Last night, the members of my church were privy to a discussion given by our senior pastor about the idea that while politics may be important, we must never forget that the gospel is more important. The contention was, as far as I can tell, that whatever your political views, to the extent that they could potentially interfere with the transmission of the gospel, they must take second-place.

The core statement that the gospel is more important than politics is, as far as it goes, undeniable. It seems that any believing Christian must admit that whatever their political views, if they run contrary to the statement that man is saved by the grace of God, they must be abandoned or subordinated. When put in these stark terms, the answer is clear. However, the statement that “the gospel is more important than politics” is something of a straw man. It seems that for the gospel and a political belief to be in conflict in the modern era it would require an intermediary.[1] Certainly no political party has a works-based view of salvation as a part of their platform.

What this would seem to boil down to in practice would be a much more nuanced and questionable statement: “Do not allow your political views to potentially alienate someone who might be willing to hear the gospel in the absence of your expression of political viewpoints.”

This is much more ambiguous. For one, it contains the terms “potentially” and “might be”. In addition, it is often the case that political statements are made in group settings where you could just as easily argue that your political statement “might cause” a person to be more open to the gospel as they identify with what you are saying.

From a purely strategic standpoint it is by no means clear that remaining silent on an issue would be more effective than speaking your mind. In fact, it might well be the case that God, as one who honors truth, would bless the efforts of the person who bravely speaks out more so than the efforts of someone who avoids controversy by tacitly agreeing with whatever falsehoods might be being spouted.

Let us not forget that, in truth, most political questions have at least some moral content, and to the extent that we speak about them, we are trying to assess one’s moral stance on a subject. People do not comment on abortion without weighing the relative moral merits of the people around them, no matter their opinion on the subject. And like it or not, political comments often become a polarizing force. Silence is taken as agreement. If a person says something controversial in a room and no one challenges them, they will walk away all the more certain that all of their friends agree with them.[2] You may correct the record at some future date, but it is virtually certain that the commenter will express surprise when you do so.

A statement was made in the discussion about trying to have empathy for those who have suffered under laws supported by Christians “in the name of God”. The question was asked “Can you imagine what it feels like to have people pushing their views on you?”

The answer is self-evidently yes. Christians have been among the groups most targeted by legal action over the last fifty years. We are the active recipients of several laws that go against our moral perspective and are forced upon us. On the other hand, this is not true of any traditional victim group of Christianity. The first gay pride parade was in 1970 and abortion was legal for any reason at any time due to the Roe vs Wade decision by that time. It has been almost 50 years since any group had a law supported by Christians that substantially impacted their ability to live as they wished. This means that not only are we easily able to imagine what it feels like to be persecuted by legal action, we are actively undergoing it. The people who are NOT undergoing it are the traditional mythical victims of Christian extremism. (I mean mythical here in the sense that it has attained mythical status, not in the sense of fictional, though there is a fair amount of that as well.)

To be clear, I think there are many reasons why a person might vote the way they do. We get sold package deals. One candidate might be appealing to you on one issue but abhorrent to you on many others. There could even be an argument to vote against a policy you prefer because you think the chances of winning are slim and that it might consolidate opposition. I also see a reason to avoid clear political direction in church teaching. It is illegal to do so. This is because what we have in America is NOT separation of church and state (which hasn’t existed since the Middle Ages) but subordination of church TO the state (as the thinkers of the so-called Enlightenment argued for). We are legally not allowed to endorse candidates or political views from the pulpit without opening ourselves up to ruinous taxation by a vengeful government.

The argument that it puts up barriers to people hearing the gospel seems facile to me. Why should we think that challenging someone’s worldview and moral perspective is going to keep them from knowing Christ? Isn’t that often our primary strategy to WIN them to Christ? If we manage to convince them to “accept Christ” without any corresponding change in their moral perspective on life, is it even obvious that we have succeeded in a real conversion? Should we refuse to engage the fine-tuning argument because it might alienate naturalists?

Often, those who wish to justify capitulation to the world system do so by making some statement about legislating morality. This sounds like a compelling argument, as it seems to allow for people to make their own decisions about what is right and what is wrong and disclaim any prerogative to tell people what they must and must not do. However, from those who say this, I rarely see an argument that therefore it is not valid for Christians to vote for or push for social programs to benefit the poor. Any political movement to support the poor is obviously and on its face an act of legislating morality. Many people disagree with the effectiveness and morality of it and we have no compunctions about forcing it on the voiceless minority. It is convenient that we only apply that principle in hot button issues where it is convenient for us to go along with what non-Christian culture believes. We steadfastly ignore that principle if it would require us to speak out against a politically popular program.

Another statement was made about political polarization. The perspective shared was that the Republican party was more to the right than it has ever been and that the Democratic party is more to the left than it has ever been. This is obviously false. The evidence given in support of this was the result of polls of whether people self-identified as conservative or liberal. However, given any reasonable historical perspective, both parties are extremely left-wing. One hundred years ago, the right in America was pushing against women’s suffrage[3] and against the election of Senators by the public instead of by the state legislatures. Now, there is no party that seriously even discusses these topics. The left has won. 50 years ago, the left was pushing for food stamps and the right was arguing against them. Now, no serious party questions the food stamp program. Instead we argue whether the rate of growth in food stamps should be 2% or 3% a year.

This goes into a theme of the sermon on Wednesday night. There was a strong attempt to engage in “both-sides-ism”, trying to equate the left and the right in their tactics, as though moderates were the correct ones and the farther you get to either side, the more likely you are to dishonor the gospel.

This is patently false. The culture, morality, government and both political parties are far to the left. Even a mild right-winger risks going to jail for saying the wrong thing while left-wingers are able to beat defenseless people within an inch of their life on the streets without facing any charges.

You can be fired for expressing right-of-center views on challenging subjects, even when you do so in your private life. Even quietly giving money to a cause can get you fired and publicly shamed. Nothing comparable exists on the right for views on the left. There is no equivalency between the two sides. The left has all of the power and exercises it without mercy against anyone who challenges their unilateral control of society. They exercise shameless censorship, propaganda and manipulation. The right is voiceless and powerless. They cannot do anything and have had no major victories that I can think of in the last two centuries. Even the so-called “right-wing” station Fox News simply defends establishment Republicanism, which is, as I will argue below, a left-wing institution.

To blame “both sides” is unfair and untrue. The left rules every aspect of our lives. Anyone who is not a left-extremist, when they do make their opinion known, face persecution[4], doxing[5], jail[6] and violent attacks[7]. Left-wingers do not face any such threat from the right, since right-wing political organizations simply do not exist today. Now, just being in favor of enforcing existing law is enough to brand you as a far-right figure[8], maybe even a Nazi. 

A hundred years ago, there were roughly three strains of political thought: reactionary[9], liberal[10] and radical[11]. Reactionary are essentially monarchists who believe that rule is most effectively vested in some kind of aristocracy based on land or birth. No serious political party today holds this view. The liberals believed that the government should only concern itself with protecting the natural rights of man, their rights to life, liberty and property. This is roughly equivalent to an extreme form of libertarianism today, but again, no serious political party is saying that the government should limit itself to these arenas. The only remaining perspective was the “extreme left” radicals (read: socialists). Almost any political party in a modern Western nation would be immediately recognizable to the voter of 100 or even 50 years ago as a socialist party. Perhaps they would say one is moderate socialist and one as traditional socialist, but they would not be able to trace any of the party positions back to anything but the socialist movement. The other two are dead (By the way, the fact that I was unable to find a sympathetic link to reaction, as well as how outside the mainstream I had to go to find a sympathetic link to liberalism should say something).

It is beyond doubt that Donald Trump is to the left of John F Kennedy of 50 years ago, who was to the left of his opponent, Richard Nixon. What is considered extreme right-wing views today are standard left-wing views of even a decade ago, like Barack Obama’s support for traditional marriage and immigration enforcement. The fact that Trump is a supporter of gay marriage and that neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama came out in favor of gay marriage 7 years ago in the 2012 election is proof positive that the modern political parties are to the left of either party historically.

When it comes to the left-right spectrum, not defined by our extremely limited and extremely leftward view of it in 2019, all of our political parties are on the far left. This movement has been so extreme that the speaker after our senior pastor used the example of women’s suffrage as a moral victory. The arguments against women’s suffrage from 100 years ago largely came from dedicated Christian women who spent their time and money serving the poor and underprivileged. Their concern was that women’s suffrage would lead to the dissolution of the family, divorce, infidelity and promiscuity. Either they were coincidentally very lucky, or they were correct. No matter what you think about the validity of their arguments, the idea that women’s suffrage was a clear moral victory is an extreme left-wing interpretation of history. Yet our teachers felt no compunction about stating it in those terms. Feel however you want about the subject itself, but if we portray it as though the opponents of women’s suffrage were irredeemable sexists, we bow to a version of history invented by the left and demonstrate its dominance over our culture. You may not agree with their conclusions, but I’m sure if you were to read the arguments of the time, you would find that you agree with the morals and worldview of the anti-suffrage movement[12] far more than that of the suffragettes[13].

There are many such examples where the historical right-wing viewpoint is discredited by the heavily biased view of history; history taught in our government schools and universities by teachers who overwhelmingly identify as leftists.[14] The left has created, dominated and ruled our culture for at least the last 50 years and probably more accurately since Woodrow Wilson, the prototypical leftist.

All universities are extremely left-wing, especially in the social sciences. They vote Democrat by huge margins and have clearly stated that they would not hire anyone who disagreed with them politically.[15] If you view professorship or PhDs as a credential worth giving some credibility, remember that they have poisoned the well when it comes to political views. Those with alternative views are silenced, fired, or never hired in the first place. History falls into this category, so you must realize that the vast majority of history you were taught was from the perspective of the victors (the left). If you have not sought out alternative views and considered them for yourself, you should assume that you are propagandized by the left.

The major corporations are almost all left wing. How many support pride month on their official documents? Didn’t Nike refuse to put out the American flag because it’s “a symbol of hate”? Yet no one blinks an eye. However, when the owners of Chick-Fil-A try to quietly support a group that is against gay marriage without involving their company, they get pilloried in the media.

The corporate media (read mainstream media) is entirely left-wing. The coverage of Trump’s first 100 days was so biased that only Fox news (of all outlets) had roughly a 50/50 split of positive to negative coverage of the president.[16] Every other major national news outlet was overwhelmingly negative.

All mainline protestant branches of the church except for Baptists are pushing to the left[17]. You may remember some time in the 80s when evangelicals were all over the news, but churches are all running as far to the left as they can. They wish to disavow the supposed sins of their forebears, which mostly consist of people who are FDR democrats, considered to be hyper-right-wing populists by today’s definition. The reality is that you do not see mainline churches coming out against homosexuality, transgenderism or abortion. This is solely the over-exposed fringe evangelical groups given disproportionate coverage by the (hyper left-wing) media to create a false impression of a right-wing opposition with real influence. This is because the story of the left as an oppressed plucky rebel group fighting an overwhelming evil empire is necessary to paint the story. If you make the point that the left won a hundred years ago with the Progressive movement taking over both parties and that it has since only been fighting itself from 20 years ago, it doesn’t seem like as much of a heroic struggle.

This is all to say that the current parties are loudly disagreeing with each other over how rapidly we should move to the left. No serious right-wing opposition exists in modern political parties. To say that we are more right-wing than we have ever been is a clear historical falsehood.[18]

Both political parties are Progressive. The Republicans are progressives of yesterday and the Democrats are the progressives of tomorrow. And since the name of progressivism is progress, tomorrow always wins out in the end. Then their stances are comfortably adopted by the Republicans and a new battle begins on a battleground further to the left.

Right-wing politics and ethics are primarily based on the traditional family unit, respect for the law and for the governing authorities, private charity and voluntary commitment to community. The left stands for individualism, autonomy, state power to remake community, as well as an existential and post-modern views of a person’s role in society. A leftward push is toward revolution, a rightward push is toward stability and order. The left believes all problems are social in nature and that proper education and programs can solve them. The right believes most problems are intrinsic to human nature and the best we can do is have stable social structures, imperfect as they may be, to mitigate the rampant evil that revolution unleashes.

This illustrates the main concern I have with the original contention. Many, if not most, of these political battles were lost by Christians. This implies that the opposition was led by their enemy. I think it is telling that all of the formative thinkers of modern leftism, as well as most practitioners of it, are explicitly anti-Christian. Left-wing politics, when it gains the ascendency, usually starts putting Christians to death, from the French Revolution to Mao’s China. While Christians may forget who their enemies are, the left does not. In fact, the reason many Christians find it easy to support left-wing positions is because Progressivism is a corrupted form of Christianity. It takes uniquely Christian ideas and turns them to evil, society-destroying initiatives then calls you a heretic if you dare to speak against it.

The left preaches false history that shines a harsh light on Christian actions of the past, without acknowledging that Christianity has always been on the forefront of moral thinking in every area for the last two thousand years. They gladly perpetrate myths, exaggerations and falsehoods of Christian misdeeds of the past, without mentioning how incomparably greater the crimes of literally every other culture that ever existed were. And we buy it! The same teacher who mentioned women’s suffrage used the Crusades as an example of an obvious moral evil, without commenting on the fact that until Muhammed preached the murder or forcible conversion of everyone in the Middle East, Turkey was a Christian nation. The Crusades, whatever the specifics, were obviously and completely a defensive war against an incredibly hostile, violent, brutal and (from the perspective of Christianity) Satanic opposition who had been spending the last three hundred years beheading every Christian they couldn’t convert (See ISIS if you have any interest in understanding Islam of 700 AD). Even as recently as the founding of Campus Crusade in 1951, Crusade was a synonym for defending against evil, not a synonym for imperial oppression. The fact that we believe this obvious falsehood is a sign of just how intrenched left-wing, anti-Christian history has become.

The statement was also made by our pastor that Satan wishes to use politics to divide us and this is undoubtedly true. However, I do not think this is the only, or perhaps even the primary mission of Satan’s manipulation of the political world.

Politics, culture, and morality, if they are not the same, are like Siamese triplets. They move as one. As politics become more left-wing, morality becomes more decadent and culture becomes more anti-Christian. The loss of the cultural fight for the historicity of the Bible was so extensive that we now mostly run into people for whom the idea of the literal truth of the Bible is not only alien but unthinkable. It is worth remembering that Christians did not lose that fight despite their best efforts. Left-leaning Christians desperately seeking to conform to the culture around them made relatively cogent arguments that this was a battle not worth fighting – that it didn’t matter whether the Bible was historically true, since its spiritual content (read the gospel) was more important than the contentious issue of the day.

What they missed was that the two are inextricable. The idea that we should not fight the cultural war might have made some converts a hundred years ago, but they poisoned the soil for the next century of evangelists. Slavery was avoided by many Southern preachers and now we hear no end of demonization of Christians for supporting slavery, despite the obvious truth that only Christians ever opposed slavery in the entire history of the globe and were the sole and decisive factor in its eventual abolition. But history is written by the victors (read: the left, the anti-Christians), so we hear nothing but condemnation of those who did not speak out.

Abortion is the worst holocaust, in terms of death, of any ideology except Islam. 60 million dead children’s souls cry out for justice in a country that still supports the regime that legalized their murder. Hitler was an amateur compared to Planned Parenthood. Stalin, who certainly killed far more than Hitler ever did, was still far short of the pro-choice lobby. Mao might have beat them, but he’s long gone, whereas abortion still is accepted. Islam definitely beat them in sheer numbers of people murdered, but over a much longer period of history.

If you are a left-winger, you probably have all these built-in circuits that tell you why slitting a child’s throat in the womb so the mother doesn’t hear it scream as it is ripped from her body is somehow less bad than a Jew getting gassed to death after being beaten by a Nazi guard or a Ukrainian being forced to cannibalize his own children by the socialists in Russia, but this only shows that you have been infected in this, as in everything else, by an extreme left-wing bias. 60 million dead in America alone since Roe v Wade. If you cannot recoil in horror at that, I cannot take your moral judgments seriously when you speak about internet overuse or careerism and materialism.

If we do not stand for a clear moral choice against the decadence and evil of our culture but merely say “We’re like you, only Jesus flavored”, we stand little chance of winning those who recognize the evil of the world around them. There are thousands of young men desperate for someone to validate the male experience and push back against the Gnostic Feminism[19] of the modern world. They would gravitate to the church if we took a stand for traditional gender distinctions. Everyone knows that a man can’t be a woman and a woman can’t be a man. They would gravitate toward the church if we took a stand against transgenderism. Maybe the millions of lives ruined by Gnostic Feminism would be willing to hear how God’s design for the family is actually very freeing for women, rather than sucking down another crap-shake about how career is somehow going to fill the hole that no husband and no children has left. Due to the internet, more and more people are realizing how horrifically evil socialism is, and noting the traditional role Christians have played in fighting and dismantling it. They would flock to us if our image wasn’t that of a neutered court eunuch to the Devil’s world system.

Sure, we may win some of the college kids if we tell them that they can still affirm 23 genders and abortion rights til the third year of life, but it’s a bait and switch. Eventually they will learn that Christianity is not compatible with left-wing politics and do one of four things:

  1. They will change their beliefs to fit the Bible. They will drop the left-wing perspectives on LGBT issues, abortion and god knows what in the future and turn into social pariahs like the rest of us that are anywhere to the right of Leon Trotsky.
  2. They will embrace cognitive dissonance. Somehow they convince themselves they are “personally pro-life but politically pro-choice” or “I don’t want to legislate morality unless it’s popular to do so”.
  3. They reinterpret the Bible to mean something it does not. Maybe the Bible actually DOESN’T teach against homosexuality, but only against pedophilia. And in five years when pedophilia is acceptable, we’ll come up with some other interpretation that keeps me from having to stand against culture. Perhaps the Bible does not really affirm traditional gender roles, so I can continue to be a Gnostic feminist while saying I follow the Bible.
  4. They will leave. People’s view on LGBT issues are based on their firm belief that there is nothing wrong with being gay or trans. This is incompatible with the Bible and if push comes to shove, there’s no reason to believe the Bible will win out. Other issues like abortion are similar. The morality and worldview which leads to left-wing political perspectives are incompatible with clear Biblical reasoning. Virtually every left-wing position has specific verses that invalidate them. They will be forced to choose one or the other and given the cultural pressure to conform to the left, they are facing serious opposition.

If they are number 4, they obviously pose no serious threat to the church, but they also provide no benefit to the church beyond their own personal salvation. 2 and 3 are extremely dangerous. 3 leads to heresy within the church and the taking of the church away from God’s mission and truth. 2 does not do so explicitly, as the person holding that position still believes all the true things of God, they merely also hold contradictory beliefs about the world. However, those that learn from people stuck in mode 2 will not necessarily be as comfortable with cognitive dissonance. This is where we get the kids that think they are the first ones to realize the problem of evil, or who say they had questions that no one was able to answer. People in mode 2 will see that eventually the people of the church notice the contradictions in their perspective and discredit all of Christianity by association.

To the extent that we don’t call out historical falsehoods, like the Crusades; to the extent that we agree with the mythology of Christian persecution of gays; to the extent we do not declare loudly and forcefully that we do not agree with the legalization of the murder of 60 million innocent children, we poison the soil that the gospel will be planted in for centuries to come. We still suffer under false allegations made by left-wingers in the 1500s about the Catholic Church, which have made it into the historical record.

Right wing politics stand for traditions. This means traditional family structure, respect for existing authorities, a sense of obligation to the social structures you are born into, a sense of obligation to your community and to private voluntary charity. In the American tradition, right-wing politics are a call back to strong families, church, neighbors, hard work, and law and order. The left sees all of these things as either cynical justifications of oppression or as high-minded but hopelessly corrupted idealism. Either way, the leftists will not speak in terms of hatred of the family, hatred of women, hatred of racial minorities, hatred of law and hatred of church. They will speak in terms like Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, as they sharpen the guillotines.

This does not mean that leftist criticism of existing institutions is never justified. Of course institutions may become corrupt or may become cynical justifications of oppression. Perhaps some institutions cannot be saved and must be carefully dismantled and reconstituted to recapture their original usefulness. Perhaps they have completely outlived their usefulness and must be replaced entirely, using the same care and reverence that we would in deciding how to handle house chores after a parent dies. Not every left-winger is Stalin, after all. Most are just seeing injustice (often illusory injustice due to the leftward push of our universities, government and media) and desiring to see it go away, by any means necessary.

But by the same token, not every right-winger is Hitler. True, Hitler used the idea of past glory to corrupt all of the institutions of his nation, but that doesn’t mean that institutions and order are bad things. It simply means that the Devil can use right-wing and left-wing alike.

It does strike one as odd that Hitler and Mussolini are denounced in the same breath, though Mussolini didn’t commit anything like the genocide that Hitler perpetrated. It is also odd that while Mao and Stalin had higher body counts than Hitler and persecuted their own minority groups, we do not hear much condemnation of them. I think the reason is because of this right-left dichotomy. The left is largely sympathetic to the goals of Stalin and Mao, even if they may want to avoid some of the tactics they used. With Hitler they can condemn not only the evil, but the idealism that he used to sell the evil. Left-wingers do not think it admirable, even without mass murder, to re-establish traditions and bring about stability in the social order.

Also, let us remember that while some of Hitler’s stated ideals were right-wing, he did not live up to those ideals in the slightest. They genuinely were corrupt and cynical justifications for his own sick fantasies. Also let us remember that he came to power entirely through a left-wing process. He was not recognized as a capable leader and put into power because of his merits, but used popularism and appeal to the base instincts of the masses to gain power at the ballot box, just like a left-winger does. He promised them free health care and social security, as well as revenge against the evil rich people (mostly Jews, but also aristocrats) that had oppressed them for so long and ruined the country. If you read the Nazi party platform, you will see a lot of standard left-wing language.[20]

Therefore we see that the appropriate perspective of a Christian is fundamentally to the right. We believe that we are born and led by God to particular places, in particular families, in particular communities, with government authority over it. We believe that respect for these institutions is necessary and commanded by God. We believe that man and woman are different and that there is a natural hierarchy within the family of the two, as well as a natural hierarchy of parents over children. We believe that man and woman have different common callings within the family, the man to provide and lead and the woman to maintain the household, children and be the primary envoy to the community. We believe in the legitimacy of leadership and authority, even when it is sometimes misused. We believe in permanence of community and obligation to the community you are born into. We believe in respect for our elders and for tradition that has come before us and change things only with reverence and trepidation. We recognize that most problems are innate to the human condition and cannot be solved with government action. We recognize that the young are not wise and uncorrupted by culture, but so easily moved by peer pressure as to render their opinions often worthless and silly. We view the opinions of the young and inexperienced with great care, though always listening, as they might be right. We believe in discipline not only to reform the disciplined one, but to protect the community against the one, as well as acknowledging that failing to discipline is often just enabling bad behavior. These are all right-wing perspectives.

The left wing is the opposite. They believe that where and into what community you are born is merely an accident and has no hold over you. They believe that all institutions are corrupt and must be torn down or taken over. They believe that man and woman are no different in essence, but are merely suffering under an illusion that society has pushed upon them to benefit men at the expense of women. They believe that there is no natural hierarchy within the family, but that man and woman are equal partners and that they ought to defer to their child’s wishes or risk emotional abuse of the children. They believe that a man’s calling to provide and lead is inherently better than a woman’s calling and that men have no right to claim that role. They also believe that either sex is equally capable of filling said role. They believe that all leadership and authority is corrupt (power corrupts) and that it should be resisted and questioned at every turn. They believe that community needs to be remade from the top down generally according to their own views of how things should be. They believe that their elders were hopelessly backward and foolish and that we are perpetually advancing so that every generation is wiser than the one that came before it. They believe also that tradition is simply a tool of the oppressor to hold down the natural wisdom of the young and that it can be done away with and forgotten without loss. They believe all problems are socially constructed and could be fixed with the right application of government power. They believe that the young are inherently innocent and uncorrupt, and that as we become older we become more inclined toward evil and oppressive behavior; therefore we should defer to the opinions of the young. They believe that they do not need experience to know what is best for other people and to have the right to enforce that upon them. They believe out of the mouths of babes comes wisdom and that we should listen for these utterances of pure innocent truth before it becomes corrupted by the expectations of an oppressive social structure. They believe that discipline is cruel and should only be used with great care to help the one disciplined. There is no sense of desire to protect the group from law-breakers. They view failures as a function of society, and that if you are on top and you fail, you are responsible for your failure, but if you are on the bottom and you fail, you were destined to fail by the cruelty of community and tradition, are not responsible for your actions and should be relieved of the results of your failure.

Make no mistake. Politics are about morality. Culture is about morality. Culture and politics are about morality and they ARE the world system that the Bible speaks about. To capitulate, even to the extent of remaining silent, is conformity to this world, rather than the transforming of the mind. We are in a post-Christian culture, more and more dominated by our enemy. You should be very suspicious of any cultural movement that has its roots after humanism took hold, as that was the first serious sign of atheism and a renewed power of the Devil in the culture. Maybe there is something good that has its roots in post-Christian culture, but I haven’t found it.

Is it the right strategic move to give up on the cultural battle and focus purely on what would be most effective in winning this person right now, whether it’s honest or not? Maybe. But maybe being willing to stand for evil, or being unwilling to stand against it poisons our witness even now. Maybe there is a whole host of people out there who sense the evil of our culture and want something else. Maybe the 40% of people who don’t identify with either political party are actually just sick of all the awfulness all around. Maybe a group who has love, but also boldness is more inspiring than a group who just refuses to take sides in the name of a tepid, lukewarm love that refuses to speak moral truth.

I believe the popularity of various figures speaking even relatively mild forms of traditionalism and respect for the family shows that there are many out there who just have never encountered real traditionalism and secretly ache for it as all non-believers ache for God. Why should we not show them that God not only exists but has a view of life that, while very counter-cultural, is healthy and good? Rather than letting our people become conformed to the left-wing nihilism, why not seek to perpetuate a respect for tradition and for those who came before us? Why not say that this culture is evil not simply because they seek after money, but because they don’t recognize the value of the family? Why not point out that the sexism in our culture is not anti-woman but anti-man, and that is why men feel neutered and unambitious, retreating further and further into porn and video games.

Above all why should we not defend the history of Christianity, which, while it has its black stains, has been the sole and overwhelming force for good and for civilization for the last two thousand years? Why do we feel the need to agree with the criticisms of Christians, whether fair or unfair, to identify with our culture? When we capitulate in this way, we may think we are only being humble, but to the watching world, we are agreeing with their view that Christianity is a hopelessly corrupt institution, merely a cynical justification for oppression. Why not say, “no, it was Christians who ended slavery, not once but twice. It was Christians who defended the defenseless in the Middle East from rampaging Muslim hordes. It was Christians who created the concept of religious tolerance and practiced it with great success for much of their history. It is Christians who first imagined that women should be seen as equally worthy of respect, a view essentially unheard of outside Christian culture.” Everything that the secular masses values and likes about the world and all of their ideals are merely pale distortions of Christian teaching. We should recapture the vitality and strength of those ideals by being willing to simply speak the truth, rather than being mealy-mouthed apologists for our enemies. 

I do not say that you must always challenge every falsehood or risk being conformed to the world. There is always the question of strategy. Must you lose your job to call out your co-worker for murdering their child at Planned Parenthood? I don’t know, that’s a question for God. But if you can’t condemn the culture around you in your heart, perhaps you have already been conformed.

To agree with my senior pastor: We ought not to allow this to become hatred for the left. We must always feel sorry for them as virtually helpless dupes in thrall to a world-system generated by the most intelligent and capable enemy we will ever have. The PEOPLE who post “My Body, My Right” and call themselves “Allies” should inculcate our sympathy and not our malice. But we should have nothing but condemnation for their moral judgments. They are as wrong as someone who says “all religions lead to heaven”.

The worldview and backdrop that leads to left-wing politics is as hostile to Christianity as the belief that Christ was not a historical figure. If we do not challenge it, it cannot result in transformation. Perhaps we can be satisfied with someone who lives in cognitive dissonance, but the more we tolerate that, the more likely we will find ourselves opposing our own congregants.

Let’s also remember that I have said nothing about who you must vote for. From a Christian perspective, both Republicans and Democrats are far to the left. Either may be the lesser of two evils in any given election cycle. This is more about rejecting the anti-Christian culture of leftism. We cannot support abortion, but maybe voting Democrat is still justified, considering how unlikely it is that abortion law really changes. We cannot support Gnostic Feminism, but it’s not like Republicans are really standing up for traditional family values. Realistically, none of our votes matter. The effect we have on the culture matters far more. We must stand up for the cultural importance of Christian values, even if they translate to unpopular political views. The way this comes out in our votes is debatable.

The climate of our country is becoming more violent. The left is cracking down on their opposition. We have a mild reprieve for the moment, but the enemy is frothing at the mouth. They will do whatever it takes, up to an including mass murder to silence traditional Christianity. There is no corresponding danger from the right at this time (If there is in the future, we may have to pull a Bonhoffer, but we are in a mono-culture right now). You don’t have to support monarchy to be a Christian, but let’s not pretend that being a moderate by today’s definition is anything but being a left-wing partisan by any other definition. If we do not speak against it, like we have done so often in the past, or if we focus on demonizing those on our own side for minor offenses while ignoring the egregious fouls of the other side, we will be contributing to the poisoning of the soil.

Things may be on a downward spiral to the apocalypse, but betraying God and his people to bring about the end will not be rewarded in heaven. We are to love God first, to love the church second, and to reach the lost third as scripture makes clear. Do not betray God and your fellow Christian in the service of making yourself more palatable to the god-hating, morally compromised and blind people of the world.


[1] For example, if the political belief is based on some belief that runs contrary to the Bible’s clear teaching, it might conflict in that, in order to sincerely hold the political belief, you must believe in some moral statement that does not comport with the Biblical text. Therefore, in order to maintain the political belief you reject the Bible’s authority in this area, which ultimately undermines the gospel.

[2] https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/encounter-in-an-echo-chamber/

[3] As a lifelong recipient of government propaganda, you probably are a card-carrying member of the cult of Democracy. Therefore, you possibly imagine that the right to vote is somehow sacrosanct, even though so many people find it so unimportant they don’t even bother to exercise it. Let me assure you that voting is just a means to an end of having a just and well-ordered government. It is by no means obvious, and perhaps it is obviously not the case that democracy leads to more justice than some aristocratic organization where only the knowledgeable and privileged may vote. As per James Burnham: “The democratic formula and the practice of suffrage do not mean the self-government of the people by themselves. They do, however, constitute a special mechanism of rule by the minority elite, differing from other mechanisms.”

[4] https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/woke-capitalism-cultural-imperialism-lgbt-religious-liberty-poland/

[5] https://lidblog.com/tucker-carlson-home/

[6] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/police-arrest-and-ban-preacher-from-toronto-gay-district-after-lgbt-crowd-mobs-him

[7] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/11/20/msnbc-reporter-rand-paul-being-beaten-up-is-one-of-my-favorite-stories-n2412127

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting

[8] https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/18/politics/trump-administration-immigration-hardline/index.html

[9] http://preservearticles.com/history/short-essay-on-the-political-ideology-of-metternich/14550

[10] https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalism_(historical)

[12] https://caprizchka.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/mrs-arthur-m-dodge-josephine-speaks-in-opposition-to-womens-suffrage-1911/

(There are lots of other writings, but usually only quoted in hostile sources. It was too difficult to find anything by Grace Saxon Mills that did not come from a hostile source. This should also demonstrate just how effectively the left has rewritten history on this topic).

[13] https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2017/03/09/the-declaration-of-sentiments-july-19-1848/

https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2017/03/21/the-destructive-male-1868/

[14] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/24/survey-finds-professors-already-liberal-have-moved-further-left

[15] https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bias-killing-social-science

[16] https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/

[17] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

[18] Writing in 1915, John Burgess already noted this: “[Before 1898 our government needed] some readjustments, but no radical or revolutionary changes. But it did not lend itself to an imperial policy abroad nor to a paternal programme[sic] at home. A School of Sociologists and Political Economists arose, who, impatient of the voluntary methods of religion, charity, and philanthropy, have sought to accomplish what they call social justice, the social uplift, by governmental force. There is no question that they have exercised a strong influence in directing the thought of the present, and they have taught the politicians that there is no vote-catcher in a system of universal suffrage comparable to the promise of forcing those who have to divide with those who have not or have less. The Jingo and the Social Reformer have gotten together and have formed a political party, which threatened to capture the Government and use it for the realization of their programme[sic] of Caesaristic[sic] paternalism, a danger which appears now to have been averted only by the other parties having themselves adopted this programme[sic] in a somewhat milder degree and form. All parties are now declaring themselves to be Progressives, and all mean in substance the same thing by this claim, viz.: the increase of governmental power over the constitutional Immunities of the Individual, the solution by force of the problems of the social relations heretofore regulated by influence, by religion, conscience, charity, and human feeling, the substitution of the club of the policeman for the crosier of the priest, the supersession of education, morals, and philanthropy by administrative ordinance.”

[19] Feminism has two major Gnostic influences. First, the tale of Eve as the loving nurturer who bravely went against the stolid patriarchy to bring greater knowledge and advancement to mankind. When you hear tales of a woman who fights against the patriarchy and is shamed for it, you are re-hearing the heroic Eve story. The woman bravely brings society forward against the wishes of the males who stand for oppression. The woman stands for freedom and knowledge and truth. This is a Gnostic tale and it’s no coincidence that it’s also the Feminist narrative. The second way in which Feminism is a Gnostic cult is the idea that the way to a woman’s fulfillment is to become a man, or to become man-like. The preaching that career is somehow more fulfilling than raising children and serving your community, the preaching that sex without emotional commitment is more fulfilling than marriage and chastity, the preaching that women should be independent. These are reheated Gnostic views of the female becoming the male to be saved. Feminism merely teaches women to desire the worst parts of being a man: his need to work to provide for the family, his heartlessness when it comes to sex and his autonomy. There is nothing in Feminism to recommend the good parts of being a man: his chivalry and willingness to sacrifice for the family, because if a woman pursued that, they would rapidly find themselves back in the traditional community and family focused roles that God calls them to.

To be clear, I do think there are roughly two good reasons why a woman might reject the most common calling that God has for all women: first, she may have a vision of something truly world-changing that she wishes to do. This would not be a career by normal standards as most careers are mere drudgery. This would need to be something that she believes God is specifically calling her to reject all common callings to pursue. Needless to say, rejecting God’s common calling should never be done lightly and there should be a clear calling to the alternative. If you have such a calling, it should be easy to convince your fellow Christians of the worthiness of your choice. Secondly, out of necessity. Sometimes life throws us a curveball and the traditional options of family and community are simply not feasible. She must work because her husband cannot or will not provide for the family because of misfortune, illness, death or abandonment.

[20] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/platform-of-the-national-socialist-german-workers-rsquo-party

Categories: Uncategorized