the authority to actually make it happen. Alright, Dr. Spencer, as you’ve considered the global advances in inroads of technology generally, would you agree or disagree that there’s an indisputable trend toward total monitoring of individual lives, individual actions, and if possible individual thoughts and why or why not?
James Spencer:
My tendency is to agree and I think a lot of what we see in the West at the very least isn’t as driven by the government, although that’s certainly part of what we need to talk about. I think they’re a component of this. I think a lot of it’s been developed just through capitalist processes. And so as we’ve seen with the internet and our increasing move onto digital platforms, our behaviors online are being incorporated into how we’re marketed to what products we’re presented. It’s a social engineering project, and I don’t say that sort of a conspiratorial way, but more in a mundane sense of people now can see what we’re reacting to, how we’re reacting to it, and then we can be presented with things that we have a higher likelihood to respond to positively. And so I think that part of this is driven by a desire to provide goods and services for a profit.
I think some of this is motivated by just sheer desire for legibility. How do we manage all of the people under our care? That would be more of a governmental sort of reason. But yeah, I mean I think that throughout time we’ve had this tendency to want to understand what’s going on within our kingdoms, let’s say whatever we happen to be managing, we want to have all as much information about that as we possibly can, and now we have this outstanding capability to do it. And so I definitely see that we are going to be moving more toward more of our data being analyzed, available for scrutiny, and I think that the collection of that data is something we need to be very careful with.
Sam Rohrer:
The way you answered that, I think Dr. Spencer was very good. You are correct, not just government here in the United States, and I think you’re right on the money there. Money has driven it because anytime you can collect information about people, you can position product if you have access to it sooner than somebody else, you can have a company come into business or a product come online first. And so there’s a financial profit, which is not necessarily bad at all to have a profit motive, but if you got ahold of some information that somebody knows about, that’s a different matter. Alright, so you mentioned those things. A country like China where the government uses information now, right? That is government, but okay, here you would say private business and other business. Okay, that’s all good. In what areas? Name a few areas. I can name a number of areas, but it’s not just health. Now we use Robert f Kennedy’s commentary there about wearables to collect 24 7 health data, but that’s not the only data being collected is it?
James Spencer:
No, I mean it would be basically anything that you do online at this point is being monitored. What websites you visit, people can track that. We can see how we don’t necessarily have individual yet. We don’t know how individuals interact with a very specific website, but even our web clicks, all of that stuff is being monitored. And so you’re looking at things ranging from health to financial transactions to purchasing trends to what videos we watch on YouTube potentially now with AI integrations into things like mail apps, outlook, those kinds of things. We’re also going to have our emails being read and potentially collected and collated through ai. And so it’s almost everything that we’re doing digitally. I mean if you think about the relative privacy we had when we were writing letters to one another versus what we have when we’re shooting emails to one another, it’s night and day. A paper is a much more, in many ways, a more private document than what we’re sending across the internet.
Sam Rohrer:
Yeah, okay. And I think that’s easy for most people to visualize Good illustration. Let me just ask you about this because as I look at public policy, and I used to be in office, so I tend to look at public policy. You are involved in a wide area of issues and all, but it would be my question, how do you see, I would say the warp speed development folks, remember we’ve talked about it here, at least 10 plus AI driven data centers across the country. The president announced that the day after his inauguration with some major billionaires that are involved in ai. There was subsequently a hundred million dollar contract given to the company Palantir who analyzes data that’s sitting in there. And then the last bill, the big beautiful bill that was called has within it tens of billions of dollars of funding and expansion of the AI data centers and where they’re involved. I see all these things as potentially coming together as a structure here with the question, how do you view these things and do you see a very clear linkage between all these?
James Spencer:
Yeah, so for one I would say I definitely see them as more than potentially problematic. I would say that they are on the way to problematic is the way I would phrase it. I think that there isn’t necessarily a mustache twisting evil person petting a cat that is deciding to collect all this data so that it can be used against us. But I think ultimately that what’s really happening right now is that a fallen world and fallen leaders are sensing and feeling the instability and insecurity that comes with being independent of God, and that as these leaders feel that instability and that insecurity, what they do is they try to figure out ways to gain more control. And so monitoring people, finding bad actors maybe before they commit crimes, those kinds of things, these are things that government you can almost logic your way to, right? You can understand why they might want to have some of that data. The problem is that to get that data, they’ve got to collect basically all the data and that as they start collecting all the data, now the scope of their vision increases and it’s no longer just stopping people who might be breaking the law. Now it’s also reducing government expenditures on healthcare by forcing people to eat a certain way or making them get out and do some physical activity. It just opens up the door for greater authoritarian controls
And I think that’s what we need to do.
Sam Rohrer:
Okay, and Dr. James Spencer, great answer, ladies down. Stay tuned with us because so far we’ve used the example of Robert F. Kennedy saying health monitoring is something every American needs to start wearing to the what? The fact that monitoring is across the spectrum in literally every area that you can think about. That’s what we come back, we’ll go further into the why is this being done monitoring, which what we’re talking today, surveillance or monitoring starting with health, but we’ll go blow more broadly here. Now the pursuit of monitoring collecting of data is happening broadly. It is increasingly happening with great speed, such as the concept of wearables and even Robert F. Kennedy announcing to Congress that it’s going to become a major emphasis of the HSS to encourage, that’s what it is at this point. Encourage, he didn’t say mandate encourage, but having served in government for 20 years, anytime there’s government funding behind something, it’s going to push, well anyways, expect that to grow.
But the monitoring of health data individually, but the idea of monitoring by itself, is it a problem? I would say no, it’s not a problem. In fact, according to scripture, are we not to continually, for instance, look into the mirror of God’s word that the book of James says, and what well evaluate ourselves. That’s what we’re supposed to do, we’re to continually be recalibrated by God’s word so that we’re not, as Romans 12 says, conformed to this world and world system, but transformed by the renewing of our mind means evaluation and monitoring and change. Now, in the manufacturing process in which I was involved years ago, the concept of total quality improvement, total quality management as an example, that aspect of it, total quality improvement focuses on continual monitoring of the process of manufacturing or frankly any type of repetitive work. What for, well, for the purpose of producing a product or an output, a service if you’re working and doing something for somebody, but an output that is free of variations for the purpose of achieving as much as possible, predictable, excellent quality right now, is that also good?
Of course it’s that’s good. But when it comes to collected data as it relates to people not a machine or a process and a person’s choices, then things begin to happen. Well, I’m going to submit that are not good. Now, Dr. Spencer, I’d like for you to speak to the underlying consideration here of monitoring and data collection as it relates to people, their choices, their actions. I’ve already talked a little bit at somewhat buying and selling their travel, other life interest, and here’s it. First, if this process of continual monitoring were to be done by the individual, is it good as some what I explained above, or if the process were to be done by government as we are seeing in some cases, is that good? If the data can be collected by the individual, but also be in the hands of government or business as you laid out, is it still good and advisable? Anyway, so break that out a little bit and within this concept of monitoring, so we understand what’s happening and where the problem maybe arises.
James Spencer:
Sure. So I would say in the hands of individuals, monitoring can be good. And part of the problem that we’re having here is that we are choosing what to monitor and the data that we’re collecting on ourselves is not going to be, there are parts of a hole and they don’t represent all the parts of that hole. And so we get into this with, let’s say exercise. I lift weights an awful lot. I’m sort of built for lifting weights, but if I went out for a run, that would not be good. My body is just not built to run like that. And so I have to adapt my exercise routine to myself and understanding how my individual body adapts to certain things is really important. But do I need 24 7 monitoring to do that? I would say no. I think there are certain things we can watch.
There are certain levels of concern that we should have with our health and with our physical fitness and at. Would it be good to monitor some of those things more frequently? Sure. At other times, I think it crosses a line where we’re only paying attention to what we’re monitoring and we’re ignoring a lot of other things. So we have to sort of strike this balance of what do the numbers that we’re collecting actually tell us about ourselves and what else should we be paying attention to? I think this move toward monitoring diminishes us to some degree. I think your comment about variability in the manufacturing process is really telling, because much of what this monitoring could very well do is it could seek to eliminate variability within us. And I would argue that we need to remain fairly adaptable. Adaptability is a New Testament concept that we see when Paul is all things to all people. He’s yes, monitoring the situation, he has a good sense of himself, but he’s also adaptable in order to serve the gospel. And so I think we have to keep some of that adaptability. So that made my answer to the first one.
I think if the process were to be done by government as we’re seeing is a good, not particularly, I think that again, the government does certain things well and it does other things not so well. And so in trying to make a blanket judgment that everyone in the United States should be wearing wearables, and this is going to be a wholesale good for all people, it’s just too broad. It doesn’t take into account individual differences. It doesn’t take into account whether I don’t like wearing a watch on my arm. I don’t even wear a wedding ring. I don’t like the feel of them on my fingers. They kind of drive me nuts. And so is it good for me to wear something like that? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but there’s going to be some aggravation that comes along with that. And so I think a government mandated or government even recommended suggestion that everybody wear a wearable, just can’t take those things into account. So I think awareness, great. Hey, if you’re having trouble with your health and a wearable could help you, here you go. I think a recommendation goes a little too far in my mind and certainly a mandate.
Sam Rohrer:
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, hopefully that makes sense to everyone. I could go further, but I want to go just another direction. I may come back on the next segment, Dr. Spencer on that. But let’s get into the why. Because we see the push as we’ve already laid out, the collecting of data has been happening for a long time. It really has been happening for a very long time. And the push to move even into more digital, for instance, finances, we’re moving quickly into digital money, which means then the ability to control and monitor all transactions of any type, wherever, no more private transaction. Then you’ve got the health aspect, and then you’ve got travel and mobility with biometrics, and all of these things are being put together. So the move is clearly there to consolidate all possible collected data. And now you’ve got AI that can now for the first time interpret it all in real time, almost say why is there, in your opinion, such an insatiable desire by government and or business? We’ve already touched on it a little bit, I suppose, but a comprehensive and personally identifiable data. Why is that push so significant?
James Spencer:
In my mind, what it’s all about, or a big portion of what it’s about is, again, I’ll go back to this concept of legibility. Legibility means that we are trying to figure out what we’re dealing with. There’s a great book written by a gentleman named Scott James C. Scott. He wrote a book called Seeing Like a State. He talks about this concept of legibility. Basically the idea is that a ruler wants to understand what he’s ruling, and in order to do that, he has to package his kingdom into big, fairly small chunks that he can understand. He can’t look at every individual, he’s got to look at this town. He can’t look at every individual tree. He’s got to look at the forest. And so then you develop metrics to understand this town and this forest, and as you’re viewing those metrics, they become depersonalized. The town isn’t full of people, it’s just the town.
And so I think part of it is that legibility movement. Why we continue to do this is because we’re trying to gain more and more control, not necessarily a bad word. I know we often think of it as a bad word, sort of the 1984 Orwellian sort of control, but it’s not necessarily that sometimes it’s just we have a job to do. There’s too many moving pieces. And what we want to be able to do is we want to be able to keep some of those pieces from moving so that we can accomplish things that we believe will be good for society. Now the problem with that is in my mind is that we just don’t have a strong shared conception of the good, the true and the beautiful. And so anything that a given government does, in our case, representatives within the government, they’re supposed to represent us. But we’ve seen time and time again that we have a difference, particularly between Christians and government. We have a different conception of what the good, the true and the beautiful is. And so allowing the government to have this data and to use this data to socially engineer towards some good isn’t necessarily actually leading the country in a good direction. It’s just moving it to a different bad place.
Sam Rohrer:
Alright, again, I think that answers the question very, very well. And we’re about out of time, so let me just mention this, ladies and gentlemen. One of the things that I discovered when the Lord put me in elected office in 1992, for the first time when voting began to come up and I saw how much pressure was on voting and saw how votes were either intimidated, they were bought, were bribed, they were threatened, they were coerced because the vote was the thing that made law happen or not happen, is that I studied history and found that our early founders in our country when they gave us to this that represented republic, said very, very clearly that if mankind, the citizen and those in office did not control themselves and limit their actions according to the 10 commandments that tyranny would resolve. Well, one thing I learned was a depraved heart of which we all have unrestrained and uncontrolled by God’s law will always seek more control.
So I’m going to put that after and add it onto the why. When we come back, we can say right now, what do we do with all this information when we’re entering into our final segment now? And as we often try to do, I mean we try never to do this, raise an issue or raise a question and not resolve it. And if you listen regularly, that is the case, but maybe I haven’t ever explained, why don’t we do that? I mean, a lot of programs, they’ll raise issues based off of misleading title as an example, an intriguing that kind of pulls you in. Then you find out, well, where’s the beef? What are they talking about? Or bring up things in a way but don’t resolve it because they have no answers. And we believe here at Stand in the Gap radio and TV and American Pastors Network, that the word of God has an answer to all the issues of life.
It doesn’t tell us everything we want to know, but it does tell us everything we need to know. And so when we examine what’s happening around us, much of which we do not know fully at the moment, when we look at it through the lens of scripture, what does God’s word say? It allows us to bring well clarity from confusion. And so we try not to bring up an issue, but we always resolve it because that’s what God’s word does. God’s word tells us about a problem sin, it tells us how we got here, and it provides a solution. That solution is salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. And therein the whole aspect of prophecy. But all through these elements is where when we keep going to God’s word to recalibrate the way we’re thinking, it helps us to approach not in fear, but with a mind of faith, looking at what’s taking place.
And that’s what we’re talking about this matter today. And James, as we try to conclude this a bit, we’ve laid out the idea that there is now a major push in the area of health with wearables being stated from health and human services. It’s coming from an administration that most conservatives listening would say, this is a safe administration and these are people who we can trust, of which there are many good things happening, but there are certain other things taking place. And as you said, and I would agree with you, not necessarily because they’re being thought out in a nefarious way, but in a very pragmatic way. And therefore we want every American to be wearing a wearable that monitors their health. Problem is if it monitors their health, it means it’s connected to the internet and that means the data from every one of them is being collected and housed, and now somebody else knows all about you and every little thing about you.
So anyway, so that would be the point, ladies and gentlemen, so let’s resolve this. We are in an era, Dr. Spencer, of much monitoring. We see the expansive nature of monitoring, moving into health and finance and travel and consumerism and where we travel on the internet, all of these things that’s happening. And now the analysis of that data and the collection of that data is even being further enhanced because of the great speed of artificial intelligence, the data centers being built across the country. There is a mad push to collect, analyze, and then use that data because now it becomes powerful. So in this light, from an overall perspective, how should a God-fearing person consider what is happening and how should they biblically respond, particularly in a light of these things that we’re talking about? We’re not in a position to keep them from happening. They’re happening, but we do have to respond somehow.
James Spencer:
Yeah, I mean, I think that it’s appropriate for us. I think sort of the horses out of the barn a bit on some of our digital technologies. Anybody who’s interacted on the internet at all has their data out there. So I’m not sure there are a lot of ways to clean that up that are really viable. But I would argue that going forward, now that we understand what we’re giving up as we use some of these free systems and tools, we just need to be more discerning about what we’re doing there. That’s sort of a low level recommendation. I would actually say though, I would go to Matthew chapter 10 where Jesus says, sending the disciples out, and he tells them that behold, I’m sending you out a sheep amidst the wolves. So be wise as servants and innocent as doves. And I think what Jesus is really saying there is understand how the world works, but don’t be captured by it.
And when the world ultimately betrays you, remember that I’m with you. And so he says, beware of men for they will deliver you to the courts and flog you in the synagogues. You’ll find judgment. You’re not going to escape, but remember, you’re there to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. And so he tells us not to be anxious about how we’re to speak or what we’re to say before in that hour what we’re supposed to say is going to be given to us. And so I think there should be a level of calm about some of these things that we should certainly address these things and think about these things and just consider them wisely and deliberately, while at the same time recognizing that many of these things are just going to happen to us and that none of it is outside of God’s control and that we should be non-anxious and just recognize that the spirit will guide us through it.
I would say the final thing is as we move into a world that is increasingly about the data of data about us, that we not forget that we can’t outsource being neighborly. When I read the Parable of the Good Samaritan, I see when I look at all this data collection and what the government might do with it, what I see is the potential loss of neighborliness. If you imagine that Good Samaritan story and you rethink it and you say, what if all three of those men have passed and all they needed to do was push a button on their wearable watch to call in a med bot to help this injured man? And then you ask that same question, which of these was the neighbor? You could argue none of them because we’ve so distanced ourselves from each other that all we’re really seeing is the data. And I just think that Christians need to be focused in and be with people, not with data, but with actual people because we are not called to understand the world in the sense of we have all the data and we can gather all this information, we can analyze it. We are called to be neighbors, and so let’s love God and love neighbor despite all the data that’s being collected and just really show the world the difference that Christ makes.
Sam Rohrer:
Dr. Spencer, I didn’t know how you were going to answer that question, but I thought that was very wisely done. Ladies and gentlemen, did you get that? We’re not driven by fear. We talk about here we’re not driven by fear of these things. These things we’re talking about must happen, and they’re following into that arena called the beast system. That Bible says will come, or that day will come where every transaction will be watched and monitored, buying and selling. We know that’s going to happen. So what do we do? Well, number one, we don’t ever cease doing that which God has commanded us to do. We never cease to be Christlike, Dr. Spencer, as you said, neighborly meeting the needs of those about us. So we don’t ever cease to do what the scripture tells us we should do from assembling ourselves together to meeting the needs of our neighbor.
Okay? We don’t ever cease to do those. On the other hand, can I submit that we don’t ever do anything voluntarily that makes us identify with, and well again, violates some aspect of biblical principles. Where does it bring us? We have to know the word of God. And when we do and we take everything through that filter, then what we do can be known. So there it is. Dr. James Spencer, thank you so much for being with me today. What a timely topic and his website information there that you can go to and find useful to god.com. Dr. James master, thank you so much. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being with us today. And again, as always, you can pick up this program again and encourage you to do it and send it along to a friend.
Recent Comments