Tuesday, May 27, 2025

Part I

---

Evil Seized an Opportunity in the U.S. Embassy: A Horrific Attack in the Name of ‘Free Palestine’ Leads to the Murder of Two Israeli Diplomats

Some years ago, national security experts ask an interesting question and ominous question, is Jihad eventually going to reach American Shores? You have to keep that in mind when you consider what took place outside an event where two staffers at the Israeli embassy to the United States were shot dead. It is a young man and a young woman who happened also to be a young couple, and we are now told that the young man, Yaron Leshinsky had intended in just coming days to extend a wedding proposal to Sarah Milgram, but now they are both dead killed as they were leaving a Jewish museum. And remember, both of these are staffers in the foreign service of Israel in the United States.

According to the New York Times, upon his arrest, the man said to police officers, “I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza.” The suspect also said after his arrest, “Free, free Palestine,” that according to the Financial Times of London, this is a major turning point when you consider the efforts by the United States to fight terrorism. It’s not only a worldwide phenomenon. This has happened in the United States, in Washington DC, and we’re talking about two staffers at the Israeli embassy.

Now, Israel is no stranger to this kind of attack, just consider the history of Israel, but one of the things that was revealed in all of this is that protecting diplomatic personnel like this is very, very difficult. In a city like Washington, there is a great deal of security, but when it comes to moving staffers, for example, out in the community, as the Israeli government said, “There is no way we can have two security officers with every member of the embassy staff at all times as they’re going out in public, as they’re going to the grocery store. It just becomes impossible.” 

It shows a vulnerability in free societies. This is one of the big issues that arose in particular when the War on Terror really came to American shores in the attack of September 11, 2001, that left Americans understanding that we are not so well protected as we thought we were, and that’s not so much the fault of police or military or intelligence agencies. It is because as one spokesman for Israel’s security forces said, “We have to get it right every single time. A terrorist only has to get it right once.” That shows the vulnerability of civilization, any civilization.

But when you are a civilization, a society, when you are a state like Israel, which has had enemies, violent enemies from the very beginning when Israel has had to fight for its existence at every second of its history and experience, the reality is that there are unique vulnerabilities that show up here and there’s no easy answer as to how anything like this could be prevented. So immediately you begin to think about things such as maybe embassy staffers shouldn’t go out in the public. Well then that creates an impossible situation. They are there for a public role. They can’t fulfill their role if they’re behind some kind of embassy wall. This is something that was a challenge faced by the United States, at least in historic terms.

Not so much here as a domestic question, but in terms of our own foreign policy and foreign service employees elsewhere around the world. And just think of the Iranian hostage situation. Those were American staffers. They were foreign service officers, in the main, who were taken as hostages by students supposedly there in revolutionary Iran, but held obviously with the complicity of the government with the Islamic regime until they were finally released. You look at this and also recognize there’s a vulnerability in a free society that just comes glaringly to mind when you see something like this.

For instance, the police in Washington DC had noticed, security officials had noticed the man walking around the area, but you know what? In a free society, it is very difficult to remove any questionable person, from every situation, where there might be some kind of threat. It also points to the reality that when you have these intelligence agencies and police forces and they are looking at rules and protocols on the one hand, and they’re also looking at profiles, on the other hand, you look with a particular eye to this kind of behavior, you tie this to another kind of behavior, but as security forces will acknowledge, you can’t be ahead of the mind of most people who are set on this kind of malevolent act.

It’s clear that once again, this has shocked even Israel, as the Financial Times reports, the killing of two young staffers from the country’s embassy in Washington has come as a profound shock and thrown a spotlight on how the country protects its missions overseas at a time when its war with Hamas and Gaza has fueled anger around the world. A senior Israeli diplomat said, “This will crack and shatter the sense of security in DC,” he went on. If it can happen here, then it can happen anywhere. Well, that tells you a great deal about the situation. Evidently, it can happen here. It can happen there because it did. 

Now, you can imagine that in the response to this, there is going to be a tightening of security. There’s going to be a new sensitivity on the part of Israeli diplomats and frankly, diplomats of any sort under any flag, they’re likely to pay attention to this. So there are at least two issues here. Number one, we don’t know exactly why this man, the alleged perpetrator, why he did what he did, but we do have the words he said, and those words fit exactly what you would expect of someone who would undertake a murderous attack upon two Israeli staffers, “Free, free Palestine,” or again, as he said, “I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza.”

Now we are looking at a situation in which Israel’s been fighting for its existence In the very beginning, it has never been secure unless it has provided its own security, but we understand that nothing is disconnected from anything else when it comes to foreign policy. We are looking at the fact that there are several nations disengaging from Israel, several nations that have been fully supportive of Israel’s initial military action against Hamas are now breaking from it. You also have increasing dissonance within Israel, and so this just adds to the accumulated, you might say, explosive charge, represented by what is happening not only in Israel, not only in Gaza, but now wherever Israel is represented, wherever the Israeli flag flies.

This does show the vulnerability and from a Christian worldview perspective, it reminds us not only of the fact that there’s persistent evil in the world, even deadly evil in the world, but that security staffer got it exactly right. If you’re trying to protect those, who for instance, are serving in the Israeli foreign service, you have to get it right every single time. If you are trying to commit a malevolent evil act, a terrorist act, you only have to get it right once. That is to say that in a fallen world, a dangerous world, evil seizing the opportunity, that’s a good biblical term, seizing the opportunity can often be very effective and very deadly.

By the way, the article in the New York Times had a very interesting twist. The young man, your own Leshinsky was raised with one parent being Jewish, the other parent being Christian, he identified as a Christian. The New York Times says “he was a devout Christian.” This is said by an Israeli, “but he had tied his fate to the people of Israel.” That’s a very powerful statement. He had tied his fate to the people of Israel. Unfortunately, this is the kind of story Israel has had to deal with over and over again. 

President Trump, of course expressed deep sorrow at the shooting of the two Israeli staffers, and there is no doubt that American security and police forces will be on higher alert when it comes to any situation such as this. But we come back to the same problem that we have faced from the beginning in terms of the war on terror, and that is, that the forces of disorder have the advantage. The forces of malevolence have the advantage because they do seek to seize the opportunity, and sometimes an opportunity is presented with deadly effect. The legal actions, the court actions, indictments, all that to follow all of it is going to be very interesting and in moral terms, it’ll be very telling. The response to this is going to be very telling.

I’ll tell you right up front that at least part of what you should watch for and listen for is the fact that there will be apologists for violence against Israel who are going to try to rationalize this or at least say that it needs to be understood in its context, but we must understand an attack like this for exactly what it is. 

Part II

---

A ‘Fuller Way’ on LGBTQ Issues? Fuller Seminary Trustees Reaffirm Stance on Homosexuality – But How Will That Square with Its Faculty Members and Student Body Who are Affirming?

All right, coming back to the United States, a very interesting report. It’s a story that was released Friday by Christianity Today. The reporter is Daniel Sullivan. The headline is “Fuller Seminary Reaffirms Historic LGBTQ Stance.” All right, we have to watch this issue because of course it is in many ways the most divisive, the most interesting issue, the most revealing issue. As you think about the theological transformations taking place in American Christianity, at least institutionally speaking American Christianity. We understand that the LGBTQ issues have caused a great division in American church life.

You have the mainline Protestant liberal denominations, all of which are basically pro-LGBTQ. They weren’t that 30 years ago. They are that now. It’s entirely due to the activism of the LGBTQ movement, but it also is tied to liberal theology. Liberal theology removes the ability to say it is simply revealed in creation and in holy Scripture, that marriage is this and can only be this, the union of a man and a woman that gender is this and can only be this in creation order and in scriptural command; that sexual activity is confined to marriage as a covenant union between a man and a woman, it is there legitimate, it is nowhere else; Legitimate heterosexual sex in the context of marriage is legitimate, even blessed. The first command was “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” Sexual expression in any other context is illegitimate, and the Bible clearly calls it sin. It also calls it a rejection of the divinely given order. That’s a point made graphically very clearly by the Apostle Paul in Romans chapter one. 

Christians need to understand this is an essential issue. This is a fundamental issue. There are people who are trying to say, well, we can agree to disagree on any number of issues. This is not, and of course our audience talking about one issue, but it’s one sexual revolution. This is not something upon which we can agree to disagree. The Bible is just too clear. The teachings are very, very clear. They’re transparent. The Christian Church has understood them clearly through centuries. It is only in modern times under social activism with a very clear agenda of the sexual revolution that there’s been a reconsideration of these things.

It’s part of a far larger complex world view analysis. It has to do not only with moral relativism and moral revolution, it has also to do the subversion of biblical authority because you can’t possibly describe these relationships and behaviors and sexual expressions as legitimate because the Bible condemns them consistently and comprehensively. So you have to subvert the Bible’s authority. But of course, the mainline Protestant churches with liberal theology have been doing that for a long time. And so they were basically defenseless when it came to the LGBTQ revolution and frankly, other issues of social, moral and ideological activism as well.

Part III

---

There is No Third Way to Faithfulness: Every Christian Institution Must Resolve to Be Faithful to Scripture No Matter the Cost

But when you look at an institution like Fuller Seminary, which has had such a formative role with the history of American evangelicalism, certainly from the 20th century forward, that would make big news. And the big news according to this new story is that Fuller Seminary reaffirms historic LGBTQ stance. Well, let’s look more closely at the story again. Silliman tells us “Fuller Theological Seminary sticking to its position on human sexuality.” What does that mean? The next statement. “After several years discussing and debating the evangelical institution’s stance and considering changing policies impacting LGBTQ students, faculty and staff trustees voted to reaffirm ‘Fuller’s historic theological understanding of marriage.’” That’s put in quotation marks as coming from the seminary. The statement continues “while noting the school’s position that ‘faithful Christians can hold other views.’” Okay, so let me go back to the headline, which is that the Fuller Seminary, and it turns out that really means it’s board of trustees, that’s crucial, it doesn’t say the faculty has approved this. It doesn’t say the student body has agreed to this. It says the board of trustees has decided to reaffirm historic LGBTQ stance. Well, it turns out that when it comes to historic, it’s pretty recent history that such a thing would be discussed in the first place, or that such a policy would be required.

David Goatley, the President at Fuller said, “Fuller Seminary has historically shunned ideological polarities.” He said, “We continue to seek another way, a fuller way that is a critical contribution to the church and the world.” So just understand what’s being said there. Fuller’s going to do its own thing, it’s going to chart its own way. In another statement, he refers to the evolving discussion of this issue at Fuller as a journey the institution is on. Well, there’s a background to this and of course there always is. The background to this, at least in part, is the fact that there had been a student group in recent years who had openly called for Fuller to revise its policy and the way they made the arguments kind of interesting because it’s not just the traditional LGBTQ positive argument. There’s that too.

The other interesting argument is that Fuller is a non-denominational seminary, and at least some of the denominations represented by faculty and staff and students are LGBTQ-affirming denominations. And so inclusion, these students argued, would mean recognizing LGBTQ-plus relationships, and that would include with faculty members and staff as well as students. That would of course mean a major transformation, a Fuller Seminary in a way that would be quite explicitly favorable to the sexual revolution in the LGBTQ agenda. Christianity today tells us that the trustee board chair, Shirley Mullen said “the decision was made after years of long, thoughtful discussion about issues dividing Christians and about Fuller’s core identity.”

Well, from a media perspective, the interesting question is if this has taken years of study, why is the news release? Why is it offered on a Friday at the end of the newsweek. In traditional terms, that’s a way of trying to hide a story, to bury a story or certainly to de-emphasize a story. When you have a board of trustees take this kind of action and it’s announced on a Friday like this, that usually means there’s some kind of considerable pressure to say something and to finally define the lines. 

There has been struggle at Fuller for a number of years, perhaps inside the faculty. I have no firsthand knowledge of that, but certainly when it comes to relations between the administration and students, and this has led to some at least attempted lawsuits, it’s led to controversy as Christianity today acknowledges. It has also led to the firing of at least one staff member and that that staff member was fired because she could no longer affirm the statement of the institution when it comes to these issues. As CT tells us, “in 2024 Ruth Schmidt Senior Director of Fuller’s Bream Center for the Arts and Worship was fired after she refused to sign the school statement of Faith. Schmidt, [This is CT’s report continuing] who identifies as queer had previously signed the the statement as a student and as an employee. But [the article tells us] as she prepared for ordination in the United Church of Christ [I’ll just insert one of the most liberal of the liberal Protestant denominations] she decided she was no longer willing to do it.”

CT goes on to report, “Schmidt was fired prompting protests.” The report says “a group of students took the stage at the end of a chapel service with signs saying, ‘LGBTQ+ let’s talk about it’ and ‘I want to talk in safety.’ They demanded a moratorium on expulsions and firings. A larger group of about 40 protested outside.” According to the report, Goatley asked for patience from the students and this is where he said, “This is the journey that we’re on and we have to work with delicacy and with diligence because these matters are impactful personally, ecclesiologically, communally and institutionally.” Now, there are so many things to consider here, and to be honest, Fuller and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary now inhabit different worlds.

So this is not something about an institution really in our world, and that’s made very clear when you look at the fact that you have an employee here who identified as queer, and when you have students who are clearly calling for this kind of activism and when you have church bodies represented that are just absolutely pro-LGBTQ, that’s a world very far from the world I inhabit. But this is the world that is still somewhat defining of American evangelicalism and that’s the problem. Fuller Seminary was established as an evangelical school, to hold two biblical essentials, but it’s also an experiment and I think a part of the problem is that when you have a self-perpetuating board of trustees, that is one of the problems we see in evangelical higher education.

When you have a self-perpetuating board of trustees, it is very hard to hold to confessional fidelity over time, and in particular, you start under that situation to begin electing trustees who are more financially qualified than confessionally qualified. You end up with assuming a trajectory, and then you basically select trustees who will assist you in moving in that trajectory. But you legally defined trustees do hold the institution in trust, and that’s why even in a more liberal context, at least at times, the trustees, or the board of directors is more conservative than the faculty and student body, and it’s precisely because they will have to answer in court in a way that the faculty and the student body never will.

They also have a fiduciary responsibility, which may mean that they’ve been, well, at least a little more sensitive to the fact that, if they had gone full LGBTQ affirming, it would come with a very considerable cost. But there’s a history here as well. As I say, Fuller was established. Billy Graham was a part of establishing Fuller Theological Seminary, evangelical titans like a hero to me, Carl F.H Henry was a part of that founding faculty. There were other just stalwart defenders of the faith. There were professors who left, however, in the 1960s and in the 1970s over the fact that there was already change taking place at Fuller, by 1970, the school had officially changed its confession of faith. Now, that’s a big step. They changed their confession to faith to take out the requirement of biblical inerrancy and plenary verbal inspiration and replace it with, well, a far more generalized language on Scripture.

And then as most listeners to the Briefing know, the big event over the course of the last year was the publication of the book, The Widening of God’s Mercy by Richard and Christopher Hays, in which Richard Hays, who had taught at Duke Divinity School for a number of years, and had published one of the most influential works defending a biblical understanding of human sexuality and clearly declaring homosexual behavior to be incompatible with Scripture, he and his son. Well, they offered a book last year, which is a radical revision indeed, a correction as he saw it of that position, and they came out LGBTQ affirming. Now, here’s the crucial issue.

Richard Hays taught it Duke and Lamentably. He died shortly after the publication of the book. His son, Christopher Hayes is a professor of Old Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary. So as soon as that book came out, big question is how in the world is that going to square with the confession of faith and with the published community standards there at Fuller?

Something else that caught my eye, is when the CT story says that “the school employs people from a wide range of Christian traditions and more than a dozen current faculty members belong to affirming churches.” So I want to say this carefully and dispassionately, but how in the world do you define a theological seminary by a set of convictions and then you have members of your own faculty and staff among your own employee base who belong to churches that are absolutely affirming of a position, your official statement says you oppose. And so that’s an incongruity that I think is actually a fatal flaw in this entire process. 

I don’t run Fuller Theological Seminary, that’s clear, but I want to make the point just in terms of worldview analysis, and I do want to make the point in terms of speaking of how Christian institutions face the pressures and temptations of this age, there is no middle ground on an issue like this. There is biblical authority and there is the demand of the LGBTQ community, buttressed, we should say, with all kinds of cultural authorities, accrediting agencies, sometimes the powers that be, the media, the culture, you just go at it. It’s all pointed towards a denial of biblical truth and a pressure upon Christian institutions to cave to the spirit of the age. There really is no middle ground. It’s interesting here you have an institution that says, here’s our stance, but it turns out they have employees that are members of churches that hold through the opposite stance. This reminds me of Erasmus of Rotterdam famous figure in the early modern age who famously sought a middle way between what he identified as two extremes and so many things, and it turns out that middle way just didn’t exist and it doesn’t exist. 

I also just want to say this as charitably as I can. When you say your institution’s on a journey, that implies that you’re not going to stay where you now are. And so it’s clear that there’s a student base here that’s far to the left of at least some representatives of the faculty and at least some representatives of the board of Trustees. That’s an unstable situation. I don’t say this so much as an institutional criticism in this case, as much as I want to point it out as an object lesson, as something that demands our attention, because this is really a challenge to the entire Christian world. The same pressures are going to be applied everywhere. Eventually the same kind of decision is going to fall to every institution, and it will be sooner rather than later. And just please, understand there is no legitimate middle ground, and if you are on a journey about this, that means that even the position you now have, is a position you yourself think you might not hold in fairly short order.

There is no so-called third way, there almost never is in a situation like this. If biblical truth is one side of the equation and the abandonment of biblical truth is the other side of the equation, what exactly would the middle way look like? There’s a lesson there for all of us, and this issue is not going to go away, and quite honestly, I think this action by the board of Trustees is probably going to be followed by other actions coming even this week. It’ll be very interesting to see what the student body says in response to this. It’s going to be very interesting to see what some members of the faculty say. There was an exodus from Fuller by conservatives after that confessional change in 1970. It’ll be interesting to see what happens on the other side of this decision, and frankly, how long it stands.

Part IV

---

The Boggle Puzzle Solved – Researcher Finally Solves the Mystery of Highest Possible Boggle Score

Well all right, as we come to a conclusion today, there are those who have now settled a pressing question many have struggled with for years, and that is what is the highest score you could possibly get in one round of Boggle? The game Boggle was introduced more than 50 years ago, and it is a word game. You have four rows of 16 different letters that can show up in any form of arrangement. You have to come up with as many words as you can within a limited amount of time. But of course, one of the big questions for those who enjoy playing boggle is what would be the word with the highest single score possible and what might be the highest single score possible for one round a boggle? Well, after using 23,000 hours of computing power, a former Google employee has now determined that the word, which is the highest score possible with those 16 characters is the word “replastering.” Not very exciting, but the word “replastering” turns out to be given the actual conditions possible. The highest scoring word, according to this fellows computer calculation, which has at least been affirmed by others, the maximal board contains One-thousand-and-forty-five words worth 3,625 points. The average board contains about 100 words worth 140 points alongside, “replastering” The Financial Times tells us “there are six other words with 10 or more letters and Colorful. Shorter entries include eateries, strangers, and integrals.” We’re then told this “Your chance of encountering this board after shaking the cubes at home are about one in 10 quintillion.”

So you may be an avid boggle player, but you’re going to have to play something like 10 quintillion rounds to have the opportunity for this optimization. The odds may be daunting, but there may be some boggle aficionados out there for whom at least this question is answered, and if it isn’t satisfying, it is at least interesting.