The Redemptive-Historical Significance of AD70

The Redemptive-Historical Significance of AD70

Sep 10, 2025 | Eschatology, Uncategorized

Until August of 2022, the year 70 AD was just another year in ancient history to me. It held no special significance other than I knew that a Roman army destroyed Jerusalem, and Jews and Christians were scattered throughout the empire. I could infer God’s purpose of separating Christianity from Judaism once and for all, but in terms of His salvific plans, I didn’t see any connection. And I don’t ever remember being taught in over four decades of my Christian life that there was any redemptive-historical significance to the horrific fall of Jerusalem. And horrific only begins to describe it. The ancient historian Josephus describes it in disgusting, often stomach turning detail. I’m sure I learned something about it in seminary, but whatever it was, it wasn’t memorable.

Then in that fateful month very much to my surprise, as those who read me often will know, I embraced postmillennialism. Up to that day I thought it was a completely discredited eschatological position. I found out I had rejected it for the same reason most others do: I was completely ignorant of what it really taught. If there is a way to know less than nothing about a topic, I knew that much. Yet I thought it was some kind of joke, until I learned it most certainly is not. I’ve learned since then that whatever critics think they know about it is always wrong, and I mean one hundred percent of the time. I have not found one single solitary steel man among those criticizing it. What I find is an abundance of straw men, question begging, and non sequiturs. That’s a lot of logical fallacies! And for whatever reason, postmillennialism lends itself to that. Before we get into the meat of the significance of AD70, let me tell you why I rejected the post-mill position, and every critic I’ve encountered seems to do so for the same reasons.

The Rejection of Postmillennialism
After my Christian youth when I was born-again into the thoroughly dispensational premillennial environment of the late 1970s, I eventually became pan-mill, as in it will all pan out in the end. Up to that point I engaged in “newspaper eschatology,” and all of the predictions about future events supposedly contained therein. Eventually it just came to seem like futile guess work and conjecture. Because of that I came to assume we can’t really know anything definitively about how things will end, so we just need to trust God who apparently didn’t to see the need to communicate that stuff clearly. Oh, how wrong I was! But we learn, hopefully.

Then in 2014 I was exposed to a solid case for amillennialism, and saw that just maybe God did communicate these things more clearly than I had realized. Unfortunately, this perspective on “end times” seemed to make me more pessimistic about the human race and life in this fallen world. The a-mill position teaches that the wheat and tares (weeds) grow up in the field of this fallen earth, and that good and evil are in perpetual conflict until the end. Given the seemingly ever present suffering and misery we see in the world, it’s not surprising I turned into a pessimist, as do most a-mills I’ve encountered. They, like our premillennial and dispensational brothers and sisters, see things growing increasingly worse until , as David Chilton puts it, “Christ returns at the last moment, like the cavalry in B-grade westerns, to rescue the ragged little band of survivors.” That’s basically what I believed because that’s what I thought these positions taught, and what I still think they do.

In studying postmillennialism, I learned something powerful that completely changed my perspective. Lorraine Boettner in his book, The Millennium, contrasts this idea of a conflict between good and evil, with the conquest of good over evil. It didn’t take long for him to convince me the latter is the biblical take on the nature of reality in our fallen world. Christ did not come to earth, die, rise again, ascend to the right hand of God, and send his Holy Spirit, to just pluck a few embers out of the burning fire of fallen humanity. Rather, he came to conquer the sin that destroys everything in His creation. That not only has profound effects on individuals saved from sin, but also in the communities they build, starting with families and extending out from there into society and cultures. Isaac Watts in the great Christmas hymn Joy to the World put it poetically best:

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as, the curse is found.

The entire hymn is about Christ’s rule and reign on earth, not just in the hearts of his people or in the church, but over everything!

Unfortunately, until I learned what it really was, I thought postmillennialism was a late 19th and early 20th century version of liberal Christian and secular progress. Man in his hubris with the light of science and technology would conquer the world and usher in the kingdom of God. It was clear from my pre, pan, and amil perspectives, science and technology could never overcome sin in the heart of man, so postmillennialism was a delusion. William Jennings Bryan echoed what many Christians believed prior to World War I, and what many equate with postmillennialism today:

Christian civilization is the greatest that the world has ever known because it rests on a conception of life that makes life one unending progress toward higher things, with no limit to human advancement or development.

After he said this, in the 20th century some hundred million people died or were killed in the name of progress, and postmillennialism was tarred with the Bryan version of “progress.” That, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with a biblically rigorous postmillennialism.

Futurism, Preterism and AD70
Unfortunately, because of the perversion of postmillennialism at the hands of Christian liberals and secularists, the fall of Jerusalem in AD70 eventually turned from being a profound redemptive-historical pivot point, to an historical curiosity.

The growth of the “new premillennialism” of J.N. Darby and the Plymouth Brethren would in the 20th century turn into the dominant Evangelical eschatology of dispensationalism. This eschatology necessitated a futuristic interpretation of the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24:1–25:46; Mark 13:1–37; Luke 21:5–36) and the Book of Revelation, meaning the events that Jesus and John spoke about would not happen in the first century Jewish-Roman context, but at some time far off into the future. Amillennialists believe the same thing because when I embraced that eschatology for eight years that’s what I was taught and believed. Now it seems abundantly clear to me from a postmillennial perspective that a preterist interpretation makes the most sense of the texts and the historical facts on the ground.

The events Jesus spoke about, and most of the events John refers to (called partial preterism), have already happened. The word preterist comes from the Latin word for past, so this view is a contrast from the futurist view. Learning about the preterist view can almost cause one a case of intellectual whiplash. It makes my neck kind of ache just thinking about it given how unexpected it was after four plus decades as a Christian.

The debate about Revelation relates to the dating when John wrote it. For most of my Christian life I accepted “the consensus” of a later date, in the 90s AD, because the “experts” all seemed to believe that. I didn’t realize their motivations for deriving that perspective were primarily driven, known or not, by their eschatological assumptions (I wrote a piece last year about this, Eschatological Assumptions and AD70). If one takes a futuristic view of Jesus’ teaching in the Olivet Discourse, then it makes sense to see Revelation in the same way. So whatever evidence there is for the late date becomes dispositive, meaning it’s basically a slam dunk. Then last year I read Before Jerusalem Fell by Ken Gentry on the dating of the Book of Revelation, and I was shocked at how weak the evidence for the late dating was. I suppose a plausible case can be made, but to me the internal evidence, the actual content of the book itself, what John wrote, is dispositive, and slam dunk would describe it well—like a Michael Jordon tongue out in your face dunk. I was kind of shocked, really, not least because I had so easily accepted the later dating all these years.

The debate about the Olivet Discourse turns on how one chooses to interpret this verse in Matthew 24:

34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

The debate is over what Jesus meant when he told them that all the things he was describing, not some of the things, would happen in “this generation.” It seems pretty straight forward, that it was the generation of the people he was speaking to when the words came out of his mouth. It’s a stretch to say Jesus meant “some generation in the far off future when these far off future events are going to occur.” It’s crazy to me that very serious people actually try to make that case, but they do and it’s what most Christians believe because of their eschatological assumptions. These people admit some of what Jesus was speaking about happened in the first century, but Jesus doesn’t give us that option. He says clearly, “Until all these things have happened.” So it’s either all in the past, or all in the future; there is no other option. Reading it the way Jesus intended, and his hearers would have understood, points to AD70, no pretzel logic required.

I would encourage anyone who wants to come to their own conclusions and not just take another’s word for it to read Gentry’s book, and for the Olivet Discourse and AD70 I would suggest two other books. The first is a little book from the early 19th century called, The Destruction of Jerusalem by George Peter Holford. He lays out in exacting detail how the historical record proves the preterist interpretation. The other is a book by R.C. Sproul called, The Last Days According to Jesus. Skeptics who have been trying to discredit the Bible for well over 200 years have argued that Jesus was predicting all these events, and since they didn’t happen Jesus was not who he claimed to be. The futurist position is one way to deal with it, but we don’t have to distort the text or Jesus’ words to address the critics’ lies. Preterism will do that nicely. Now let’s move on to some theology.

The Judgment of AD70
Unfortunately, because of the futurist focus on “end times” prophetic passages, the theological significance of the destruction of Jerusalem gets lost in the shuffle. That event, however, was a profound turning point in the history of redemption, of God’s plan to redeem His people and his entire creation. It took me a while on my postmillennial journey to figure this out. Theologically this has to do with God’s judgment upon His people, and what that meant for His redemptive plans.

In the discourse, everything turns on the meaning of the disciples’ question, “what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” People often take the Greek word for age, aión-αἰών, to mean world, so Jesus was telling the disciples about the end of the world. What comes into our minds when we hear that phrase? Likely a dystopian hell we’ve seen in a thousand movies. If one reads Revelation futuristically with that mindset, it certainly appears that way. But that is not what Jesus is referring to. I have a critically important question most Christians seem to miss. To whom was Jesus sent? And for whom was Jesus’ ministry? It was first the Jews, and only after that Gentiles, the rest of us.

The first passage confirming this message comes in Matthew 10 when Jesus sends out the 12.

5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

Jesus confirms this in Matthew 15. The headline of the passage in our Bibles says, “The Faith of a Canaanite Woman.” God is using a heathen woman from a people with a lot of historical baggage for the Jews to make a theological point. She is screaming out for Jesus to heal her daughter of demon possession, and Jesus makes his mission clear:

24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

Notice Jesus says “only.” It’s news to most Christians that the gospels are not about us! They are about God coming to His people, sending His anointed one to them, their Messiah. Only when he was rejected did the message extend out to the Gentiles. If you read through the Old Testament, but especially the prophets, this dual message is clear. Yahweh is consistently declaring blessing and judgment on His people, but eventually that blessing is to extend to the nations as he promised Abraham and the Patriarchs. It seems the blessing would not break out to the rest of the world until judgment came.

That judgment to come, what we see happen in AD70, was declared by John prior to the Baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

Given my futurist eschatological assumptions, I completely missed that John is clearly declaring judgment to come upon the Jews. I thought John was mistaken like many Jews were about Jesus. His first coming wasn’t in judgment, but in mercy and grace. Judgment was for his second coming. That’s how I read the Olivet discourse as well, but Jesus is clearly speaking of Jerusalem where “not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Yahweh was in a legal covenant relationship with His people with the stipulation of blessing for obedience, and curses for disobedience. We see this laid out in detail in the Pentateuch, and played out in Israel’s history, declared in excruciating details in the prophets. Reading Jesus’ words in the Olivet Discourse from a preterist perspective is not at all a stretch, but in fact fits the entire flow of the historical narrative perfectly.

The Theological Significance of AD70
The Jews were promised salvation from sin and death from the very beginning when God told Adam and Eve the woman’s seed (offspring) would strike or bruise (crush in the NIV) the serpent’s head. When the covenant is revealed to Abraham, Paul confirms this seed refers not to offspring in general, but to Christ (Gal. 3):

 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

All through Israel’s history, God communicated his redemptive plans in signs and symbols, or types and shadows as the theologians put it. These were concrete illustrations of the forgiveness of sin to come pointing beyond themselves to a greater truth, to the one who is The Truth in which redemption is found. When he came to fulfill all the promises, the Jewish religious leaders who represented the nation rejected the fulfillment for the types and shadows as if they were the thing, as if the blood of bulls and goats could do anything. The entire book of Hebrews was written to convince first century Jewish Christians of the superiority of the New Covenant. In chapter 8 quoting Jeremiah 31, the writer says:

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

This could be considered a prophecy of the coming destruction of the temple. Hebrews was written while temple still stood because the writer was trying to convince Jewish Christians not to go back to the Old Covenant way of doing things. That was a possibility at the time he wrote. It seems the Jewish nation, including Jewish Christians, would not get the message that a new and superior way of salvation had appeared until God made the message clear. AD70 and the utter destruction of Jerusalem made it undeniably clear.

From that moment the Jewish religion changed completely. It was no longer the Mosaic religion of atonement for sin in sacrifice, but a moralistic religion of works. Jewish Christians now had to realize the former way was dead, over and gone forever; they could never go back. It was either Judaism or Christianity, the law or salvation by grace through faith, man’s works of futility or God’s transformational power in Christ in the human heart. God’s kingdom had now come in a completely different way than any Jew had foreseen. After Jesus had risen from the dead he told his disciples in Luke 24 that the entirety of Israel’s history found in Scripture, our Old Testament, was about him. Once the temple fell, God declared his covenant had been fulfilled in his Son, his kingdom come, His will now being done on earth as it is in heaven. Israel’s futility was ended, and in Christ alone would be found this good news of God (I Cor. 1):

30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, sanctification and redemption.

Now with God’s law put in His people’s minds and written on their hearts (Jer. 31), God’s kingdom would no longer be limited to a tiny point of light in the Middle East. We read these prophetic words from Habakkuk 2:

14 For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.

 

 

Does America Have a Judeo-Christian Heritage?

Does America Have a Judeo-Christian Heritage?

Jul 23, 2025 | America, Uncategorized

Since I started getting active on Twitter in early 2024, I’ve come across many on the New Christian Right, or whatever we might be called, who are not fans of the phrase Judeo-Christian, to say the least. It upsets them because it seems to make Christianity a part of Judaism, or confuses Christianity with Judaism, or misses the point that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. I’m not exactly sure, but these are my best guesses. They are, also to say the least, not fans of modern Israel, or the dispensationalism that believes Isreal is still part of God’s redemptive plan. Their animus toward the phrase never sat well with me, and I tended to see it as making something out of nothing. Then I saw this short post from Joel Webbon on Twitter:

Judeo-Christianity is a pernicious false religion.

And this was my response:

Joel, technically it’s not a religion at all, and nobody is claiming it is. People who use it don’t use it as a noun as you do, but as an adjective.

The phrase reflects an ethos, a tradition born of Judaism and it’s fulfillment in Christianity. It’s fine far as it goes, except many people using it assume the myth of neutrality is true, and do not believe a nation should be Christian. That’s what we should focus on, not that Judea-Christian is a religion.

Joel’s statement made me realize the heart of their problem with the phrase was thinking it’s affirming a mixed religion that is not Christianity. I believe dispensationalism has contributed to this because dispensationalists really do believe modern Judaism and the nation-state of Israel are in effect part of the Christian religion and its ultimate eschatological fulfillment. In fact, what’s going on in Israel now is, according to the dispensationalists, part of God’s fulfilling his Old Testament covenant promises to Israel. This is why they will tell us to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem,” and why they seem to have unqualified support for the nation of Israel. It’s almost as if Israel can do no wrong, whereas people like Joel seem to believe Israel can do no right. I’m in the unenvious position of being somewhere in between these positions.

I was wondering when the term “Judeo-Christian” was first used, and so of course asked Grok:

The term “Judeo-Christian” was first used in the early 19th century. Its earliest known appearance is in an 1821 letter by English writer Joseph Wolff, referring to a “Judeo-Christian” community in the context of religious conversion. The term gained broader usage in the 20th century, particularly in the United States, to describe shared ethical and cultural values between Judaism and Christianity.

That goes back much further than I would have guessed. I suspected it wouldn’t have been used until Israel became a nation in 1948, and the dispensationalists were saying, “See, we told you so!” But there is no doubt since Israel became a nation, and then a stable ally in the Middle East, that phrase became common among conservatives and Christians. I have no problem with it, and I don’t think any Christian should, mainly because it’s an accurate description, as I said to Joel, of the ethos or traditions America inherited at its founding.

Was the Jewish Religion Significant in America’s Founding?
The simple answer is yes, but of course through the lens of a thoroughly Protestant, dominant Calvinistic, culture. The First Great Awakening of the 1730s and 40s was a powerful influence on the social and political life of Americans for it drove the implications of Christianity deep into the American consciousness. Given this move of God’s Spirit was antiauthoritarian and democratic, the Crown would not have been happy about it. Robert Curry in his book, Common Sense Nation, agrees, saying “the Great Awakening prepared the way for the American Revolution in too many ways to be counted.” Pulpits across America, influential in a way modern Americans can’t comprehend, were aflame with justifications for liberty and revolution.

I have a book on my shelf called Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805, and it clocks in at just shy of 1600 pages. As I’ve dipped into it over the last ten or so years, many of the sermons are based on Old Testament texts. Christians themselves saw Judaism as integral to building a Christian nation, but of course in a Christian context of fulfillment. We also know that the founders quoted from the Bible more than any other book or thinker, modern or ancient, and Deuteronomy was the book they quoted from most. They also didn’t see Jewish religious practice in any way inimical or contradictory to the spirit of America’s experiment in Republican government. The issue, it appears to me, comes down to religious liberty, and if that concept is consistent with the idea of a Christian nation. America’s founders apparently didn’t think so. Before we explore religious liberty in more detail, let’s look at how George Washington, our first president and arguably the man who made America possible, saw that liberty in practice.

Washington visited Rhode Island in 1790 to acknowledge the state’s recent ratification of the Constitution and to promote passage of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.  When he visited Newport he met a delegation of citizens who read him messages of welcome. One of those citizens was Moses Seixas, the warden of the Touro Synagogue in Newport. Remarkably, Seixas in his welcome would use words Washington quoted verbatim in a letter back to the congregation. Seixas gave thanks to “the Ancient of Days, the great preserver of men” that the Jews, previously “deprived … of the invaluable rights of free Citizens” on account of their religion, now lived under a government “which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” Speaking of all American citizens possessing alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship, Washington writes:

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

For Washington and the founders, one of our “inherent natural rights” as Americans was to worship as we please, which could not be considered mere toleration. Freedom of conscience was an inviolable right of all Americans of whatever religious persuasion. I’m sure they would have some ambivalence at the breadth of cultural and religious diversity in America today, but it’s reasonable to believe the same attitude Washington had to the Jewish worshipers in his day would apply to others in ours.

Are Christian Nationalism and Religious Liberty Compatible? The Secular Myth of Neutrality
The answer to that question very much depends on what you mean by religious liberty, which for Christians is not as easy a question to answer as you might think—unless you’re a secularist. Unfortunately most Christians are indeed secular. In fact, most Christians and conservatives are liberals, who believe in a kind of pluralism based on the secular myth of neutrality.

According to this myth, there is no preferred religion because secularism welcomes all religions equally. The public square is a place where God is unwelcome, persona non grata. Christianity gets a seat at the table just like any other religion, be it Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or atheism, but no religion, including Christianity, gets privileged status. I’ll briefly address this below, but I’ve dismantled this myth here previously, many times actually, but the concept of religious liberty today is a thoroughly secular concept that wasn’t fully accepted in America until the glorious 1960s. That’s when the post-World War II consensus of neutrality took over and the privileged status of Christianity was, well neutered. It would be some years before Christianity was treated as a threat to all that is good and decent and right, but in the Biden years that’s exactly where we were, in law and culture. Then Trump 2.0. Mind you, secularism and the myth is still alive and well, but Christianity is no longer the whipping boy it was when woke was king.

The question in a nation with a Christian self-conception is how much latitude in religious practice we allow. Complete carte blanche, do whatever you want? Should Satan worship be allowed? Animal sacrifice? Drug induced “worship”? Only the most radical secularist libertarian would argue that no lines should be drawn; the question is what and where. You’ll notice I said a nation with a “Christian self- conception.” Up until those 1960s most Americans would have said yes, we are a Christian nation. They wouldn’t have obsessed with details, or panicked over, God forbid, a possible theocracy. Every nation in the West prior that time had a Christian self-conception. Just watch the coronation of King Charles in May of 2023, and see how steeped England still is at some level in its own Christian self-conception. At every other level, it is radically secular. All the assumptions that run every aspect of societies in the West are secular. This is slowly changing as nationalist-populist movements with Christian awareness are growing throughout the West, not least in the unashamed Christianity the permeates the Trump administration. That would not have been on my bingo card!

I won’t solve the question of religious liberty in America in such a short space, but it’s something Christians need to discuss and debate and maybe even come to some agreement on as, God willing, Christianity again becomes dominant in America. Getting rid of secularism in the church would be a good start, in fact an essential start. If we can’t convince our brothers and sisters in Christ that neutrality is a myth, then a Christian America is a pipe dream. I know, most see this as the longest of long shots, but I don’t. Secularism is dead, as I argue in detail in my latest book, Going Back to Find the way Forward, and something needs to fill that societal vacuum it leaves as it whimpers away in its exposed futility.

I often use the Berlin Wall as a metaphor for secularism. It appeared so strong and impenetrable, so enduring. Almost everyone except a very few, including Ronald Reagan, thought the Berlin Wall wouldn’t be going anywhere in our lifetimes. In fact, when Ronnie told Gorbachev to “tear down this wall” in Berlin in June 1987, I thought, now you’ve really lost it, Ronnie! That ain’t happening. Two and a half years later it did. The reason is that its strength was an illusion. An empire built on lies cannot endure, and secularism is a lie, every bit as much as East Germany was. Why is it a lie? Because it assumes societal neutrality is possible; it is not. Let my quote some thinkers who make the point. R.J. Rushdoony in his book Politics of Guilt & Pity says of the impossibility of neutrality as an undisputable fact:

Modern thinkers to the contrary, law is a product of metaphysics, a cultural expression of a basically religious fact. The contemporary avoidance of metaphysics is by no means its elimination. Men do not dispense with metaphysics merely because they refuse to discuss it.

Metaphysics is a word coined by Aristotle. He wrote a work about the physical world called Physics, which is basically his observations of the physical world. He then wrote a book called The Metaphysics, which is “beyond” or “after” physics, his study into the underlying nature of things. He calls this “first philosophy,” a study of being, of the fundamental principles and causes of all things. In other words, it’s the opposite of secular because God and spiritual things are metaphysical, and law inevitably flows from how we see ultimate reality. In the secular world, our Creator is the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection by random mutation, or chance. Man makes his own rules, his own laws, there is no meta-physics. Those are modern man’s fundamental assumptions. Yes, as Rushdoony says, they cannot be escaped:

Vishal Mangalwadi in his wonderful book, The Book That Made Your World, states an unalterable fact of existence:

Every civilization is tied together by a final source of authority that gives meaning and ultimate intellectual, moral, and social justification to its culture.

This includes its laws. We can have either a secular nation (or Islamic or Hindu, etc.), or a Christian nation. Whatever that “final source of authority” will determine the nature of that society and it’s culture. In a secular society it is man, the ultimate fulfillment of which is the state, which means there is no recourse beyond the state, and thus tyranny is inevitable.

Liberty of Conscience and Religious Liberty
We can’t discuss religious liberty without considering liberty of conscience, and those two should never be confused. Even in ancient Israel, the theocracy all modern people seem to fear, foreigners were mostly part of the moral and ceremonial lives of the Hebrews, but they were never forced to believe anything. Yet I often hear people claim that a Christian America would be a theocracy like ancient Israel, and people would be forced to believe in Christianity. No they wouldn’t because God never forces people to believe anything, and neither should we. In fact, if you look at Jesus in the gospels, he goes out of his way to get people not to believe in him! He was not interested in making Christianity easy, and often went out of his way to make it hard. But Jesus was not interested in establishing a government but in saving the world. He left the government stuff to his followers once he left the scene for good, and gave us the deposit of his presence in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

The idea of a liberty of conscience in Western culture, and in fact the entire world, comes from Martin Luther’s confrontation with the establishment of his day. He declared that his conscience was captive to the Word of God, and that “it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.” Those who were insisting he recant, or else, could care less about his conscience. They had societies to run and couldn’t allow every person to willy nilly believe whatever they wanted. Who knows what kind of societal chaos would follow if that were allowed. Luther was a dangerous precedent, and he had to be stopped. Gutenberg’s Press made that a futile endeavor, but we come to the wrong conclusion if we think liberty of conscience and religious liberty are synonymous. The former is absolute because God has not given us the right nor the power to coerce human thought. The totalitarians of the 20th century learned that the hard way, speaking of the Berlin Wall. Having said that we come back to lines.

Most Christians and conservatives have been completely indoctrinated into the secular zeitgeist. This spirit of the times in which we’ve lived for the last hundred years tells us America has always been a secular nation. In fact, even Christian historians like Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden claim America’s Founders were primarily Deists and Unitarians and “not in any traditional sense Christian.” That quote comes from their book, The Search for Christian America, and one gets the impression they did not find it. In fact, America was in every sense a Christian Nation, even if it was not overtly enough for some of us.

I go back to the phrase I used above, a Christian self-conception. For most of our history, everything about the beliefs and worldview of almost all Americans was Christian. Christian morality, God’s law, the Bible, all were relevant to daily life and the life of government. As is often pointed out, nine of the thirteen colonies had established churches, and they had a religious test for public office. If a man didn’t affirm certain Christian doctrines, he wasn’t allowed to run for office. Nobody saw that as anti-American, or a violation of our modern secular dogma of the “separation of church and state.” Nobody. That isn’t to say we should do the same thing today, only that Christianity was never seen as inimical to the liberty established at America’s founding. In fact, contrary to what most everyone believes today except we “Christian nationalists,” is that Christianity is the foundation and requirement for true religious liberty. Secularism always and everywhere will lead to tyranny and totalitarianism.

Having said this, we must realize that every government and society draws “religious” lines. A “Judeo-Christian” society will not draw the same lines as a Christian society, but lines will be drawn. They always are and always will be. I’ll say it again: Neutrality doesn’t exist. Everything allowed or promoted affirms a worldview, and dismisses others. It’s just the nature of things. Since most of us like America and living in a representative republic, that means we at some level have to convince our fellow citizens about what those lines need to be. We can pass laws that are unpopular, but those will not be enforced unless the people embrace them. The current illegal immigration crisis is a good example. The vast majority of Americans hate it no matter how much leftists and Democrats lie about it. Ultimately, the American people have to be on board or things don’t happen.

The mission, should we choose to accept it, is to first convince our Christian brothers and sisters that the secular nation driven myth of neutrality is a Satanic lie. The American people won’t be convinced until the church is. The myth sounds good on paper, but it always leads to tyrannical results. While a result of hundreds of years of cultural change, the myth of neutrality is primarily a product of what’s come to be called the “Post World War II Consensus.” Thankfully, this consensus is falling apart as populist nationalism and the Great Awakening are moving around the world. Making America Christian Again will allow us to one day escape secularism and practice true religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

 

 

 

 

This is Us, Alzheimer’s and the Programming of Modern Medicine

This is Us, Alzheimer’s and the Programming of Modern Medicine

Apr 2, 2025 | Culture, Uncategorized

My wife and I recently watched a TV series called This is Us, and one of the main characters came down with Alzheimer’s. Given I’ve had a health epiphany because of Covid, I now see portrayals of disease like this differently than I used to. This Is Us was a series that aired on NBC from 2016-2022. I caught the pilot on Netflix, and it brought tears to my eyes several times, as did most episodes, and we were hooked. Even though it’s typically 21st century secular and left, the story lines do a great job capturing the glory and wreckage of fallen people living in fallen bodies in a fallen world, but without God. It’s wonderful and pathetic on so many levels, not least what it reveals about how indoctrinated most people are by modern medicine.

As a baby boomer I was born smack dab in the middle of the age of “experts,” and nowhere were experts more revered and trusted than in medicine. We turned over our health to doctors and the medical profession because certainly they would not steer us the wrong way. In This is Us doctors are never questioned, nor is what caused the disease. For the most part, modern medicine treats disease as a mystery because doctors are primarily trained to treat symptoms with medication or surgery.

My health journey is an ongoing affair, with the learning curve seemingly always going up. Given the complexity of the human body that doesn’t surprise me. I’ll share more of what I’ve learned below, but last year God graciously gave me a bad case of Dermatitis so I could see in full relief the MO of modern medicine. Early in 2024 I started developing dandruff. Soon there was itching on my scalp, and then red itchy spots on my arms and legs which in due course spread to different parts of my body. How fun! Given I’m still clawing my way up the learning curve, I decided I should go to a Dermatologist, a modern medical professional. She said I had some kind of yeast infection, a fungal issue, and proscribed medication for my scalp and a steroid, anti-inflammatory, for my skin. Then she gave me a piece of paper that said the following, and I kid you not:

Dermatitis is an inflammatory response of the body with no known cause.

As I’m reading this in her office maintaining self-control was difficult, but inside I’m thinking, what? Are you kidding me? No known cause? Seriously? I’d learned enough by this point to know everything has a cause, but modern medicine isn’t interested in causes. Lest you think my experience is unique, it isn’t. Casey Means is a doctor who at 31 after five years of surgical residency quit because my experience is all too common. In her book, Good Energy, she relates this stunning fact:

Despite surgically treating inflamed tissues of the head and neck day in and day out, not once—ever—was I taught what causes the inflammation in the human body or about its connection to the inflammatory chronic diseases so many Americans are facing today. Not once was I prompted to ask, Huh, why all the inflammation?

A tragic example of this in practice was a family member of ours in her 70s who went into the hospital in September 2023 with pancreatitis. Any word with “itis” on the end means inflammation. Did the doctors try to discover what caused the inflammation? No. Instead, they treated the symptoms with twelve plus surgeries, and she died horribly spending the final months of her life in a hospital. As we’ll see, these doctors could not see this any other way because that is how they were trained, and how the whole system sees disease. They tried to do the best they could, thought they were helping her, and ended up killing her.

Dermatitis caused me to finally start seriously looking for a wholistic, integrative medical professional. I did my research and eventually decided on a nutritionist because this had to be something diet and lifestyle related, and it was. After a couple tests, she said the problem was gut related, as is so much disease. I had extremely bad fungal overgrowth, which was the main problem, and bacterial overgrowth as well. This caused something called leaky gut which eventually leads to inflammation. This had obviously been developing for a long time, and it finally caught up with me. She put me on a protocol of herbs and probiotics, and tweaked my diet which had gotten pretty good over the last several years as it was. It instantly started getting better, and completely went away. No known cause indeed!

So now when I see a typical portrayal of something like Alzheimer’s on a TV show it ticks me off. For most people, and modern medicine in general, disease is a crap shoot, a matter of luck, or not, of throwing the dice and hoping you don’t get snake eyes. Are there exceptions to the rule, where someone may do absolutely everything right and some disease strikes them? Of course, but that is not the rule. God gave us a creation that can sustain the creatures He created, and that means we live in a cause and effect universe. With certain inputs we can reasonably expect certain results. He’s given us that reasonable confidence as a gift, but we never presume upon his grace. He may have plans for us much bigger than we can imagine. The Westminster Shorter Catechism # 66 says it in its succinct best:

Quest. 66. What is the reason annexed to the fifth commandment?

The reason annexed to the fifth commandment, is a promise of long life and prosperity (as far as it shall serve for God’s glory and their own good) to all such as keep this commandment.

If our good and God’s glory includes our suffering, so be it. We will trust him as best we can. Otherwise we trust the gracious gifts of his creation to do what He intended them to do.

Modern Medicine, How We Got Here: Pasteur, Béchamp and Germ Theory
To understand where we are we have to go back to the nineteenth century and the foundation of modern medicine, germ theory, and the work of two men, Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), who everybody has heard of, and Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908), who few people have. Their titanic battle over germ theory is a microcosm of the same battle in the twenty first century over health and modern medicine. Once germ theory became the only accepted theory of disease, the template for modern medicine set.

If you do an internet search for, “Pasteur, Béchamp, and Germ Theory,” one of the top results you’ll get is a Wikipedia article entitled, “Germ theory denialism.” That’s almost funny. The word denialism will always tell you the accepted cultural elite position on a topic; and it shall not be questioned! During the Covid era it was used a lot. I believe it originated with those questioning the Holocaust, so Holocaust denialism became a thing, and after that anyone questioning the accepted narrative, whatever it might be, was labeled a denier. This, of course, is meant to shut off any debate on an issue. Thankfully because of the Gutenberg Press of the 21st century, the Internet, that is increasingly impossible. Everyone is indoctrinated to believe in germ theory as the unquestioned explanation for disease, and it is extremely difficult to see it any other way.

For 60 years I had been indoctrinated like everyone else to believe disease as something primarily coming from outside of us, that some little invisible thing invades us causes disease. That disease already lived inside me was hard to wrap my mind around, and more difficult to grasp was that I was the one who determined whether that happened or not. Would the little invisible thing invading me have an inviting space to do its dirty work, or not. That was up to me, not the little invisible thing.

Contrary to Germ Theory, Béchamp developed something called terrain theory. In the former germs are what we need to worry about, finding ways to kill them off with some kind of medicine once they get inside us. Terrain theory, by contrast, argues if the body is well and balanced then germs being a natural part of life and the environment will be dealt with by the body without causing disease. In other words, a germ can cause sickness in one person and not another based on the “terrain,” meaning the inner workings of the body’s immune system. A compromised “terrain” means the body’s inner environment makes it susceptible to viruses and parasites, etc. Therefore, it is far more important to work on the terrain of the body than worry about the latest germ or virus.

Pasteur’s victory for germ theory meant modern medicine’s focus on, well, medicine, was a foregone conclusion. There is a reason we call it medicine given we ingest or consume something as a treatment or cure. You’ll see as we talk about medical education, terrain is well down on the list of the modern medical professional’s priorities, as in pretty much invisible.

The Flexner Report and Modern Medical Education
Few people in or out of the medical profession have ever heard of Abraham Flexner and his report, the importance of which cannot be overestimated. The Flexner Report, published in 1910, transformed the nature and process of medical education in America. In 1908 the Carnegie Foundation authorized a study of medical schools in the country, which were visited and assessed based on how medical education was then currently practiced. Flexner then developed criteria on how doctors would be educated and trained and thus made acceptable to the American Medical Association. Both the AMA, which was founded in 1847, and Flexner accepted germ theory without question. By then cultural elites in the West could see the practice of healthcare in no other way. This can be seen in many places in the report, but one quote will be sufficient to understand the fundamental assumptions of modern medicine. Speaking of pathology and bacteriology, he says the goal is “to master the abnormal,” and in the that context says,

Now the agents and forces which invade the body to its disadvantage play their game, too, according to law.

Something outside of the body invades it and causes “the abnormal,” so the entire medical system became focused not on the patient’s health and enabling the body’s immune system to successfully handle the invaders, but on medicine used to defeat it. On the very next page, however, Flexner seems to contradict himself. He writes, the doctor “through measures essentially educational to enforce, the conditions that present disease and make positively for physical and moral well-being.” This and only one other minor reference to a more holistic approach is about it because by that time the assumptions of germ theory were dominant in the medical profession. Science was seen as all powerful, while God’s creation, the human body and the immune system, were victims of forces beyond their control. Man would save the day and defeat disease though his ingenuity.

Henry S. Prichett, president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, said the report was basically agnostic regarding which kind of healthcare the medical professional practiced, as he claims in the introduction:

In making this study the schools of all medical sects have been included. It is clear that so long as a man is to practice medicine, the public is equally concerned in his right preparation for the profession, whatever he calls himself—allopath, homeopath, eclectic, osteopath, or whatnot. It is equally clear that he should be grounded in the fundamental science upon which medicine rests, whether he practices under one name or under another.

In practice, however, once the “scientific standards” were set by the “experts,” anyone straying from them would be considered a quack not to be entrusted with the license of an educated medical practitioner. To that end, Flexner succeeded in aligning medical schools along the university model as the standard for all medical schools. This orientation had its origins in German medical education as American educators and physicians became enamored with university medical schools in Europe. Thus schools ignored what they considered “outdated and unscientific methods,” so doctors received minimal nutritional education and defaulted to treatments primarily with pharmaceuticals. Flexner writes:

The only authoritative competent to pass on such values are trained experts. The entire matter would be in their hands if the state boards should in every state delegate the function of evaluating entrance credentials to competently organized institution of learning.

Such institutions accepted the pharmaceutical paradigm which was the inevitable result of germ theory and the rise of science. The “trained experts” believed it was primarily medicine that healed disease. The profit motive, as well, cannot be ruled out given the financial backers of the report were two of the richest men in the world, Carnagie and John D. Rockefeller. While not downplaying their philanthropic motives, they also likely believed they could bring the production model to the medical profession.

The rise of Big Pharma was built into this new university model of medical education. After the report, funding was only given to schools following its recommendations. Without the money, alternative schools of medicine couldn’t compete and disappeared. The challenge with nutritional or holistic healthcare is that there’s no money in it. You can’t patent something readily available from nature like you can something from a lab, which is why I was almost 61 years old before I first heard the saying, “food is medicine.” In addition to the challenge of the profit motive, insurance companies believe they have no incentive to cover anything other than medicine, and they often won’t work with holistic doctors. Keeping people healthy so they don’t need medicine or medical care in the first place is a terrible business model!

Of course, Flexner and those who supported him had the best of intentions, as do those in the modern medical profession, but they were terribly naïve about the monster they were creating. When I read this sentence I had to laugh, sadly, especially in light of the Covid debacle:

Scientific medicine, therefore, has its eyes open; it takes its risks consciously; it does not cure defects of knowledge by partisan heat; it is free of dogmatism and open-armed to demonstration from whatever quarter.

This was written in 1910 when science was the unquestioned, benevolent, and all powerful god of the age who would never disappoint but only bring untold blessings to all the peoples of the earth. Unfortunately, Flexner and the entire Western cultural elite missed the little fact that science is practiced, and its results applied and implemented, by sinful human beings. Thus it can never be free of “partisan heat” or “free of dogmatism,” and as we saw with Covid, it most definitely is not “open-armed to demonstration from whatever quarter.” In fact as currently practiced, modern medicine is the exact opposite of all these. If, for example, you question the efficacy of vaccines, you are automatically discounted as a “denier.”  Let’s see what this mentality has turned into as medicine is practiced today.

Disease Care and Silo Medicine
Looking at modern medicine, keep in mind this quotation from muckraking journalist Upton Sinclair (1878-1968), the author of the well-known book about the Chicago meat packing plants, The Jungle (1906):

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

Human nature is predictable, and money makes human beings as predictable as the sunrise. Reality, however, is a stubborn thing, and in due course reality always wins. Another word for reality is truth, and truth eventually exposes lies because of he who is The Truth. Jesus told his disciples (John 14:6) he is “the way and the truth and the life,” so truth isn’t merely the nature of things but a person who defines existence because he created it all. This is why no matter how messed up things are, no matter how stubborn human nature and human beings can be, we can have confidence our good and God’s glory will always win out in the end. The Covid neutron bomb of truth, as I’ve come to call it, makes this abundantly clear. We saw the modern medical industrial complex in all its malevolent ugliness on full display during that debacle, and it revealed to millions of people all over the world its ruinous business model. And yes, it most definitely is a business.

The fundamental problem with modern medicine is that, according to Casey Means, “every institution that impacts health—from medical schools to insurance companies to hospitals to pharma companies—makes money on ‘managing’ disease, not curing patients.” The evidence to prove this point? “Patients aren’t getting better.” What Casey calls silo medicine is built into the entire medical paradigm. If someone chooses not to be a general practitioner, your basic family doctor, they will become a specialist in a narrow subset of medicine, and doctors are encouraged throughout their education to “stay in their lane.” Doctors thus are not taught to see the body as a system but as isolated parts. If there is a problem with a part, they treat that part. Just like my Dermatologist, doctors primarily treat symptoms within their silo.

Inflammation caused by the body’s immune system appears to be the cause of most disease, yet as Casey points out, the cause of inflammation is never addressed by medical professionals. That is shocking, but as I was told, my Dermatitis “was an immune response of the body with no known cause.” If God had not graciously opened my eyes I would have spent the rest of my life managing my disease as another victim of modern silo medicine. Yes, the medical profession can do incredible things, as when dealing with acute issues like injury or infection, but the entire system is broken and millions of Americans suffer for it. I trust in due course more doctors will wake up and transform the profession so it treats the body and health wholistically. In the meantime, God has provided us everything we need to manage our own health, with knowledge readily available so we no longer have to play the dice game of modern medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

Buchanan, Conservative Pessimism, and the Resurrection of the West

Buchanan, Conservative Pessimism, and the Resurrection of the West

Jan 15, 2025 | America, Uncategorized

I recently finished Pat Buchanan’s, The Death of the West, and it’s been a fascinating experience reading Buchanan’s thoughts about the dying West with twenty-plus years in the rearview mirror. The book was published in 2002, and the Bush administration was in its early days. Given few of us are Bush fans anymore, you’ll be happy to know he was Hitler too. Of course the left now loves him, and the entire Bush-Cheney cabal, because the Uniparty RINOs are just Democrats in sheep’s clothing. The world Buchanan describes, the 90s and turn-of-the-century America, has all the dynamics of the 2020s, with some of the same faces and a few players no longer around, but all playing the same old game. This was before Obama came on the stage to, “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” which turned out to be leftist hubris on steroids. And remember, as the ancient Greeks taught us, hubris always leads to nemesis.

We conservatives, however, aren’t in danger of hubris because given we’ve been consistently losing for over half a century, pessimism is our gig. Buchanan strongly tends in that direction as well. For the time, however, he was appropriately pessimistic about the chances of the West, and specifically America, escaping the probable death coming upon it from the ascendence of the Marxist left. His subtitle says what will cause its demise, and it may sound familiar: “How Dying populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization.” Even for the most pessimistic conservative in the early 2000s, it would have been difficult to fathom the woke destruction heaped on America during the Biden administration, effectively Obama’s third term. What many pessimists failed to grasp is how the left’s success, spiking the football and going into woke overdrive, hubris, was key to their inevitable demise, the judgment of Nemesis. Americans saw something deeply unattractive and harmful in the woke ideology applied on a national level. No lies could paint over the destructive consequences inherent in leftist, culturally Marxist ideology.

Nobody could have predicted this was how the story would play out, America living through the worst woke nightmare until billionaire real estate mogul and reality TV star Donald Trump dashed in to save the day. If you would have told conservatives in the Bush years this was how God was going to save America, or at least give it a chance to be re-founded on true constitutional principles, you would have been laughed out of polite society. Many people of a conservative religious bent like me despised Donald Trump. I hated everything I thought he stood for. It took me a while to believe his candidacy wasn’t a joke, just some publicity stunt. Surely, Donald Trump is not a serious man, right? I’ll never forget the first debate with all 16 candidates in the 2016 Republican Primary when Trump ripped Bush and the Iraq War. It made me physically uncomfortable. You just don’t do that! Of course as we know now, there is a lot Trump does you just don’t do.

His entire first term, ending in the stolen election and J6, perfectly played into the pessimistic conservative perspective on the current culture war, including mine. From 1980 and Reagan’s election to January 6, 2021, I was a good little movement conservative, always living with a low grade pessimism as one might live with a low grade fever. You’re not sick but you don’t feel quite right. As a Christian conservative I’d gotten used to losing, to seeing the conservative movement, which I now affectionately call Con Inc., as an enabler of liberalism. A long time ago Con Inc. had stopped living up to Buckley’s ringing declaration when he founded National Review in 1955, to stand athwart history yelling, STOP!!! Over time it turned into, please slow down. The state got bigger and more intrusive, the culture more hostile to Christianity and coarse, and it seemed like that was just the way things would always be, a cultural Berlin Wall that would never come down.

God and the Resurrection of the West
Pat Buchanan may tend to pessimism, but he is not a doomer. I use that word to label the complainers I come across who are always predicting impending doom. They make Chicken Little look like Joel Osteen preaching your best life now. For them, the worst is yet to come. You might get that feeling reading Buchanan, but I’m happy to say his Catholic faith and Christian worldview keeps him from embracing his inner doomer. Toward the end of the book he says:

While none of us may live to see the promised land, victory is assured. For we have it on the highest authority that truth crushed shall rise again.

That is because He who is The Truth became a man in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, died on a Roman cross to redeem the world from the curse of sin, and rose again in victory over death. That is why truth will always ultimately prevail because truth is a person, God himself who created everything, is the ground of everything, and ultimately in control of everything. There are plenty of ups and downs, zigs and zags, two steps forward, three back, but ultimately the direction of history and ultimate destination are in His hands. This Christian view of history has implications for how we interpret events unfolding in front of us. My perceptions changing of our current moment in history as I fully embraced this are a good example of how this works. During Trump’s first term, God was slowly building into me something I didn’t realize until the stolen election, and especially J6, that God was giving us an opportunity to win in what seemed like perpetual losing. As the Sovereign Lord of history He can do that. I no longer saw losing because He was giving us an opportunity in the circumstances to win.

My book Going Back to Find the Way Forward was the result of this budding awareness. Up until Trump’s apparent ignominious end in January 2021, all I could see in losing was, well, losing. Then after the election by God’s grace and providence I found Steve Bannon’s War Room, back then on YouTube. As I always say, he got me out of the fetal position, and to mix metaphors talked me off the ledge. Bannon, a Catholic, taught me something I should have known all along, but my pessimism blinded me to: God has given us agency, meaning we can change things, and all it takes is, action, action, action! You can’t get much more biblical than that! Bannon is a nationalist populist, as am I now, adding the words Christian conservative to the description. Bannon is the leader of what he calls “The Grassroots Movement.”

For the four years after the stolen election, he would have average, every day Americans on his show exercising their agency to change things, people who take seriously their responsibility of living in a representative republic of “We the people.” Such activists are the greatest fear of the establishment, America’s cultural and political elite, left or right. They represent Americans in general who will not bow the knee to the supposed “experts.” How dare these people know what’s best for their own lives! Which brings us to the historical significance of Trump.

Trump as the Pivot Point in the Resurrection of the West
This would not have been on my bingo card prior to Trump coming down the escalator. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to imagine overcoming conservative inertia and the penchant for losing without Trump. Bannon calls them the controlled opposition, and that’s exactly what they are. As I said above, the conservative movement is an enabler of liberalism, but it’s worse than that. I’ve come to call them liberals in skirts. They are not conservative in any sense of the term, unless you say their job is conserving the liberal, progressive, statist gains of the last hundred plus years. The reason is because of something we now call the “post-World War II consensus” (PWC), a contentious phrase embraced by liberals, including good “conservatives” and despised by populist-nationalists. Against true conservatism, PWC is secularist, globalist, and corporatist. Throw in perpetual war and you have the perfect recipe for a culture war against America and anything truly conservative.

 

This elite dynamic is the way God ingeniously utilized Trump to undermine it. It’s incredible when you look back on how it all played out, and is still playing out. It wasn’t Trump, mind you, but the reaction to Trump that changed everything. The entire Uniparty elite was exposed for the grift it was. I was initially going to title the book, “Trump the Great Revealer” because that’s exactly what God has used him to do, to reveal the rot and spiritual darkness at the heart of American cultural and political life. Being a developer and builder, Trump turned out to be the guy who pulled the siding off the societal house revealing teaming throngs of termites underneath. God always seems to use unlikely people, as a read through redemptive history in the Bible makes abundantly clear, primarily to make it known: “’Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit’ says the Lord Almighty’” (Zech. 4:6). He is the Sovereign Lord of history. This applies not only to the redemptive history revealed in Scripture, but to all history, which is redemptive, God’s plans working in time and among people to His ultimate glorious ends. God has used this most unlikely man to spark a Great Awakening.

This awakening will be nothing like the Great Awakenings of the past, or like the Billy Graham revivals of the 20th century with stadiums full of people walking down the isle to “Just as I Am.” It is happening on multiple levels, and is thus several great awakenings, not just in people’s religious lives. It is cultural, political, economic, health, as well as spiritual. It’s all spiritual anyway because the Christian faith and view of reality is all encompassing, as is any other faith be it secularism, Marxism-Communism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Paganism, Animism, whatever. The benefit of Christianity over the others is that it happens to be the ultimate truth about the nature of reality, and true human flourishing and blessing can only happen living according to that reality.

Looking at the political angle because that’s where God used Trump the Trigger, and as the pivot point to resurrect it, the perspective change from Con Inc. to Trump was night and day for me. The Uniparty was given its name because most Republicans were effectively Democrats, and “the establishment” has one overarching goal: sustaining their own power. That’s why many Republicans would talk a good game, get our votes and hopes up, and then inevitably cave to Democrats. Trump would have none of that. When he said during his first election we would win so much we would get tired of winning, that was truly something new under the sun for conservatives. Was winning that much even allowed?

Clear and Present Opportunities
If it wasn’t for Trump and his willingness to stand against the entire Uniparty establishment in Washington, it’s likely Buchanan’s pessimism about the West would likely have proved correct. Circa 2002, he laid out four “clear and present dangers” that will inevitably bring death if they are not addressed. Trump was the one God raised up to turn these threats into opportunities and give us a realistic chance of victory over three of them.

  1. Dying population.
  2. Mass immigration of people of different colors, creeds, and culture changing the character of the West forever.
  3. The rise to dominance of an anti-Western culture in the West, deeply hostile to its religions, traditions, and morality, or cultural Marxism, what we now call woke.
  4. The breakup of nations and the defection of ruling elites to a world government, thus the end of nations, or globalism.

The only thing Trump can’t do is to make people have more babies. That gets to the heart of the matter. As Buchanan says, the culture war is ultimately a religious war, and religious people have more babies than secular people. Christians are going to have to save the West from demographic doom by once again being obedient to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply.

As for 2-4, what happened since Trump came down the escalator and the left went crazy is something Buchanan could not have predicted then. In God’s providence, allowing the election to be stolen was the brilliant strategy of providence, God making it the fundamental factor in the process of exposing the left. With Trump apparently finally vanquished, especially after the deep state PSYOP of J6 when Trump and all of MAGA were finally discredited, they could now get on with Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America.” It turns out Americans are not so fond of Marxist fundamental transformations. And I don’t use the word Marxist frivolously. In the               , Marx and Engles identify four enemies of communism that must be abolished, and they perfectly align with the four “clear and present dangers” laid out by Buchanan. That is not a coincidence. They are:

  1. Private property
  2. The family
  3. The nation-state
  4. Religion, i.e., Christianity

Everything the Democrat Party of Obama-Biden stands for, Marx would applaud because their policies effectively abolish all four of these. The sexual revolution starting in the 60s effectively abolished the family and contributes to dying populations and demographic apocalypse. Again, Christians will have to lead the way in obedience to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply.

When Biden took office, he immediately opened the boarder which means the end of the nation-state, and effectively globalism. So called “free trade” and the dominance of major corporations is an assault on private property, as is global finance and fiat currency. Lastly, woke went into overdrive which is a direct assault on Christianity and the family, and you have the perfect Marxist storm for the death of the West. But therein lay our opportunity for those with eyes to see. The woke globalists were building a fragile papier-mâché Berlin Wall culture that would come tumbling down as the lies were being exposed. Everything the left does, however, is built on lies, and an empire of lies cannot stand. With Trump as enemy number one, the left completely lost their minds and normal Americans woke up and said we’ve had enough. Trump’s “loss” in 2020 was the best thing that could have happened to America and the West.

Not only have Americans, as Steve Bannon says, had a belly full of it, but Trump and the entire MAGA movement have learned a lot in these last four years. The entire apparatus of the administrative deep state is now exposed, and Trump has a mandate to take it on. The dream team he’s assembling will take no prisoners, but as we’ve seen, the establishment will not be handing out the welcome mat for the dissolution of their power. It will be hand-to-hand combat, sometimes like World War I trench warfare, an inch at a time, but the cover of darkness is no longer available to the swamp. Limiting the size and scope of government might for the first time in my life be a real possibility, but MAGA and true conservatives must be persistent, determined, and downright belligerent at times to make sure the ball moves forward, even if it’s two yards and a cloud of dust.

What’s most exciting for me is that Christianity is once again being seem as a positive force for human flourishing. This is especially true among the youngest generation who moved in a conservative direction in a most unexpected way in the election. Young people just don’t do that because, well, they’re young and stupid, and that’s what you do when you’re young. Not this generation. They’ve lived with the lies of secularism, grown up with woke and Covid, and they want nothing to do with it. It’s actually cool for the first time in my life for young people to be conservative! And Christians are able to be “loud and proud” about their faith, instead of homosexuals or feminists about their perversions. The Great Awakening is happening, and it is a thrilling time to be alive. And we’re only just getting started.

 

Culture and Making America Christian Again

Culture and Making America Christian Again

Dec 11, 2024 | Culture, Uncategorized

When I started writing my latest book in early 2022, I knew it would be about the Great Awakening happening all around us, and along the way it also became about the re-founding of America. I didn’t realize until a little later into the journey, specifically after I embrace postmillennialism in August of 2022, that Making America Christian Again was the only way America could truly be RE-founded. The book is an historical analysis of how we got our post-Christian 21st century secular America from our founding as a deeply Christian enterprise with a ubiquitous Protestant Christian culture. Without Christianity again becoming the dominant ethos and plausibility structure of the nation, a re-founding will not happen. Which means without America rejecting secularism and embracing its Christian roots, it cannot be the constitutional republic conceived in liberty it once was.

I first heard Joshua Haymes of the Reformation Red Pill Podcast use the phrase, Make America Christian Again, and it perfectly encapsulated in a Trumpian way what I’d been hearing among my new post-mill compatriots. This gets into discussions of the divisive phrase, Christian nationalism, and the even more divisive concept of theonomy, or God’s law over the nation. But those are meaningless concepts and useless discussions without a Christian culture undergirding them. We must work on parallel tracks as we seek to rebuild a Christian America, studying and debating and thinking through exactly what this will look like, but developing a Christian culture is a prerequisite if a Christian America is to even be a possibility.

It’s All About Culture
Culture is a people’s religion externalized. However a people answer ultimate questions of life and death, purpose and meaning, will affect not only how they live, but how they perceive everything in the lives they live. American culture, and the West in general, is secular, God is persona non grata, unwelcome at the societal table. He may or may not exist, but either way He is an invisible, unimportant God, irrelevant to everyday life. This is the driving assumption underlying the secular worldview, and it’s doleful consequences are everywhere. In The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization, Vishal Mangalwadi puts this succinctly:

Every civilization is tied together by a final source of authority that gives meaning and ultimate intellectual, moral, and social justification to its culture.

The final source of authority in a secular culture is man and his reason, the poisonous fruit of Enlightenment rationalism. Unfortunately, Christianity played along with the rise of secularism in Western culture through the influence of Pietism, a German Lutheran movement in the 17th century, which was a not unreasonable response to a dry, scholastic theology coming out of the Reformation. It was also a perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What made Pietism the ultimate disaster in the demise of Christendom was an over spiritualized Gnostic dualism it created in practice. All this means is that most Christians today effectively live in a two story reality (dualism). Upstairs is the important, spiritual stuff, like prayer, church, evangelism, Bible reading etc., while downstairs is every day mundane life, which is not as important, and above all, not “spiritual.”

The is a profoundly unbiblical and destructive take on Christianity, one that has allowed secularism to grow and dominate the culture, which is why I’ve argued that Pietism and secularism are two sides of the same coin. Most Christians see the purpose of Christianity as being saved so when we die we go to heaven, and while on earth practice and grow in personal holiness. This is a terribly truncated, narrow, and distorted view of Christianity. Before we see why, let’s take a look at culture, what it is, and why it’s so important. As Christians, we must think about culture biblically, as opposed to sociologically or anthropologically. In other words, how do we as Christians define culture differently than non‑Christians. 

A Biblical Take on Culture
Christians start with the Bible, God’s story about his relationship with the human race, and not with something called culture somehow existing independently of His story. The Bible has no word for culture, thus, no definition of it, but we can say culture is the imprint human beings put on God’s creation. In the Genesis 1 and 2 creation account, we find something we now called the “cultural mandate.” Human beings are commanded to govern God’s creation:

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

But it is the prior two verses that gives the cultural mandate its true power:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

The significance of the Imago Dei (the image of God in man) for the Christian worldview cannot be overstated. We are God’s visible representatives on earth! We reflect his likeness and attributes in every aspect of our human faculties, be it moral, intellectual, relational, practical, etc. All of these attributes contribute to creating culture. God commands Adam and Eve to act (be fruitful, fill, subdue, rule), and these commands define the essential purposes of human existence. Reformed theologian and philosopher John Frame had this to say in a lecture on Christianity and Culture:

Why did God give this command to Adam and Eve? Well, for the same reason, ultimately, he does everything else: for his own glory. God’s glory is that beautiful, intense light that shines out from him when he makes himself visible to human beings. [He] wanted Adam’s family to spread that glory through the whole world. Adam was not to rule merely for himself, but for God, glorifying God in all he did. So culture is based on a divine command. Adam must develop culture because that is God’s desire. Culture is for God’s sake. So it is subject to God’s commands, God’s desires, God’s norms, God’s values. 

I will add that this God orientation is the only way culture and the people in it can truly flourish.

I may create a beautiful piece of art or music, or build a magnificent building, or tell a moving story in words or film, or plant a garden, or do any number of mundane things, but all of these reflect the glory, greatness, power, and knowledge of the living God! All human creations ultimately point back to him. Obviously the efficient cause, i.e., me, deserves recognition, but the point is that every created thing, whether in the natural world or culture, reflects God himself. Nothing is trivial. It doesn’t matter if the person or people doing a thing are Christians or not, for they too are made in God’s image. Just because they are blind to his glory, try to suppress His knowledge and take the glory for themselves, doesn’t mean God is silenced.

There are significant apologetics implications (i.e., evidence for the veracity of Christianity being true) for a proper biblical understanding of culture which play a critical role in re-Christianizing the culture. The importance of cultural apologetics (culture is the evidence) cannot be overstated in its implications for re-Christianizing and refounding America on its foundational principles. There isn’t space to get into this in detail, but contrary to the doomers who bemoan the debauchery of the hostile secular culture, the culture is our best friend. In my first book, The Persuasive Christian Parent, I have a section with exactly that title, and show how I used our non-Christian secular culture to ground our children’s faith. The reason has to do with culture being a reflection of man made in God’s image, and the topic we turn to next. 

Culture and The Fall
Six times in Genesis 1 God says his work was good, and caps it off with a “very good.” When we engage culture, we aren’t simply making meaning, but responding to meaning woven into creation. We are taking that meaning‑filled creation and reshaping it in our hands, or responding to others who have, thus culture is fundamentally a religious pursuit. This means there is no neutral position relative to ultimate meaning as we interact with the culture. As I said above, culture is a people’s religion externalized. Because of the fall, man mars culture even as his distorted products of culture glorify God. This reflection of the disease of the human heart, i.e., sin, suffering, and death must be explained. As I’ve often said, if all we are is matter, merely lucky dirt, then life is basically a Woody Allen movie. His is always in a futile pursuit of meaning, hope, purpose, and fulfillment outside of Christ, and he expects the vacuum in his soul to be filled by created things rather than the Creator. All his movies end in resignation, and you can see this futile pursuit etched in his sad face.

So, an example like Woody Allen shows how all human works can be distorted by man’s disobedience to God. This is the tension that exists in all culture, but God doesn’t leave man in his sin. Immediately after the Fall, God promises redemption (Gen. 3:15). Adam and Eve realize they are naked, and they are ashamed. So taking things into their own hands, they try to sew fig leaves together to cover themselves. And when God comes calling “in the cool of the day,” what do they do? They hide. Their covering didn’t do the job. After they get through with all the excuse making, and God shares with them the promise that the woman’s offspring “will crush” the serpent’s head, we have what is possibly the first sacrifice in history. “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.” From that moment on, all history is one long story of human beings furiously sewing fig leaves to try to cover themselves from God’s wrath and judgment, and earn his favor; it doesn’t work. Instead the Lord sacrifices himself because no other sacrifice will do the job! Human beings reflect this salvific drama in everything they do, including in the stories they tell, and in whatever they make.

H. Richard Niebuhr’s seminal work Christ and Culture is a good overview of the ambivalence Christians have had with culture since Pentecost. He looks at certain Christians through the ages, and how they thought Christians should interact with culture. He divides them into five broad types or approaches:

  • Christ against Culture
  • Christ of Culture
  • Christ above Culture
  • Christ and Culture in Paradox
  • Christ Transforming Culture

Christians have negotiated their interaction with a fallen world in a variety of ways, and maybe all these approaches in some way at the same time. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, conservative Protestant Christianity in America, however, slowly came to embrace a version of the Christ against culture approach. With the rise of a truly biblical postmillennialism in the 21st century, in contrast to a secular progressive postmillennialism of the 19th and early 20th century, Christ transforming culture is again becoming the dominant view among Protestant, especially Reformed, Christians. If we are to make America Christian again, we must recapture the Reformation and Puritan vision of Christ the transformer of culture.   

Professions of Cultural Influence, Plausibility Structures, and MACA
If America is to become Christian again, that will be fundamentally a cultural change. As conservatives were finally starting to understand the primacy of culture, as the late great Andrew Breitbart famously said, politics is downstream from culture. Politics and the laws of a country in its own way creates culture, but the politics and laws of a country will never fundamentally contradict the dominant cultural ethos of the people. In 21st century America, that cultural ethos is thoroughly secular. Too many Christians either ignore this or don’t understand the power of it. Whatever that cultural ethos is, is that culture’s plausibility structure, and understanding this concept is critically important.

What is plausible is what seems true and real to us, and the societal structures we inhabit determine for us what is plausible or not. For those who uncritically navigate the culture, their perspective is assumed to be just the way things are. It is the fundamental plausibility structures of culture that must eventually be changed if we’re to ever redirect the massive ship of American culture to true north, i.e., Jesus, God’s word and Law. I will address two issues related to this, abortion and homosexuality. Both of these issues are accepted as normal in a secular culture, and rejected as sinful in a Christian one.

If we are ever to get there, we must understand professions of cultural influence. When I first became aware of the power and dominance of culture in 2007, conservatives were still obsessed with politics thinking somehow if we got the right people elected, the culture would become more conservative as well. It doesn’t work that way. It is a two way street, but fundamentally, culture drives a nation’s laws and how it is governed. So the question is, how do we change the culture? It will not come primarily from changing the laws, even as we attempt to change laws. This is why John Adams, no raging Evangelical, famously said,

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

The Founders believed it was the Christian religion and Christian morality of a providentially ordaining God that made the American experiment possible. To them, a secular America would have been a contradiction in terms.

This brings us to professions of cultural influence, something conservatives have basically been clueless about. James Davison Hunter in his book, To Change the World, argues that,

[T]he deepest and most enduring forms of cultural change nearly always occur from the “top down.” In other words, the work of the world‑making and world‑changing are, by and large, the work of elites: gatekeepers who provide creative direction and management within spheres of social life. This capacity is not evenly distributed in a society, but is concentrated in certain institutions and among certain leadership groups who have a lopsided access to the means of cultural production. These elites operate in well‑developed networks and powerful institutions.

These networks and institutions include, but are not limited to, education, Hollywood and entertainment, and the media. These three broad areas are the most powerful worldview and plausibility structure generators. As Hunter states further, cultural change, or influence for our purposes, “is most enduring when it penetrates the structure of our imagination, frameworks of knowledge and discussion, the perception of everyday reality.” Shaping reality happens primarily from the top down, not the bottom up, and as long as a secular worldview dominates the profession of cultural influence, Christians are spitting into the wind if the think the moral framework of our laws will change.

Too many Christians, unfortunately, seem to think spitting into the wind is a strategy. On Twitter I come across Christians often who declare that abortion is murder and women should be prosecuted as any other murderer would be. Or they declare sodomy should be illegal, some going further say homosexuals should be executed. Such sentiments in the real world are meaningless, not to mention unpersuasive to most people, because we live in a representative republic. That means we have to persuade our fellow citizens that Christianity and God’s law is the only source of true human flourishing, and then elect legislators who will pass laws that will be signed by the state’s or country’s chief executive.

If we truly want to make America Christian again, we need to understand it is a complex, multifaceted, difficult, and generational enterprise. It will only happen if we play the long game. As Christians we have something to learn from the history of cultural Marxism and the rise of woke in our day. Their “long march through the institutions” started in the early 1920s, and it took almost a hundred years for their perverted vision to dominate the culture. As we contemplate the future I say to my fellow Christians, we need to be as patient, persistent, diligent, and determined as the Marxists. We are building cathedrals we will never worship in, and planting trees the fruit of which we shall never eat. Thus we work as if it depends on us, and pray because it depends on God.

 

Nietzsche and Why It’s OK to Eat Your Neighbor

Nietzsche and Why It’s OK to Eat Your Neighbor

Dec 4, 2024 | Apologetics, Uncategorized

I bet you never thought cannibalism and Nietzsche would go together, but they do, quite nicely. I might never have put those two together, but I heard Gary DeMar discuss his book, Why It Might Be OK to Eat Your Neighbor, on his podcast. This subtitle gives us the apologetics focus of the book: If Atheism is Right Can Anything Be Wrong?

I’ll start with my own question. What sets Christianity apart from every other religion and worldview and philosophy on earth?

The answer is as simple as it is profound: It is true, and everything else is not.

If it is not true, as Paul says about the resurrection, we are to be pitied more than all people. That I believed Christianity is the ultimate truth about the nature of reality is the only reason I became a Christian way back in the fall of 1978, exactly 46 years ago as I write this. At the time I couldn’t tell you why I believed it was true, but God seemed entirely too obvious to dismiss. Growing up Catholic I was, thankfully, given a Christian worldview, and the reality I experienced as a teenager for me confirmed that worldview. So, when I was presented the gospel in a college Dorm room in Best Hall at Arizona State University, I believed it immediately. It would be a couple years before I would get my introduction to apologetics, or the defense of the Christian faith.

If you’re not familiar with that term, you should be. We live in a post-Christian thoroughly secular culture that tells us in ways big and small, overtly and covertly, that Christianity is not the truth, but one spiritual option among many and all of them are valid. Well, no they are not, which I’ll get to in a moment. First the word, apologetics. We get the word from Peter in chapter 3 of his first epistle:

15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect . . . .

The word for defense in Greek, apologia-ἀπολογία, means “a verbal defense (particularly in a law court).” This means Peter is commanding his readers, and by extension every Christian throughout all time, to not only know what we believe, but why we believe it. Apologetics, as the theological discipline of defending the veracity of Christianity is called, is not just for certain Christians of an intellectual bent. If you can’t tell your friends or family members why you believe Christianity is the truth, then you need to get to work and invest some time in figuring that out. The resources today online are endless, as are books and articles easily available. Before I get to Nietzsche, I came across a short clip on Twitter that is a great illustration about why apologetics is so necessary even as it is so rare among Christians.

Kid Rock was on Joe Rogan’s podcast which is viewed or listened to by 10 to 15 million people, and Rogan asks the Kid if he could go back in history where he would go, and Rock says, “Jesus.” Rogan asks him why he believes it and Rock says . . . . faith. We need to get Kid Rock some training in apologetics because he obviously he believes in Christianity for the exact same reason I did and do, it’s the truth, but all he could say is, faith, that he just believes it. There is so much evidence for the veracity of Christianity, historical, textual, philosophical, archeological, that Rock could have spent hours telling Rogan exactly why he believes Christianity is the truth.

The Nature of Faith
Which brings us to faith. Many people today in our secular world think of faith as a specifically religious word for believing in something just because you want to, but that is a shallow modern definition of faith. In fact, faith is something we use every day of our lives or we wouldn’t get out of bed. I define faith as trust based on adequate evidence, thus faith is not a specifically religious concept. Faith basically means trust, and when we exercise faith we generally do it with justified warrant. That is, there is enough evidence to justify putting my trust in something or someone.

Think of driving down a two‑lane road going 50 miles per hour, and another car coming toward you at the same speed. That’s a closure rate of 100 miles per hour. If the other car swerves into your lane, there will be a lot of damage. And maybe death. How do you know that car will stay on its side of the road? You don’t; you have faith that it will. What evidence do you have for such trust? You know that people generally stay on their side of the road. You trust that the person driving the vehicle has a license and got adequate training to operate several thousand pounds of metal at high speed. You trust that the state does a good job of policing its roads. And so on. Do you know any of this? Nope. How about the food you eat? Will it kill you? Do you know it won’t? Nope. How about the dentist or doctor you see? Do you know they won’t harm you? Nope.

This is a discussion about epistemology, or the study of knowing and knowledge. I challenge a specific definition of knowing: that to “know” a thing is to be absolutely certain about it, and that we can only “know” via our reason. Rene Descartes (1596‑1650) was the philosopher who introduced the poison of equating knowledge with absolute certainty in Western thought. If you’re familiar with my work, you’ll know Descartes appears often, maybe too often, but he was a fulcrum point of Western culture from Christian to post-Christian secular culture. It would take several hundred years for this bacillus to infect the entire culture, but in the 21st century secularism is the default worldview. So to average Westerners, like Kid Rock and Joe Rogan, faith equals religion because it’s not something that can be known with absolute certainty, like science or the laws of nature, math, etc., things you can observe and measure.

I’ve noticed over the years many Christians are the mirror image of atheists in this regard. They tend to think absolute certainty is necessary to justify their beliefs, and thus they deny what is obvious: they are finite. It almost seems silly for me to write that sentence. Who would not admit they are finite, limited in every way imaginable? Daniel Taylor writes about the downside of demanding certainty in his book, The Myth of Certainty:

Ironically, the insistence on certainty destroys its very possibility. The demand for certainty inevitably creates its opposite—doubt. Doubt derives its greatest strength from those who fear it most. Unwisely glorified as the primary way to truth by many secularists, it is equally unwisely feared by many in Christendom as truth’s mortal enemy.

Such an unhealthy fear of doubt is what happens when you base your epistemology on a false anthropology and psychology, i.e., that human reason is capable of achieving knowledge of an absolute sort. There is only one being who has such knowledge and certainty, and He would be the Creator of it all.

The implication of this is that there is no such thing as an unbeliever, and thus everyone lives by faith. One of my pet peeves is Christians calling people believers and unbelievers. The word “believers” is all over Acts, but Luke and those he was writing to and who read it knew exactly who he was talking about, Christians. We, on the other hand live in a post-Christian secular culture so using the phrase believer/unbeliever allows secular people, like Joe Rogan, to think faith is just a religious thing. As of yet he can’t muster up the faith to become a Christian, not realizing he’s a person of faith every bit as much as a Christian. Which brings us to . . . .

 

It’s a cookbook!!!

Since all people live by faith, the only reason cannibalism doesn’t exist anymore is faith, specifically the Christian faith. Secular people fail to realize moral values, what they consider right and wrong, come from faith, come from some belief of some people somewhere. Of course, most people never give this a second thought, it just is. As an easy example, they think obviously slavery is wrong. They think, isn’t it obvious owning another human being is evil? Well, no, it’s actually not obvious at all. In fact, for all of recorded history until very recently (the 19th century), slavery was a common fact of everyday life for people all over the earth. The reason there is nothing in the New Testament about the evils of slavery and calls for its abolition is because it was obvious to everyone at the time that slavery was a normal part of human existence. Paul implies it is good for slaves to get their freedom, but never indicates slavery is a moral wrong.

That only happened in due course because as it became apparent Jesus wasn’t returning as soon as Christians had hoped, church leaders and Christian thinkers realized they had to grapple with the implications of the Christian faith for society. These implications were profound because the competing moral system of the day was paganism. In fact, even as enlightened and brilliant as the ancient Greeks were, they were still polytheistic pagans. Aristotle, for example, believed women and slaves were inferior beings and deserved their lesser status in life. To say to any ancient person prior to the diffusion of Christianity throughout the world that all human beings were ontologically equal would have been considered absurd. Very few modern people in the West (which is most of the world at this point), have any idea their entire moral value system of liberalism is built upon Christianity and would not have existed without it. They are fed lies through their secular education and media that this value system is a result of the Enlightenment, but the Enlightenment only came into being because of Christianity.

An important book for Christian apologetics in the 21st century was written by a non-Christian, British historian Tom Holland. It’s called, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World. His story is a fascinating one. He always loved history, and found as he grew up and became a scholar he wanted to learn everything he could about the ancient Greeks and Romans. For various reasons the ancient world appealed to him, but as his career progressed something happened. As he studied the ancient world he realized he had nothing in common with them. In his own words:

It was not just the extremes of callousness that unsettled me, but the complete lack of any sense that the poor or the weak might have the slightest intrinsic value. Why did I find this disturbing? Because, in my morals and ethics, I was not a Spartan or a Roman at all. . . . Assumptions I had grown up with—about how a society should properly be organized, and the principles that it should uphold—were not bred of classical antiquity, still less of ‘human nature’ but very distinctively of that civilization’s Christian past.

Almost every person in the world today fails to realize we’re not cannibals, to use the most extreme example, because of Jesus of Nazareth, who died on a Roman cross, was buried, and whose followers claimed rose bodily, physically from the dead. As Holland adds:

So profound has been the impact of Christianity on the development of Western civilization that it has come to be hidden from view.

As in completely invisible.

The Moral Argument Simplified
Have you ever asked yourself the question, why is anything right or wrong, good or evil? The simple answer is God. In fact, the only answer is God. If atheistic materialism is true, as absurd as that is to contemplate, there can be no right and wrong, good or evil. The reason? If the material is all there is, if all we are is lucky dirt, you can’t get moral values from dirt. Another way of saying it is, you can’t get ought from is. In other words, I cannot infer cannibalism, or slavery, or murder, or adultery, or homosexuality, or lying, or theft, etc., are wrong just from material reality. Certainly, they are unpleasant, or delude us for a time, but we only know they are wrong, and ultimately lead to disaster, because God has revealed it to us, primarily in his word, but also in the created order and our consciences.

If, on the other hand, there is no God, right and wrong, good and evil, are mere preferences, like my preference in ice cream, or which sports teams I support. I once asked my brother-in-law if what we consider good or evil are mere preferences, and he said yes, like almost all modern secular would. So I asked him if Hitler butchering six million Jews was a preference, like whether he liked vanilla or chocolate ice cream. He got kind of a sick look on his face. He immediately intuited that no, choosing to commit genocide on a race of people isn’t like preferring one flavor of ice cream over another. We all know it is morally repugnant, pure evil, because God said so. He declared in the Ten Commandments, “You shall not murder.” Prior to the entire world being Christianized, killing was the preference of the powerful over the weak, and might made right.

And that is the final implication of the moral argument. If there is no God, we cannot escape might makes right, the one with the biggest stick or the biggest gun, or whoever is the strongest, determines what is right and what is wrong. If dirt is all we got, there can be no other appeal. This is why over time Tom Holland became repulsed by the ancient world. If there was no Jesus of Nazareth, nothing would have changed. In fact, as you study the rise of Christianity and the West, you see clearly through the development of the rule of law in England, that the political liberty enjoyed by much of the world today developed only because of Christianity. Because there is a transcendent moral standard, the king and the government were eventually forced into submitting to God through the law. It began with Magna Carta in 1215, eventually reaching fulfillment in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and developed fully in the founding of America in 1776.

It’s an incredible story, and the moral argument providentially developed in history through the almighty power of the Sovereign God of the Bible turning it into reality. We must build on what God has provided as we battle God-less secularism and raise up Christendom 2.0. from the ashes of the Enlightenment. I’ll finish with the C.S. Lewis quote I use all the time because it says it all:

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not just because I see it but because by it I see everything else.