Latest / Beliefs, Ballots, And BullDawgs / Tuesday July 21, 2026

Transcript

Tuesday July 21, 2026 · Beliefs, Ballots, And BullDawgs

• Greg: Good morning, everybody. It is Tuesday, July 21st. I'm your host, Greg Miller. ⁓ fresh off ⁓ an early morning MRI this morning, working on the old dislocated shoulder, see if we've got some ⁓ soft tissue damage or if we're good to start rehab and hopefully get back to normal. ⁓ but I'm excited to be back and ⁓ get that wrapped up and here to share the message with you today. ⁓ the the message today is is about ⁓ false choices or kind of something I think we've We've become very well aware of and is very prevalent in in today's culture and today's societies, this kind of a false binary. It's like we're we're constantly presented with two choices. It's this or it's that. It's truth or it's love, it's justice or it's mercy, it's conviction or compassion, ⁓ strength versus humility, law versus grace. Pick one. You you you choose a side, you you wear that team's uniform, you repeat the talking points. Well then hey, let's let's be honest. Once you choose your side, you're not allowed to swap, you're not allowed to disagree with anything. You are expected to defend everything anybody on your side does. And then we have to assume the absolute worst by anybody on the other side. Does that sound ⁓ sound like something we've all witnessed? When we read the scripture, we we see we see something completely different. We we never see Jesus choosing between truth or love. We see him simply refusing to surrender either one. He never wanted he he never wanted to water down the truth ⁓ to make people comfortable. But he also he never took the chance to treat broken people as if they were irrelevant or or disposable. He would he would look directly at sin, call it what it was, and still look at the sinner with love in his eyes. He he defended the woman caught in adultery ⁓ from the people who wanted to stone her, but then he told her. Go and sin no more. Grace protected her from the condemnation of the people around her, but truth is what called her into the transformation that he was calling her to make. Jesus didn't choose one, he gave her both. And maybe that's exactly what we as Christians these days are being called to try to recover in this just angry, suspicious, and divided world that we reside in. Not truth without love and not love without truth. The difficult and beautiful and Christ like courage is required to hold on to both truth and love. The passage today comes from the book of Acts. It's chapter 15, verses 36 through 41. It's the story of Paul and Barnabas when they kind of had their disagreement. Sometime later, Paul said to Barnabas, Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing. Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them. But Paul did not think it wise to take him because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took John Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. He went to Syria through Siliconia and strengthening the churches. You know, this is before we really get into the the the technicals or the nature of the disagreement, we We need to understand the relationship between between Paul and Barnabas. These these weren't these weren't strangers, these weren't rival preachers. They weren't, you know, two social media influencers competing for attention and followers. These were in fact brothers in ministry that had preached together and taught together. Barnabas played an incredibly important role in Paul's life. After Paul, who was Saul, after Saul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus. You know, many of the Christians were were understandably ⁓ afraid of him because of what he had done. And I mean, who could blame him? You know, Saul had repeatedly persecuted the Christian church. He had, he had approved of and condoned violence against trish Christians. His his reputation amongst Christians was terrifying at the time. And then suddenly Saul claimed that he had had met Jesus and become a believer. The the disciples in Jerusalem at the time simply didn't know whether to trust him or not. And it was it was Barnabas that stepped forward. Barnabas is the one that took Paul to the disciples, to the disciples, and Barnabas spoke on Paul's behalf. Barnabas was the one that was willing to believe that God had truly changed this man while others were still very suspicious. I mean, in other words, but before before Paul became Paul, that we all remember, Barnabas was the one of the few people that was willing to stand by his side. And and that's a that's a crucial fact here because. Later, when the church in Antioch began growing, Barnabas went looking for Paul and brought him into the work. They they taught together, they prayed together, they worshiped together. And then the Holy Spirit called them out to go preach the gospel. So Paul and Barnabas had traveled together on what we now realize was Paul's first missionary journey. They they together they entered unfamiliar cities. They they preached the gospel of Christ. They faced they faced severe opposition. They saw people saved. They planted churches throughout the region. They endured tons of of just unimaginable hostility. And they experienced the power of God together. So these weren't two men who got into an argument from a distance. This wasn't some social media beef like I get all the time with people who don't know me from Adam calling me out on something. These these gentlemen had shared the road. They had shared the mission. They they had shared the danger of preaching the gospel at the time. And then the the kind of the root of the the disagreement was was John Mark. There was John Mark was a younger man back then. He he had traveled with them at the beginning of Paul's original journey. And you know, John Mark was, I believe, ⁓ through some fun familial connections tied to Barnabas. ⁓ I think he was Barnabas' cousin, is what we're told. But but somewhere along the that first initial journey, John Mark had had left Barnabas and Paul and returned home. Acts doesn't tell us why we don't get any sort of detailed explanation. Maybe he became afraid, maybe it was overwhelming. ⁓ the hardship. Maybe he was just homesick. Maybe maybe there was, you know, maybe there was some internal conflict within the group, or, you know, maybe, maybe he just simply wasn't ready for for what he was being called for at the time. We don't really know, but we don't know why he left. We just know that he left. And apparently this didn't this didn't sit well with Paul. Paul had not forgotten this. So so later when when Paul and and Barnabas had can completed their original journey and and spent time strengthening the church. You know, Paul was saying, Hey, Barnabas, let's let's go back. Let's go let's go revisit all the believers in the towns where we preached and let's check up on them. Let's see how they're doing with the word. And Barnabas agreed. They were like, hey, let's let's let's go make our our second round and let's go follow up with all these guys and and make sure that what we what we taught them is is coming to fruition. But the difference was Barnabas wanted to bring John Mark with him and and Paul said no. Paul didn't say maybe. Paul didn't say let me think about it. He just he just flat said no. ⁓ Paul didn't believe it was wise to take along someone who had already abandoned the work once. And and honestly, you know, can can you really blame him for that? I mean, we all, you know, people are creatures of habit. People show us patterns, and and we, when we feel like we've been taken advantage of or something has gone sideways, we don't want to let the same person do the same thing to us twice. You know, and in this case, you know, they were very well aware that you know missionary work at this time wasn't comfortable. It wasn't an easy thing. The travel was hard. There weren't airplanes. There weren't hotels. There was no quick ride home. You couldn't get an Uber. You know, Paul Paul had already been threatened, opposed, and physically attacked. I mean, obviously we know he got thrown in jail. He got beaten. To embark on a mission like this, Paul was probably just looking for people he could count on. And so I'm sure he was probably thinking, hey, you know, we're we're carrying the gospel into some dangerous places. You know, lives may depend on the reliability of who's on this team. And John Mark's already bailed on us once. We we can't afford for that to happen again. And and frankly, it it may seem like a an uncompassionate stance, but but that's not an unreasonable stance given what they were dealing with. But Barnabas looked at the same young man there and saw some potential. He saw something different. Barnabas saw someone who had who had failed but might not be finished yet. And you know, Barnabas had, and keep in mind, I go back, you Barnabas had once extended that grace to Paul when when everyone else doubted him. And now Barnabas was trying to extend the same sort of grace to John Mark. You know, may maybe Barnabas' line of thinking was, you know, yeah, yeah, he did fail, but it failure doesn't have to be final. You know, how will how will he or anyone ever grow if never given a second opportunity? And like we said, Paul's stance wasn't unreasonable. Neither was Barnabas. This is a reasonable position as well. Paul was protecting the mission. Barnabas was protecting the man. Paul was thinking about the reliability needed. Barnabas was thinking about the redemption opportunity. Paul saw the risk. Barnabas saw the possibility. We all we're all faced with these types of binary choices every day. And Acts tells us that this this is this disagreement became sharp to the point that they they separated. It wasn't mild, it wasn't a polite disagreement, it was just sharp. Barnabas wanted John Mark to go, Paul said no, and that was it. The Greek language behind this passage really kind of it does a better job, I believe, of of of getting into the intensity of this disagreement of provocation. These are these are two faithful men, these are two brothers who had served together and been on mission trips together, and they simply could not agree on this particular instance. So they separated. Barnabas took John Mark as the pastor tells us and sailed towards Cyprus. ⁓ and then Paul and Silas traveled in in a different direction. And that's that's ultimately where this passage ends. We we don't get we we don't get an apology scene, we don't get an immediate reconciliation. It just tells us they separated and went in different different directions. ⁓ and no verse that even really tells us right or wrong who won the argument. This is just two faithful believers who had slightly different convictions on this particular issue and they decided to go separate ways. You know, the the question I think we naturally would want to ask, but especially because of the society we live in is, hey, who was who was right here? Was Paul right or was Von Barnabas right? And I think the honest answer is both of them were right because both of them saw part of the truth. Paul's concerns were very valid. Responsibility matters, commitment matters, trust in these situations absolutely matters. Grace does not does not require that we pretend that choices have no consequences. But The other side of this Barnabas's concerns were also valid. You know, restoration matters, second chances matter, people matter, and and a a failure is not meant to define someone for the rest of their life. You know, Paul understood accountability, Barnabas understood encouragement. Same coin, two different sides. And as a church, we need both. Without people like Paul, we may lose all of our standards. Standards will disappear completely. But on the other hand, without people like Barnabas, wounded people may never find their way back home or be intimidated to even try. And so perhaps, you know, here the the the tragedy wasn't that they had different convictions. Perhaps the tragedy was was in that moment that they simply couldn't find a way to hold those convictions together and they had to separate. And this this reality should should humble all of us because frankly, you know, sincere Christians can love Jesus, can believe the Bible, and want the right thing And still sometimes disagree about the way forward. And that's something that we're dealing with all the time here. If you continue reading in the story, we learn that, you know, this is this is what makes the story, you know, kind of have a happy ending. Acts 15, this chapter, this this passage was not the final word on John Mark. Years later, we that, you know, Timothy, Paul writing to Timothy, ⁓ Paul wrote to Timothy and said, Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is useful to me in my ministry. I mean, the the man that Paul once refused to take with him on the ministry eventually became somebody that Paul specifically reached out and requested. Now, we don't know every conversation that happened in between. We don't know all the details. We don't know how or when trust was restored. We really don't know what happened. We don't know whether Paul changed his mind or whether Mark changed and matured or whether both of them changed and met in the middle. But what we do know is somewhere in this process, God kept working on them. Barnabas's investment in Mark mattered to the Lord, and Paul's standards mattered too. And somewhere along the way, the young man that had walked away from the mission became useful again. Time changed this story. Grace changed this story. Growth changed the story. God changed the story. And that's that's important for anybody that's out there listening today. That the person who may have disappointed you in the past may not be the end of their story. They may not be finished. The the person who failed may not always be the person that failed today. The the disagreement that feels so huge and overwhelming and and and just you know permanent right now, it is not likely to be the final chapter. Sometimes, even after we've decided to end the story, God keeps on writing. We we bring this into to the binary world that we live in today. And this is something that as Christians, we we are faced with just constantly. There is this unfair binary choice in almost every question or every decision that we're faced with. Everything simply gets bold down or reduced down to two choices. Either you support strict enforcement, or you don't care at all about law and order. Either you express concern for immigrants and their families, or you don't care about national security. Either you support technological innovation or you're terrified of progress and what may come. You know, you either will question how AI and social media affect children and employment and public life, or if you don't, then then you're anti-business and anti-freedom. You either you either trust every claim by your preferred political people, or you've betrayed your side if you don't trust them. If you don't distrust everything from the government or the other side, then you're naive. And and this is how how culture has has just decided to frame every single issue. And more often than not, all of these choices are not binary. This is often a false binary that we're bringing presented, and it's just so people can pigeonhole us into something they want to pigeonhole us into. As a Christian, we absolutely can believe that a nation has responsibility to enforce its laws, but we can still also insist that every person encountered in that law enforcement process bears the image of God and is treated responsibly. We can we can support borders without being indifferent to personal suffering. We can care about compassion without having to pretend like the laws don't matter. We can be grateful for technological progress and all that it has brought us, but we can still ask serious questions about what is it doing to children, what is it doing to the workforce, what is it doing to families and truth and privacy and dignity. We can absolutely support free expression, but also recognize that, hey, social media. Is wired to reward hostility, outrage, and venom and division. We can absolutely care about election integrity, but also care deeply that claims must be truthful and evidence be provided and public trust has to matter again. We can support leaders when they're right, and we can tell the truth when they're wrong. It's it's not betrayal to tell the truth, it's it's moral consistency. They've done some research recently, and and it's Americans, you know, we're in this red, blue, right, left, Republican-Democrat thing, and and we don't fit neatly into this as our conversations seem to imply. ⁓ you know, it it identified there's so many groups within these major coalitions that have massive and meaningful differences within their priorities and within their belief systems. But the media and and our environment, it doesn't, it doesn't notify or or even recognize that sort of complexity. It just rewards outrage, it rewards certainty. It doesn't want anybody to be stuck in the middle and have a hard time with a decision. You are choked you are supposed to choose one side or the other in this binary world. It rewards the person who reacts first and condemns the hardest and who responds the loudest. It it found that people, this same study found that ⁓ people are experiencing, you know, political discussions in a in a substantially more hostile and uncivil ⁓ you know. manner, especially online, than in face to face even. But this just, it's not the way it used to be. ⁓ and that's this is important. We keep we keep calling these things debates, but but we're not we're not watching people honestly enough or even paying attention enough to debate the ideas. We just want to argue. We're watching we're not watching debates in a back and forth manner where the truth is trying to come to light. We're just watching people and we're watching teams reinforce their own conclusions. And then we bring that same habit in into our home lives and into our churches and our social lives and our social media feeds. Again, we we talk about the core element for me and my life and this show is it's the truth. And we simply stop asking, hey, what is true? We're just asking what's our side saying? What does my side think? We stop listening to the other side with any intention of understanding. And we just start trying to listen for that one sentence we can attach. So we have something to say back to them. ⁓ we we stop seeing a a neighbor or a friend or a community member and we just start seeing them as as an avatar that represents the other side. You know, some of these topics like you know consider consider immigration. This is one of the you know hot button topics of the day and it's not going away anytime soon. You know, one side talks almost exclusively about borders and enforcement of crime and sovereignty and the rule of law. And the other side talks exclusively about families and asylum seekers and human dignity and fear and suffering. Why should we have to choose between the two? As a Christian, why should we surrender either of those concerns? Both of those ⁓ sides of ⁓ groups of things are important. And government absolutely has a responsibility to maintain order. In Romans in in chapter 13, this doesn't describe civil authority as meaningless. Walls matter, borders matter, public safety matters. A country that refuses to enforce laws ultimately will have no justice at all. But scripture also repeatedly commands us to care about foreign foreigners, care about the vulnerable, care about the stranger. And so this means that that enforcing the laws cannot be an excuse for for hatred or cruelty, but compassion cannot be an excuse for disorder and a lack of rule of law. Truth says that laws have meaning. Love says people have dignity. As Christians, We need to embrace and embody both. Current debates over the immigration enforcement continue to just just expose the tension that we're dealing with. And we're constantly ⁓ wrestling over the the scale of the methods of deportation while while we're, you know, are searching for more broader and and just better ways to reform and get the system under control. And the world around us is asking, heck, you know, which which group do you care about? Do you care about the immigrants or do you care about the citizens that want the border protected? Christ isn't asking us which group we care about. Christ would ask us, can you pursue the journey of justice without losing mercy and grace? You know, we we see the same false, you know, false binary surrounding ⁓ the social media and AI debate. You know, we're told that either we we must embrace new developments as progress, or we're supposed to reject the technology and the advancements altogether. As Christians, absolutely, we we are not called to worship technology. But we shouldn't fear it irrationally either. Technology is a tool and it can be a darn valuable one at times. The moral question for us to to really wrestle with is what is this tool doing to us as human beings? Is this something that can be used to to strengthen human dignity or simply reduce us as humans down to just data points in an algorithm? You know, does this do these advancements, are these gonna help us as parents to raise healthy and and happy children? Or is this something that's ultimately going to end up competing with us to try to raise the children? Social media and online forums are raising our children far more than we'd like to admit. Is this going to expand opportunity for people? Or is this going to in you know just increase the amount of of enormous influence that a handful of oligarchs and in high society have? You know, will these will these technological advancements ultimately help us to discover the truth? Or will they do what I think they're doing right now and is just flooding the world with believable falsehoods. You know, the the political debates ⁓ just it's you know, we're we're focusing on age restrictions because of children's online safety, and that's obviously an important thing. We're you know, the AI chat bots and privacy restrictions, like ⁓ school phone policies, all this stuff is just stuff we never thought we'd have to deal with and and now we're wrestling with it daily. And you know, it it's it's really hard because You know, so many of us as Americans, we we we distrust the government to regulate these things, but we distrust the platforms as well. And and that makes it a very compilate a complicated choice of, you know, do we want the government involved and and have these these things heavily regulated with the government in control? Or do we want no regulations at all and just have it be the Wild West and a complete free-for-all? I don't think either of those is the right answer. ⁓ You know, as a as a Christian, our response requires a a little bit of trying to straddle both sides and and and enact some wisdom. We we need to protect the children, we need to tell the truth, we need to respect freedom, we absolutely need to demand responsibility and accountability, and we need to preserve human dignity while doing all these things. We should not and do not have to surrender one moral concern in order to acknowledge another. It's just not the way things have to be. And then we get into you know the the the overall political environment itself. We we are we are l living in a world and in a moment right now with just historically low trust. ⁓ we've talked about it on this show, like the the lack of trust in our society from from government, from institutions, from media to just the person down the street. We don't trust anybody and and most of it's well wanted. People are not telling the truth these days. You know, we it It is a record low lack of confidence in in all major institutions. And and frankly, you know, for one side or the other, it flip-flops just based on who's in charge. If if my side's in charge, I trust them. If their side's in charge, I don't trust anything. That's a hard way to run a society. You know, trust in the in the mass media has has fallen to a low. It's there's there's just enormous differences in how how a singular item can be framed based upon who's covering it, which which media outlet is is reporting on it. And this is obviously this is creating a a very dangerous environment because when we when we stop trusting institutions, then we sometimes tend to kind of transfer all of our trust to to certain personalities. We may start believing that that one particular leader or one particular person must always be right because the alternative would mean that the other side might be right, and we know that's not an option. So we defend our conduct and we condemn, you know, if if the other party did it. We if if we do it, it's okay. If they do it, it's terrible. You know, we we constantly, this is all over the internet, we constantly repeat claims and repeat posts that we've in no way verified or know if they're true. We excuse dishonesty because, you know, sometimes we believe that the cause is is more important than telling the truth. That should never be the case. Nothing is ever more important than telling the truth. We treat, we treat criticism of of our candidate like it's a personal attack. And church, let me tell you, this is these are not Christian convictions. This is tribal loyalty. We've talked about this. Tribal loyalty is a very dangerous thing. Loyalty, in spite of the truth, is never the right answer. Loyalty is very important, but the truth is more important. As Christians, you know, we are called. If nobody else in the in the room is going to tell the truth, we will tell the truth. We don't have to protect a party as if it was our savior. We don't have to pretend our leaders are flawless. I have never said Donald Trump is an ideal person. I don't even think he's an ideal president. I think in the binary choice between him and the other person, I think I made the choice that I felt comfortable with. But it doesn't mean I support or agree with every single thing about him or everything that he says or does. You know, we we don't have to pretend that that we agree with everything. That would be it's not genuine. We don't have to call the wrong thing right just because, just because we overall support the person that's doing it. Our loyalty doesn't belong to a political party or anything else. Our loyalty belongs to Jesus Christ and the truth. And that means, hey, we can support any good decision regardless of who it comes from. We can oppose a harmful decision, regardless of who it comes from. We can pray for the leader, regardless of which party he represents. And we can tell the truth about that leader, regardless of which party he represents. And frankly, we can simply make a choice to refuse to exhibit exhibit hate on people who voted differently. This is what spiritual independence looks like. We don't have to hate the other side just because we disagree. So let's be clear on this. Now, this is this is not calling for weak convictions. I'm not telling you not to stand up for what you believe or not to stand up for your side. I'm not saying that every belief is even equally true. We're not saying Christians should stand in the middle of every issue and refuse to make moral judgments at all. Jesus made moral judgments. Paul made moral judgments. Scripture repeatedly makes moral judgments. Because you make a moral judgment and because you may disagree with somebody does not mean you hate them. These are all things that are true. These there are there are simple truths in the world and there are simply things that are false in the world. There are actions that honor God and there are actions that violate his commands. There are the answer to a confused culture is not to become a confused church who tries to straddle the middle of all the issues. But at the same time, Being convicted on our beliefs and and standing fast in them never is going to require us to exhibit contemptness. You can tell somebody they're wrong without treating them like they're worthless. You can you can oppose an idea without hating the person who believes it. You can defend the biblical truth without being arrogant. You can lose patience in an argument without losing sight of someone's humanity. Go back to the story here. Paul and Barnabas disagree vehemently. But neither one of them stopped belonging to Christ. The disagreement didn't transform one of them into an unbeliever. It didn't erase all the good things that they had accomplished together. It didn't cancel the mission. And neither should any disagreement but between Christians today. It should never cancel the mission. Truth without love is a weapon. It can become a way of humiliating people. It can, it can become an excuse for for arrogance or pride. It can become a performance where We just like to prove how correct we are while while displaying nothing about the character of Christ. ⁓ you can win an argument. We've said it here. You can win an argument and lose the person. You can quote the correct verse and still do so with the wrong spirit. You can 100% defend God's standards, but do so in a way that does not represent God's heart. You know, Paul wrote to us in in in the first Corinthians chapter 13 that even if he possessed extraordinary spiritual gifts and knowledge. But did not have love, he would be nothing. He would be less effective. Nothing. Truth matters. But the manner in which we carry the truth, can we do so with love, that also matters as well. But at the same time, love without truth isn't real love. If if someone is walking in the direction of destruction, being silent about it is not compassion. If sin is destroying a marriage or a family or a body or a soul or a community, in in ⁓ Embracing people and telling people that you know whatever makes them feel good and affirming that sin isn't kindness. Jesus never loved people by by lying to them. He welcomed sinners. He ate with sinners. He touched people that others worked desperately to avoid. He forgave people that others condemned. But he also said, repent. He also said, Follow me in my ways. Leave your life of sin. Take up your cross. Jesus didn't come just to make everyone feel warm, fuzzy, and accepted. He came to save us. And sometimes salvation is uncomfortable. Salvation requires transformation. Love that that refuses to tell the truth eventually just becomes sentimentality, and truth that refuses to love becomes brutality. Jesus offers something better than either extreme. Jesus offers us grace and truth. You know, the the clearest picture of this is the cross. At at the cross, God was not pretending that sin was harmless. That the reason he had to do what he had to do was because sin is such a big deal. Sin is so serious that that he gave his only begotten son to come down and stand in our place and bear its judgment. That's the truth. But God also didn't abandon sinners in that judgment. He came for us. He gave Christ himself. Christ gave himself for us. That's love. So God sent him because judge justice needed judgment, and that's the truth. Christ sacrificed himself for us. That's love. We need both. Justice wasn't ignored in this case. Justice was served, but mercy was not withheld because since Christ sacrificed for us, we got the mercy we didn't deserve. Truth wasn't sacrificed to make us feel comfortable. God did say, well, you know, sin's really not that big a deal. It's okay, so we'll just overlook it. And love wasn't sacrificed to prove God was right. At that Calvary Cross, truth and love met perfectly in that moment. The cross says that that your sin is way worse than you want to admit, and you are more deeply loved than you ever imagined. Both are true. That's that's the beauty of the gospel, that both of those statements are true. You are a profound and awful sinner, and God loves you more than you would ever possibly realize. Imagine, like, if we if we refuse to to embrace these false choices in our homes, if if we work on, you know, trying to correct our children. without humiliating them or making them feel bad. If if husbands and wives could could address real problems without turning every small disagreement into some sort of threat against the marriage. You know, if if families could discuss, you know, political subjects and and other important and and and hot topic issues without questioning each other's character. ⁓ you know, if if people could ⁓ apologize and say, hey, I'm sorry for whatever it is. But understanding that just because you apologize for for an argument, it doesn't mean you're surrendering every point that you made in that argument. You can absolutely say, Hey, look, I still believe my concern was valid. I still believe my thoughts are true and accurate, but I handled it poorly. You can say, Hey, look, I I disagree with your decision, but I still love you. You can always tell somebody, Hey, look, what you did hurt me, but I'm willing to forgive. ⁓ you you This is something I've had to work on. You can say, look, I need to set a boundary on something, but I don't want to be bitter. I don't want bitterness to be in my heart. Truth and love, accountability and grace, boundaries and forgiveness. They can all live in the same home. So this week is you're gonna you're gonna encounter someone who sees the world differently than you do. I promise. Maybe it's online, maybe it's at work, maybe it's at church, maybe it's around your own dinner table. My wife and I disagree on a ton of issues. But before you respond, ask yourself, you know, is what I'm about to say, am I about to speak because I want to help or because I want to win? Have I have I listened long enough and given this person enough effort to actually try to understand what this person genuinely believes, or am I just criticizing their argument? Am I am I am I criticizing the argument and the beliefs, or am I attacking their character? You know, those are things that matter. You know, when we're online, and and this is obviously we we we are all familiar with the keyboard warriors out there. Look, don't say something online that you wouldn't say to somebody's face. And that's easier said than done. I I I'm guilty. I I I say things to people across the world that I probably wouldn't say if somebody was sitting in the room. ⁓ and we should all work on being better about that. You know, it it's Jesus is inside of all of us and and the way we speak to others would be we should do so in such a way that if if Jesus were to look at us in that moment, would he recognize himself in us? You know, not not only in the in the content of the words, and and being that they are truthful and accurate, but in the tone and in the delivery, in the element of patience in the conversation, the humility, the the courage, and and the amount of love that you're speaking with. The the world is going to continue that you choose. Binary, false binary. The world is going to com like continue to force you to choose right, left, red, black, democrat, republican, truth or love, justice or mercy, courage or compassion, conviction or kindness. But Jesus tells us that's a false choice and you don't have to make it. Hold tightly to the truth. Don't compromise it and don't apologize for it. Don't ever exchange God's word in the truth for approval of the culture. But hold just as tightly to love. Don't peep, don't treat people as if they're disposable. Don't confuse cruelty with courage. And don't let political loyalty turn your neighbor or someone else into an enemy that they may not have to be. Don't be so determined to win the culture war that you stop looking like a Christian. Paul saw the importance of responsibility, and that's why he didn't want John Mark to go. Barnabas saw the importance and the possibility of restoration, and that's why he didn't want John Mark to go. Eventually, John Mark became useful to Paul again and he requested it. The ultimate tale of the story is that God was bigger than the disagreement, and Grace just needed a little more time to do the work. The mission continued, and you know, may that same be be true for all of us. May our mission continue. May we become the people who are strong enough to tell the truth, humble enough to admit when we don't know everything, courage enough to stand alone when we need to. And loving enough to remember that every person standing across from us, no matter what the argument may be, that person bears in the image of God. The world has plenty of people that are willing to defend their side. What we need is more questions that are willing to truly represent our Savior. Refuse to surrender the truth, but refuse to surrender love as well. Jesus never asked you to choose between them. He embodied both. And so should we. Get in your Bibles, say your prayers, love one another, and tell the truth. God bless.