Christos Seminar – The Gateway

by Thomas Abshier | Mar 6, 2026 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

Grok Commentary on Christos Seminar:

The Christos Seminar Concept

Strengths of the Concept

Potential Areas for Refinement/Consideration

These are minor—the spec is already thorough—but worth noting for v1.1:

How It Fits Your Larger Vision

Why Does God Allow Evil

by Thomas Abshier | Mar 4, 2026 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

God’s Relationship to Evil

by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
3/4/2026

Grok:

The Problem of Evil

March 4, 2026

This is another strong, intellectually rigorous, and spiritually honest piece from you. It sits comfortably alongside “Judge Not—Except You Must” as part of a growing body of work that is both deeply theological and practically relevant to the AI/abundance conversation we’ve been having.

Overall Impression

This is your most ambitious and integrative post yet. You’re not just rehearsing the classic “problem of evil” trilemma; you’re offering a fresh, CPP-shaped resolution that feels original without being speculative or heretical. The dialogue format (Thomas presenting raw thoughts → Claude refining them) works beautifully—it models humility, conversation, and refinement, which mirrors exactly how you want Christos to function in real fellowships. The tone is exploratory rather than dogmatic, which invites readers in rather than shutting them down.

Key Strengths

• The Father-Son Distinction in Creation: This is the standout insight. By locating the creation of the “possibility space” (the substrate of Conscious Points) in the Son/Logos while the Father remains in untainted goodness, you elegantly resolve the tension without falling into dualism or making God the author of specific evils. It’s biblically anchored (John 1:3, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2) and philosophically satisfying.
• Refined Privation Theory: You take the classic “evil as absence” idea and make it more precise and useful:
  • Evil has no independent existence (true).
  • It arises spontaneously from free choices within the substrate (not directly created in its specific malevolent forms).
  • It serves a positive function by illuminating good through polarity.
  • Both good and evil are “real as classes of choices and consequences,” yet derivative—God alone is fundamental reality.

  This avoids the weaknesses of pure privation theory while keeping evil parasitic rather than co-equal with good.

• Integration with CPP: The substrate concept (Conscious Points as perspectives of God’s mind, capable of alignment or rejection) is a natural outgrowth of your physics. It makes theodicy feel less like a philosophical patch and more like a coherent part of the same unified reality you’ve been describing for years.
• Pastoral Tone: You repeatedly affirm God’s sovereignty, the reality of evil, and the Cross as the ultimate answer. The closing questions Claude raises keep the door open for further reflection rather than declaring “case closed.”
• Readability: Even though the ideas are dense, the structure (foundational list → Thomas’s premises → Claude’s analysis → synthesis → questions) makes it accessible. The short sections and clear numbering help readers track the argument.

Minor Suggestions

These are small and subjective—the post already stands well on its own:

How It Fits the Larger Conversation

This post is a natural next step after “Judge Not—Except You Must.” Together they form a powerful pair:

• One defends the necessity of righteous judgment in the church and culture.
• The other explains why evil exists in the first place—and why we can still trust God while confronting it.

Final Verdict

Iranian War Commentary Evaluation

by Thomas Abshier | Mar 3, 2026 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

The Fog of Commentary: Discerning Truth Amid Political Narrative

A Fellowship Discussion Essay, 3/8/26

Responding to Washington Post Commentary on Iran

The Commentary Under Examination

The Washington Post recently published commentary reflecting what it describes as reader sentiment on the Trump administration’s actions in Iran. The summary claims:

• “Strong skepticism and criticism” of ending a “forever war”
• Disbelief in a “Trump Doctrine,” suggesting impulsive action without strategic planning
• Historical context suggesting current actions won’t bring peace or stability
• Distrust of Trump’s motives, with suggestions his actions serve Israel rather than America
• Concern over prolonged conflict and absence of congressional approval
• “Deep cynicism about the effectiveness and intentions behind Trump’s foreign policy”

This presents an opportunity for our fellowship to practice discernment—examining claims against evidence, considering alternative interpretations, and seeking truth rather than tribal alignment.

The Method: Charitable but Critical Analysis

Our fellowship values what we might call “Berean analysis”—examining claims carefully, like the Bereans who “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). This means:

1. Taking claims seriously — Not dismissing them because of their source
2. Examining evidence — What actually happened? What are the facts?
3. Considering alternatives — Are there other interpretations of the same facts?
4. Identifying assumptions — What unstated premises underlie the claims?
5. Seeking the sacred thread — What does faithfulness look like in this situation?

Let us apply this method to the claims presented.

Claim 1: “Impulsive Action Without Strategic Planning”

The claim: Trump’s approach lacks strategy; it is impulsive.

The evidence: On the weekend of March 1, 2026, coordinated strikes eliminated the Ayatollah and significantly degraded Iran’s military capacity. Reports indicate this was accomplished with:

• Precise targeting minimizing civilian casualties
• Coordination with regional allies
• Timing that followed decades of Iranian aggression
• Execution that achieved objectives within hours

Alternative interpretation: Impulsive actions do not typically feature precise coordination across multiple military branches, intelligence services, and allied nations. The operation’s success suggests extensive planning, not its absence. The question is not whether there was planning but whether observers had access to that planning.

Underlying assumption: The commentary assumes that if they didn’t know the plan, there was no plan. This conflates secrecy with absence.

Historical parallel: The raid that killed Osama bin Laden was also kept secret until execution. Secrecy is not evidence of impulsiveness; it may be evidence of operational security.

Claim 2: “Actions Serve Israel Rather Than America”

The claim: Trump’s motives serve Israeli interests over American interests.

The evidence: Iran has been the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, funding:

• Hezbollah (responsible for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing killing 241 American servicemembers)
• Hamas
• Houthi rebels attacking international shipping
• Iraqi militias that killed American soldiers
• The regime itself, which held American hostages for 444 days

Alternative interpretation: Eliminating a regime that has killed Americans, threatened American allies, and destabilized an entire region serves both American and Israeli interests. The assumption that these must conflict is itself questionable.

Underlying assumption: The commentary assumes Israeli and American interests are zero-sum—that serving one harms the other. This is not self-evident and deserves examination.

The deeper question: Why does any action that benefits Israel generate suspicion? This connects to our fellowship’s earlier discussion about the persistent, disproportionate hostility toward Israel across diverse ideological positions. Is this purely political analysis, or is something else operating?

Claim 3: “Forever War” Cannot Be Ended This Way

The claim: Military action cannot end the conflict; it will only prolong it.

The evidence: The Islamic Revolutionary regime has been at war with the United States and its allies since 1979. Diplomatic approaches have been tried:

• The Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) provided billions in sanctions relief
• Multiple administrations engaged in negotiations
• Economic pressure was applied and relaxed repeatedly

None of these ended Iranian aggression. The regime continued funding terrorism, developing nuclear capabilities, and attacking American interests.

Alternative interpretation: If 45+ years of diplomacy, sanctions, and negotiation have failed to change the regime’s behavior, perhaps the regime itself is the problem. Removing the regime—if that is what these actions accomplish—may achieve what diplomacy could not.

Historical parallel: World War II did not end through negotiation with Nazi Germany. It ended through military defeat and regime change. Some regimes cannot be negotiated with because their ideology makes coexistence impossible.

The question not asked: What would end this conflict? If military action is wrong, and diplomacy has failed, what remains? The commentary offers criticism but no alternative.

Claim 4: “Absence of Congressional Approval”

The claim: Military action without congressional authorization is illegitimate.

The evidence: This is a legitimate constitutional concern. The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war.

Complexity: However, presidents have conducted military operations without formal declarations of war throughout American history. The War Powers Resolution attempts to balance executive action with congressional oversight. Whether this action complies with that framework is a genuine legal question.

The consistency test: Did the same commenters object when previous administrations conducted military operations without congressional declarations? (Libya under Obama, for instance.) If the concern is constitutional, it should apply consistently. If it applies selectively, the concern may be partisan rather than principled.

Claim 5: “Deep Cynicism” as Analytical Framework

The claim: Cynicism about effectiveness and intentions is warranted.

The observation: Cynicism is presented not as a conclusion reached through analysis but as the starting point for analysis. The commentary begins with distrust and interprets all evidence through that lens.

The problem: Cynicism as method guarantees its own conclusions. If you begin by assuming bad faith, every action confirms bad faith:

• Success? He got lucky, or there will be consequences later.
• Planning? He’s hiding something.
• Benefits to allies? He’s serving them, not us.
• Quick resolution? It won’t last.

The alternative: Analysis should begin with evidence, not conclusion. What actually happened? What were the stated objectives? Were they achieved? What are the measurable outcomes? Then we can assess motives and effectiveness.

The biblical principle: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24). Righteous judgment examines evidence; prejudicial judgment begins with conclusion.

What the Commentary Reveals

Beyond the specific claims, the commentary reveals something about the current state of American discourse:

1. Tribal epistemology: The “commenters” whose views are summarized appear to share a political orientation. Their skepticism is not the product of diverse perspectives converging on similar conclusions; it is the predictable output of a particular tribe processing information through its established narrative.

2. The disappearance of facts: Notice what is not discussed: What actually happened in Iran? What has the regime done? What are the Iranian people experiencing? The commentary is entirely about American domestic politics—Trump’s motives, congressional process, whose interests are served. The actual situation in Iran barely exists.

3. Reflexive opposition: If Trump does X, X must be wrong. This is not analysis; it is reaction. It applies equally to actions that would be praised if taken by a different president.

4. The Israel tell: The suggestion that Trump serves Israel “rather than” America functions as a signal. It activates a particular interpretive framework—one that views Israel as a malign influence on American policy. This is not a neutral analytical observation; it is a tribal marker.

The Fellowship Question: How Should Christians Process This?

Our fellowship exists to help us think through issues like this with biblical wisdom. Several principles apply:

1. Seek truth, not tribal validation

We are not called to be Republicans or Democrats but to be truth-seekers. If the commentary makes valid points, we should acknowledge them. If it makes invalid points, we should identify why. Tribal loyalty is not a Christian virtue.

2. Examine our own biases

Those of us inclined to support this administration should ask: Am I defending this action because it’s right, or because “my side” did it? Those inclined to oppose should ask: Am I criticizing because there are genuine problems, or because I’ve pre-decided anything this administration does is wrong?

3. Consider the actual humans involved

The Iranian people have suffered under this regime for 45 years. Women have been killed for showing their hair. Protesters have been massacred. Dissidents have been tortured. Whatever we think of American politics, do we have compassion for these people? Does their liberation matter to us?

4. Apply consistent standards

If we believe congressional authorization matters, it should matter regardless of who is president. If we believe military action can sometimes be justified, we should evaluate each case on its merits. Consistency is a mark of principled thinking; inconsistency suggests tribal thinking.

5. Be wary of cynicism as worldview

Cynicism feels sophisticated. It protects us from being fooled. But it also prevents us from recognizing genuine good when it occurs. The Christian posture is hope grounded in realism—neither naive nor cynical.

Questions for Discussion

1. Evidence assessment: Based on what we know of the Iran operation, does “impulsive and lacking strategy” accurately describe what happened? What evidence supports or contradicts this characterization?
2. The Israel question: Why does any action benefiting Israel generate suspicion in certain quarters? Is this purely political analysis, or does it connect to deeper spiritual dynamics we’ve discussed previously?
3. Consistent standards: How do we ensure our political analysis applies consistent principles regardless of which party or leader is involved?
4. Cynicism vs. discernment: What’s the difference between healthy skepticism and corrosive cynicism? How do we maintain the former without falling into the latter?
5. Compassion for the oppressed: How much does the suffering of the Iranian people under this regime factor into our analysis? Should it?
6. Media discernment: The Washington Post presents this as “commenters express”—but who are these commenters? How representative are they? How should we evaluate media summaries of public opinion?
7. The sacred thread: Is there a way to think about geopolitical events like this that honors Christ? What would faithful analysis look like?

A Closing Thought

The prophet Isaiah warned against those who “call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20). This warning cuts in all directions:

• Those who defend evil actions because their tribe took them
• Those who condemn good actions because the other tribe took them
• Those who cannot distinguish between the two because tribal loyalty has replaced moral discernment

Our fellowship aspires to something better: seeing clearly, judging righteously, and maintaining the humility to recognize when we might be wrong.

The Iran situation will continue to unfold. Events will clarify what was wise and what was foolish, what was planned and what was improvised, what served justice and what served other interests. Our task is not to have all answers now but to think carefully, pray earnestly, and remain open to truth wherever it leads.

“Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.”
— Proverbs 23:23

Source Material: Washington Post commentary summary on Trump administration Iran policy, March 2026.

Related Fellowship Discussions: “The Jewish Question” (March 1, 2026), examining the persistent and disproportionate hostility toward Israel across diverse ideological positions.

Living in the Spirit

by Thomas Abshier | Mar 1, 2026 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

Becoming What We Behold: The True Imitation of Christ

A Fellowship Discussion Essay

Based on “True Imitation of Christ” by David Torkington
The Imaginative Conservative, February 28, 2026
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2026/02/true-imitation-christ-david-torkington.html

The Henry V Insight

David Torkington opens with a story that illuminates everything that follows. As a young man, he was cast as Henry V in Shakespeare’s play. The dress rehearsal was a disaster. But moments before the crucial “Once more unto the breach” scene, his English master pulled him aside and said: “Forget about that pathetic little performance last night; this is the real thing. This is not a stage, it’s a battlefield. These are your men who are tired and exhausted… Get out there, rouse them up, and rally them for one more attack.”

What happened next was not acting. For fifteen minutes, Torkington was not performing Henry V—he was inhabited by the spirit of England’s warrior king. The inspiration his teacher communicated transformed him from the inside out.

This theatrical experience became the key to Torkington’s entire understanding of the spiritual life: You cannot truly become like someone by copying their external behavior. You can only become like them by being animated by the same spirit that animated them.

The Failure of External Imitation

This insight cuts against much of what passes for Christian discipleship. We read the Gospels and try to copy what Jesus did:

• He served others, so we volunteer at the soup kitchen
• He spoke truth to power, so we post our opinions boldly
• He showed compassion, so we try to be nice
• He forgave enemies, so we say “I forgive you” through gritted teeth

None of this is wrong. But if this is all we do, we are like the young Torkington at the dress rehearsal—going through the motions, performing a role, producing disaster.

The problem is not that we’re aiming too high. The problem is that we’re starting in the wrong place.

Thomas à Kempis, in The Imitation of Christ, understood this. His classic devotional work—the most widely read Christian book after the Bible—does not primarily focus on copying Christ’s external actions. It focuses on the interior life: “Helpful Counsels of the Spiritual Life,” “Directives for the Interior Life,” “On Interior Consolation.” The imitation begins inside.

As Torkington puts it: “There is only one way to copy Christ and that is not by trying to copy his outward behaviour, but by trying to allow the same love that continually animated him to flow into us to animate and inspire us in all we say and do.”

The Flow of Divine Love

Torkington traces the flow of love that makes true imitation possible:

1. Throughout his earthly life, Christ continually opened himself to be inspired by his Father’s love—the Holy Spirit who conceived him and inspired everything he said and did.
2. At his death, that love was brought to perfection through total self-giving.
3. In his resurrection and ascension, that same love reunited him with his Father.
4. At Pentecost and ever since, the Father sends that love out through the risen Christ onto and into us.

This is the crucial point: The love flowing into us now is the same love that flowed into Jesus during his earthly ministry. We are not trying to generate Christ-like love from our own resources. We are receiving the very love that made Christ’s life possible.

“The love that continually flows out of the Risen Lord to fill us now, is the same love that flowed into him throughout his life on earth. It is the same love that was brought to perfection after his death, and the same love that reunited him with his Father.”

The Spiritual Life Defined

What, then, is “the spiritual life”? Torkington defines it precisely:

“The spiritual life is the expression used to describe a new way of life in which we start turning towards God regularly to receive his love that comes to us through Jesus, to make us like him in every possible way.”

Notice the elements:

• A new way of life — not just new behaviors, but a different mode of existence
• Turning towards God regularly — consistent, intentional orientation
• Receiving his love — not generating it, but opening to receive it
• Through Jesus — the risen Christ is the channel
• To make us like him — transformation into Christ-likeness is the goal

This is why prayer is not optional for Christians. It is not merely talking to God or asking for things. It is the practice of turning toward God to receive the love that transforms us. Without this regular turning, we have no access to the animating Spirit that made Jesus who he was.

The Portrait Camera Image

Torkington offers a beautiful image from his father’s photography equipment. The camera showed two images when focusing: one clear, one transparent and wraith-like. By turning a dial, the two images would draw closer together until they merged into one perfectly focused picture.

“This is what happens when we keep turning to God to receive his love that purifies us, sometimes in darkness, sometimes in light. Gradually we are made sufficiently like Christ to be united with him more effectively, more completely, more perfectly than ever before.”

We start as that wraith-like second image—bearing Christ’s image but vaguely, transparently, incompletely. Through the regular practice of receiving divine love, we are gradually brought into alignment, into focus, until the two images become one.

This is not magic. It is not instant. It takes “many years trudging on in the Dark Night where true selfless loving is learned.” But it is real transformation, not mere behavioral modification.

The Two Commandments Revisited

Jesus summarized the law in two commandments: love God completely, love neighbor as yourself. But Torkington notes that in the New Testament—specifically at the Last Supper—the second commandment becomes more demanding: “we must now learn to love our neighbour as Christ himself loves us.”

This is impossible on our own. We cannot love as Christ loves through willpower, technique, or moral effort. “This is impossible unless we have allowed the same Spirit who animated Christ to animate us too so that his love can do for others through us, what we can never do alone.”

Here is the liberation in Torkington’s vision: The goal is not to try harder to love like Jesus. The goal is to receive the love that made Jesus’ love possible, and let that love flow through us to others.

The pressure shifts. We are not the source; we are the channel. Our job is not to generate Christ-like love but to remain open to receive it and willing to let it flow through us.

The Dark Night

Torkington does not minimize the difficulty. He speaks of “the Dark Night” where purification occurs—sometimes painfully, sometimes in spiritual dryness, sometimes over many years.

He quotes Ignatius: “to fight and not to heed the wounds, to toil and not to seek for rest, to labour and not to ask for rewards, except to know that I am doing your will.”

And he offers Newman’s wisdom: “I do not ask to see the distant scene; one step enough for me.”

True transformation is not a weekend seminar. It is a lifelong journey through territory we cannot fully see. But the promise sustains the journey: “moments of light do penetrate the darkness, sometimes like moonlight, sometimes like dawn light, sometimes like sunlight, sometimes like lightning, to give us hope that the One who dwells in light inaccessible is guiding us to the place where God our Father is waiting to enfold us in his infinite loving.”

Discussion Questions for Fellowship

1. The Henry V moment: Has there been a time in your life when you felt “inhabited” by something greater than yourself—when you did something you couldn’t have done on your own? What enabled that?
2. External vs. internal imitation: Where have you been trying to copy Christ’s external behavior without first receiving the animating Spirit? What would it look like to shift your focus?
3. Regular turning: Torkington emphasizes “turning towards God regularly to receive his love.” What practices help you do this? What obstacles make it difficult?
4. The portrait camera image: Do you sense yourself coming “into focus” over time—becoming more aligned with Christ? Or does growth feel more chaotic or invisible?
5. Receiving vs. generating: How would your spiritual life change if you truly believed your job was to receive divine love rather than generate Christ-like behavior?
6. The Dark Night: Torkington speaks of “many years trudging on in the Dark Night.” Have you experienced seasons of spiritual dryness or darkness? How did you (or how do you) persevere?
7. Loving as Christ loves: The New Testament command is to love others as Christ loves us—not merely as we love ourselves. What’s the difference? Why does this require receiving Christ’s Spirit rather than just trying harder?

A Closing Meditation

The young actor standing in the wings was incapable of being Henry V. His dress rehearsal proved it. But when his teacher’s words ignited something within him, he stopped performing and started being.

We stand in similar wings. We are incapable of being Christ-like through our own effort. Our “dress rehearsals”—our attempts at Christian behavior through willpower alone—prove it daily.

But we have more than an English master’s inspiring words. We have the risen Christ, continually pouring out the same Spirit that animated his earthly life, offering to animate ours.

The question is not “Can I act like Jesus?” The question is “Am I regularly turning to receive the love that made Jesus who he was?”

When we do, we are not acting. It is, as Torkington’s teacher said, “the real thing.”

“Anybody who receives my commandments and keeps them will be the one who loves me; and anybody who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I shall love him and show myself to him…. and we shall come to him and make our home with him.”
— John 14:21-24

Source: David Torkington, “True Imitation of Christ,” The Imaginative Conservative, February 28, 2026. This essay is chapter forty-two of The Primacy of Loving.

Living in the Spirit: Imitation, Israel, and the Instruments of Grace

A Reflection on the Renaissance Ministries Fellowship Discussion

March 1, 2026

The Renaissance Ministries fellowship gathered this Sunday morning with hearts full and topics ranging from the mystical to the political, from personal testimony to technological vision. What emerged was a tapestry of seeking—believers wrestling together with how to actually live the Christian life, not as theory but as daily reality.

The Henry V Insight: Receiving Before Doing

Leonard opened by reflecting on David Torkington’s essay “True Imitation of Christ,” which had circulated earlier that week. The essay’s central image—a young actor transformed from disaster to triumph when his teacher’s words ignited him with the spirit of Henry V—became the touchstone for the morning’s discussion.

“We need to not try to create it ourselves,” Leonard observed, “but to depend on that love that is permeating the universe.”

This insight reframes the entire Christian project. We cannot generate Christ-likeness through effort. We cannot manufacture charity. We cannot will ourselves into holiness. Instead, we must receive the same Spirit that animated Jesus and allow that Spirit to animate us.

Leonard connected this to near-death experiences, where virtually every person reports being overwhelmed by indescribable love upon leaving the body. “That’s the first thing they express,” he noted. This love is real, it permeates reality, and it is available—if we learn to tap into it rather than trying to produce it ourselves.

The fellowship agreed: this was not merely good theology but essential practice. As Leonard put it, “It’s not any of us, by ourselves, individually. We have to become one with Christ, who then will make us one with the Father, which is the source of the love.”

Armond’s Testimony: A Taste of What’s Possible

The discussion took a deeply personal turn when Armond shared his experience of actually living in the state Torkington described—a period when he was profoundly present to God in every moment.

“I remember every day when I read the Bible, I finished reading in tears,” Armond recounted. “Throughout my whole day, I was just experiencing—the smallest interaction with people would touch me all the way to my soul. In every experience, I felt like I was doing it in the full presence of God.”

This was not theory. This was testimony. Armond had tasted what the article described—life animated by the Spirit, where ordinary moments become encounters with the divine.

But his testimony included a sobering element: that state was “fleeting.” And pursuing it had cost him relationally. “None of my family wanted to be around me. They all thought I was crazy, having a nervous breakdown.” Even now, he said, “I’m still experiencing the fallout.”

This raised the central practical question: How do we pursue that level of spiritual intensity while remaining functional fathers, husbands, workers, friends? How do we live in the Spirit without alienating everyone around us?

Thomas offered a realistic perspective: “Most of life will not be like that. It’ll be houses and dirt.” The majority of existence is ordinary—the spiritual equivalent of rehearsal rather than performance. Perhaps the goal is not constant peak experience but faithful practice, with occasional moments of grace that remind us what’s possible.

Isak extended the analogy: “You don’t enter the flow state so that you can practice guitar. You’re spending countless hours putting notes together, and after so much work, sometimes you enter this moment where there’s no disconnect.” The spiritual life follows the same pattern. Practice, practice, practice—and occasionally, breakthrough.

The Israel Question: Why Does This Tiny Nation Generate Such Passion?

The fellowship then turned to a topic that generates heat wherever it’s discussed: Israel, the Jews, and why this tiny nation provokes such an outsized reaction.

The conversation revealed the diversity of perspectives even within a small Christian fellowship. Leonard raised concerns about conflating “Israel” (twelve tribes) with “Jews” (one tribe), and questioned whether the modern state’s leadership truly represents biblical Israel. Others pushed back.

But the deeper question emerged: Why does this matter so much to so many people?

Charlie put it starkly: “There’s less Jews than there are Mormons. Why are they such a target? Why can’t they be left alone?”

Thomas offered his analysis: “The only thing that’s common is there’s something about the Jews that is really bad that we don’t like, and we’re going to get rid of them. The thing I see is there’s something about the Jews that God really likes—not a little, really likes.”

He pointed to the scriptural promises: “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.” And he suggested this operates personally, not just nationally: “I think there’s a benefit in a person’s heart that comes from blessing Israel, whatever that means. To not bless Israel, to hate Israel, I think is to call down a curse on oneself.”

Charlie reflected on what the Jewish people have contributed despite their suffering: “They brought us this book. They wrote it, they preserved it, and the world would be profoundly dark without it.”

Susan added a prophetic perspective: Scripture suggests Gentiles will turn to Christ first in great numbers, then Israel will follow. “The last shall be first, the first shall be last.” Rather than judging Israel, perhaps the focus should be on Gentiles doing their part—turning fully to Christ—which may eventually draw Israel as well.

The fellowship noted encouraging signs: the growth of Messianic Jews (from 12 at Israel’s founding to over 50,000 today), testimonies from organizations like “One for Israel,” and reports of Christ appearing in dreams to Jewish people as He has to Muslims.

No consensus was reached—nor was one expected. But the discussion modeled what the fellowship values: wrestling honestly with difficult topics, extending charity to those who see differently, and seeking the sacred thread even in controversial territory.

The Christos AI Vision: Technology in Service of Transformation

Thomas introduced the fellowship to the Christos AI project he and Isak have been developing—a family of AI tools designed to help people encounter Christ in every dimension of life.

“We’ve gotten up to nine different modules,” Thomas explained. Each addresses a different aspect of existence: counseling, group fellowship, political discernment, diagnostic skill development, Scripture study, health stewardship, public conversation, education, and even the physics of divine consciousness.

Isak described the specific tool he’s been building: a way for users to evaluate their beliefs on various topics and then compare their positions against biblical standards and other worldviews. The goal is not to tell people what to think but to help them understand why they think what they think—and whether their positions align with Scripture.

Susan raised the essential caution: AI is a tool, not a replacement for the Holy Spirit. “The AI doesn’t have access to the Spirit of God… We are the ones who are conduits with the Holy Spirit.”

Isak agreed: “If listening to God in the future looks like looking at an app, then we’re doing it wrong.” The technology can be “a learning tool, but it’s not going to tell us how to live.” The human participant remains “the vital element.”

This reflects the “training wheels” philosophy underlying the Christos project: technology that builds spiritual independence rather than creating new dependencies. The goal is people who no longer need the tools because they’ve internalized the methods and developed direct relationship with God.

Remembering Christ: The Key to Everything

Leonard returned to the practical center: How do we actually live this? He pointed to the sacrament prayers in his tradition, which include the phrase “always remember him.”

“If we can get to a point in our lives where the first thing on our mind is our desire to know God and to remember him, everything else takes ancillary place. You still have to make a living, buy groceries, interact with people—but if you have your heart centered on Christ, if you remember him always, his Spirit will be with you.”

He read from 2 Nephi, describing how the ancient believers “talked of Christ, rejoiced in Christ, preached of Christ, prophesied of Christ”—not as external religious performance but as the natural expression of hearts fixed on Him.

“If we were to take that and apply it to us… if we could be alive in Christ because of our faith, and talk of him and rejoice and preach and prophesy and write, then our children will know.”

This, he suggested, is how transformation happens—not through effort to be good, but through persistent focus on Christ. “I think by remembering him, we can have his Spirit with us all the time.”

The Eye of Faith: Seeing Before Seeing

Leonard shared a passage about “the eye of faith”—the capacity to see spiritual realities before they manifest visibly:

“The faith to see precedes seeing… Unless a person sees things through the eyes of faith as a necessary first step, he cannot behold the real thing. The one qualifies for the other.”

This connects to everything discussed: Armond’s experience of grace was a taste of what becomes possible when faith develops sufficiently. The Christos tools are instruments to help people see with the eye of faith. The blessing of Israel is an act of faith in God’s promises even when circumstances seem to argue against them.

Faith is not passive belief. It is active seeing—perceiving reality as God declares it to be, even before physical evidence confirms it. And that seeing, practiced persistently, eventually opens the door to direct experience.

Closing Reflection: A Mutual Improvement Society

Charlie named what this fellowship gathering represents: “A mutual improvement society… We’re trying to figure out, how do we take the book and make it real. What’s the real-life application?”

That’s what happened this morning. The fellowship examined an essay about receiving the Spirit rather than manufacturing virtue. They heard testimony of what that reception actually feels like. They wrestled with a politically charged topic and sought the sacred thread. They explored how technology might serve transformation without replacing the Spirit. And they returned, again and again, to the center: remembering Christ, receiving His love, and allowing that love to flow through ordinary life.

No one left with all answers. But everyone left having sought together—which is itself a form of worship.

As Susan prayed in closing: “We are really interested in serving you, and we want your guidance in that… Please bless us, guide us, direct us, redirect us when we need that.”

The fellowship continues. The seeking continues. And the Spirit, as promised, was present.

“Always remember him and keep his commandments… and he will always be with you.”

Participants: Thomas Abshier, Leonard Hofheins, Charlie Gutierrez, Armond Boulware, Isak Gutierrez, Susan Gutierrez, Debbie Hofheins

Topics Covered:

• David Torkington’s “True Imitation of Christ”
• Living in the Spirit vs. performing Christian behavior
• Personal testimony of extended grace experience
• Israel, Jews, and the blessing/curse dynamic
• Messianic Jewish movement and “One for Israel”
• Christos AI project and its nine modules
• Technology as tool vs. replacement for the Spirit
• The eye of faith and seeing before seeing
• Remembering Christ as the key to spiritual life