Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. (1 Corinthians 14:9 NIV)

Do not underestimate the importance of precise language or the danger that lies in misleading wording. Failing to understand the necessity of accurate definitions and rigorously developed concepts makes one significantly more susceptible to exploitation and deception. There is peril in the perceived mundanity of definitions. People ignore how much wording can be weaponized against them because they think it is just a question for dry academic debates found only in dusty old tomes. Precision of language is a crucial shield against false narratives and deceitful manipulation.

That language can deceive is not new to anyone. We all know that people lie. Either in overt fashion, saying things that are blatantly false (and that they know are false), or more subtly, like telling white lies that leave out important information. Here I want to deal with a more specific issue. Leaving aside deliberate attempts at obfuscation or misdirection through loaded language, purposeful omission, or euphemisms. Instead, focusing on the less understood issue of definition.

Let’s take two words as an example of this problem. The first is gender. If I were to ask you how many genders there are, what would you say? Conservatives (the second word we will cover) might give a somewhat contrarian and counter-culture answer and say, “There are only two genders!” In emphatic fashion, too. Just look at the scandal that erupted when a seventh-grade student was told to remove and replace a shirt that said “There are only two genders” (see here). Those we commonly call “Social Justice advocates” might claim that there are many different genders. Far more than two, at least.

What is the right answer? Well, despite what “conservatives” might think, there are actually more than two genders. However, not in the way that their opponents think. The problem here is actually more fundamental. We have to back up a step and realize something. Gender is a grammatical construct. It is not a biological concept. There are three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. The truth is that words have gender, not people! Gender refers to a grammatical classification of words that roughly, and often very loosely (if at all), corresponds to the two sexes. Saying that there are only two genders is a trap. The trap is failing to recognize what has happened to the word gender.

It is only recently that people have used the word gender in a way that contradicts its original meaning. Previously, gender referred to other words, as its proper usage is grammatical, not biological, or it served as a synonym for biological sex (i.e. male or female). It wasn’t until John Money twisted the usage of gender and used it to refer to some trait people had outside of and separate from biological sex that it came to be used in such a disingenuous and ignorant way.

To see this, you just have to look at older dictionaries such as the 1919 Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (see here) or the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary (see here). The history of the word gender and how John Money twisted it can be found in Terry Goldie’s book The Man Who Invented Gender. In short, John Money needs to be understood as a fraud whose theories are deeply flawed, outright harmful, and the precursor of the nonsensical gender ideology we have today. He was the one who started the distorted and misleading usage of gender.

This matters because the right approach to such a perversion of language is to reject that language completely. Whenever conservatives keep using the word “gender” in this new way, they are unknowingly playing into the hands of the people who are pushing the harmful gender ideology on others. The definition of the word matters because one of the key tactics of deception used by opponents of Christianity is to redefine words so that they have the framing of their anti-Christian belief system.

Whenever people claim to have a gender, we need to recognize that the issue is the corrupted definition of gender. A corruption that comes from a false view of human nature. People don’t have genders; they have a biological sex. There are, of course, only two biological sexes: male and female. But there are actually three genders. That is because words are not people. If we intend to mean sex when we say gender, then it needs to be understood that people cannot have both a sex and a gender. Saying that becomes pure nonsense. It is department of redundancy department level speaking. Either the words mean exactly the same thing, and therefore cannot be treated as separate, or gender must refer to a grammatical construct, and is not something people can have. If it implies something other than these two things it isn’t real.

The next example here is what I have already mentioned. The term conservative. What exactly is a conservative, though? The way most understand it conservative refers to those on the “right” side of the political spectrum. The only problem is that this label doesn’t really mean much of anything if we think of it as a belief system.

What exactly do “conservatives” conserve? We like to think conservatives are more “traditional” but this doesn’t actually make much sense. What traditions are we talking about? Many might say “conservatives” support traditional marriage. Except, what about gay conservatives? There is an organization called the Log Cabin Republicans consisting of self described LGBT members who support the supposedly “conservative” Republican party. Depending on the study around 50% or more of so-called conservatives actually support gay marriage.

What about small government? This might be true, except for the neoconservative expansion of welfare programs and foreign intervention. President George W. Bush in his 2001-2009 terms in office oversaw one of the largest expansions of government in American history. He was the president who signed the USA Patriot Act and helped establish the Department of Homeland Security.

The truth is that conservative is a largely meaningless label, except for when it refers to membership in the Republican party. This might conflict with what many people think. Including those who identify as conservative. Even I fell into this trap earlier in my life. Thinking there was such a thing as “RINOs” (Republicans in Name Only) or that “true conservatives” should believe in some particular view towards government or tradition.

The problem is that conservative (or conservatism) has no meaningful definition apart from membership in a political alliance. It does not refer to a principled belief system. It refers to a politically aligned group that contains several contradictory beliefs. The only unifying factor is the opposition to the “leftist” or “liberal” political alliance. We cannot keep using this term if we intend to portray a coherent belief system. Because “conservatives” don’t conserve anything, don’t believe in anything in particular, and only have a set of associated beliefs because those beliefs just so happen to reflect the majority of people in the conservative movement at a specific time. Why do you think conservative means something different whenever we talk about different time frames separated by generational gaps?

These are only two words that showcase the problem we have with the lack of definitional precision. There are many, many other terms that suffer from this problem and poison discourse. Because the ambiguity and shifting nature of these words creates a space for serious confusion, if not outright deception. We can say the same thing about terms like woke, social justice, racism, non-believer, and many more. Future articles will address some of the most egregious examples. Because they are so important to understand.

If we continue to use casual language for serious arguments or wording that is based on prevarication and ignorance, we will continue to set ourselves up for failure. Do not think that this is just a pedantic exercise in hairsplitting. Christians who do not arm themselves properly in the war of ideas can expect defeat at every turn. We need wordsmiths who critically evaluate the language we use, the language our opponents use, and who help arm other Christians with the right understanding. This will help us recognize and then defeat the sophistry and deception of the false religions of our age.

The Conquest of Grace publication takes a specific approach on apologetics and world events. Which I outline here. This article explains how and why I deal with topics in the way that I do, provides a hub to some of the representative material that this publication will have, and contains a growing FAQ. It is meant to be a living document, and will therefore grow and change over time. So please check back in every so often for updates!

This is the first stop to understanding my work and a space for me to provide transparency on my worldview and religion. This is important because neutrality is a myth. I am not neutral, and I never pretend to be. I take an unabashed stance on the orthodox Christian worldview, and the Christian religion guides every aspect of my life. No matter how imperfectly I live in alignment with the demands of Scripture, I put my every hope in Christ. For which I will not be ashamed.

I am a Christian first and foremost. It is the identity that defines who I am above all else. I view everything through the lens of Christianity. Scripture is the only infallible truth and standard for all things: “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17 CSB). One can only pursue truth when standing upon the Christian worldview.

Though truth demands a scriptural basis, “The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy” (Proverbs 12:22). Double standards and a lack of intellectual honesty are traits that God condemns. Despite my admitted lack of neutrality, I strive to be fair and even-handed. This means that one must be rigorous, willing to listen, and impartial.

Conservative tribalism is contrary to this. So is pretending that all sides of an issue are somehow equally valid. The motivation for this publication comes in part from the failure of the modern conservative movement and the compromises of churches in Western society. Christians in the West need a new paradigm in our approach and to reject shortsighted pragmatism.

It is for you, the reader, to judge the quality of this work and take into consideration the impact my worldview has on the claims that I make.

Subscribe now

Focus

The focus of this publication differs from most apologetics publications or conservative media channels. There are a handful of areas that have become specialties of mine and that remain the primary emphasis of my work. Conquest of Grace focuses on the following areas:

Worldview and Religion Analysis

Analyzing worldviews and religions through a Christian lens. Deconstructing and exposing the religious nature of media and the worldview that sits behind everything we see in this world. Analysis that pulls back the curtain to expose the true nature of propaganda and the narratives we encounter. Especially those coming from the mainstream media.

Suggested Starting Points:

(Coming soon!)

Compromise

The main reason for the dismal performance of American Christianity in resisting the rise of false religions comes from a long history of compromise, bad theology, and syncretism. It’s compromise that is the greatest threat of all. Not so much the open enemies of God. It is therefore a special focus of CoG.

Suggested Starting Points:

(Coming soon!)

Terminology and Religious Taxonomy

This might sound dry, abstract, and even outright arcane, but it is of extreme importance. So much so that it will be something that CoG will provide original research on. Many false narratives remain popular solely because of the poor language and category confusion that enables them. Christians fall into trap after trap because of their ignorance of terminology and the importance of proper conceptual foundations. If you want to see how this is an issue, just ask yourself the question, “What is a religion?”

Suggested Starting Points:

(Coming soon!)

Countering Humanism and Neo-paganism

Within Western society, there are two primary worldviews and religions (technically broader categories of religions) that oppose Christianity: Humanism and Neo-Paganism. They are the primary source of opposition to the Christian worldview and also the religions from which most syncretism derives. Apart from their overt hostility towards Christianity, these religions are also the ones about which Christians are generally most uninformed. Much of mainstream Christianity, and even the more conservative American Evangelicalism, contains unknowing syncretism with Humanism. Most Christians remain ignorant of the influence that anti-Christian Humanism and Neo-paganism have within our culture and within many churches.

Suggested Starting Points:

(Coming soon!)

Theonomy/Christian Nationalism

The widespread myth of religious neutrality and a supposed “secular” government is extremely important to deal with. The media regularly denounces and misrepresents “Christian Nationalism” and demonizes Christian principles when applied to governance, unless it is in alignment with the heretical pseudo-Christianity found within left-wing politics. Many Christians likewise ignorantly decry “religion in government” while tolerating an official state religion of Humanism. Theonomy involves recognizing the applicability of Scripture to all aspects of life and rejecting the lie of religious neutrality in government. However, considerable ignorance and stigma obscure this topic, which deserves attention for proper handling. Especially because people immediately think of an Islamic ecclesiocracy like Iran (direct rule by clergy/religious institution) which is not comparable to what a Christian theocracy would actually look like. This is also an area in which bad theology is prevalent because you have the mixture of various theological traditions offering competing ideas under the ambiguous title of “Christian Nationalism.”

Suggested Starting Points:

(Coming soon!)

Conspiracies

A kind of worldview and flavor of religion exists under the hood of many conspiratorial beliefs. This is an issue that most churches have struggled to address effectively, if they’ve addressed it at all. There are many traps and misguided approaches towards belief systems, including the flat earth, aliens/ufology, belief in “Jewish” control of world organizations, the Illuminati, Freemasonry, satanic cults, the Epstein files, among many others. I intend to deal with these more effectively because people often completely disregard these ideas, ignoring the existence of real conspiracies, or they accept them with total credulity, driven by obvious paranoid and unbiblical delusions. Christians cannot avoid dealing with this topic and handling it with the proper rigor and critical analysis it deserves.

Suggested Starting Points:

(Coming soon!)

FAQ

What denomination or theological tradition is Conquest of Grace?

Lutheran. Specifically, I am a part of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). That means I believe in the primacy of grace and adhere to the five Solas of the Protestant Reformation: Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God alone), and Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). It also means, in distinction from other traditions, I accept the real presence of Christ in communion, rejecting the symbolic view of the sacraments held by other protestants, believe in infant baptism, hold to a young-earth creationist view, and reject the dispensational view of eschatology in favor of an idealist interpretation of Revelation.

Why did you choose the name Conquest of Grace? What does it mean?

For me personally, and as a Lutheran, grace is at the center of everything. Grace is the means of our salvation. To understand it is to understand the freedom and peace that it provides. Without grace, religion becomes either oppressive law or empty pleasure. Ultimately, both paths end in demise. However, grace is a gift of the Lord of Lords. It results from God’s inexorable will. God will defeat all who oppose him, and grace will conquer everything in the end. Christianity is not a feel-good religion. The Church Militant is engaged in spiritual warfare until the Day of Judgment, when God completes his ultimate victory. We are all part of a battle against the forces of darkness while we remain in this world. This spiritual battle is not an abstract metaphor but a reality that involves even the banal, material things of this world. False religions are not simply wrong; they are demonic constructs that ensnare and destroy people both spiritually and physically.

What about current events? Will you cover those?

Socrates once said, “Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” I firmly believe that far too much conservative media, including Christian influencers, spend an inordinate and inappropriate amount of time talking about passing current events of minor relevance. Far too often, simply chasing whatever popular modern zeitgeist and viral event came out recently. It’s not that they have no relevance, or that it is never appropriate to cover them, but they rarely have the importance people place on them. Especially because what is actually at stake are the larger meta-narratives or worldviews that people have. Not the narrow, often misguided interpretation people have of a particular scandal or a contrived, dubious event popularized by social media. I avoid dealing with current events unless there is a good reason to do so. Even then, I will not try to cover things as they happen or with haste.

Why do you restrict comments on your articles to paid subscribers?

There are a couple of reasons for this. To be fully transparent, the first reason is that I am not interested in hearing from anybody who isn’t financially invested. If somebody wants to say something about my work in that fashion, they have all kinds of platforms other than my own. They can write their own articles and say whatever they like. I will respond to matters brought to my attention if I deem them worthy and the timing is appropriate. Otherwise, the point is to filter out comments that are poorly thought out, fake (as in coming from bots or scammers), or from people who have no incentive towards constructive criticism. Fact is, comments on most platforms are low-quality trash and pure ignorance. Even when they are actually from real people and not bots. Social media platforms are designed to promote low-quality, bot-driven nonsense, making their comment sections a hotbed for inappropriate behavior. Therefore, I aim to avoid the perverse incentive structure in such a thing in my community.

How will you deal with inappropriate behavior in your community?

From day 1 my policy is that anybody posting abusive, blasphemous, sexually explicit, or foul comments will have their posts deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned. That applies to paid subscribers. Immature, foolish, and abusive conduct will not be tolerated. I would rather lose a paid subscriber than accept such a thing. I will allow any constructive criticism so long as it remains respectful. Including from anybody who vehemently disagrees with my claims. Another extremely important point is that I will have zero tolerance for anybody who attempts to attack others, including sending death threats or doxing, supposedly on my behalf. That means if you are someone who receives a death threat or otherwise abusive attack, seemingly from someone in my community, please send me direct proof of that (contact@conquestofgrace.com), and I will expose and call out that person. Including supporting any referrals to law enforcement, if necessary. That said, if anybody does anything like this and has posts of theirs deleted, an apology goes a long way!

How do you approach criticism or mistakes?

I have every intention of taking constructive criticism seriously. So long as it is constructive, I aim to incorporate it as much as is reasonable. If someone points out a legitimate mistake or error that I have made; I want to give credit where it is due. Therefore, whenever I make corrections, I will point them out in edits to an article and credit whoever first called out the mistake. My goal is to be transparent and as honest as possible. Which means I also want to give recognition properly to those who offer feedback and correction in a spirit of respectfulness. Iron sharpens iron. If someone wants to remain anonymous in pointing out corrections or offering some kind of feedback, please message me directly (contact@conquestofgrace.com) stating that you wish to avoid attribution, and I will avoid doing so. Of course, I do not accept the idea that I am obligated to respond to people who are insulting, obscene, or otherwise making claims in bad faith (such as empty assertions or poorly thought through challenges).

How do you utilize AI?

I use generative AI for thumbnails and images that go with various posts. Though sometimes just as a placeholder. I do not use AI to create posts or text. Other than the kind of tools that exist for spell-checking and grammar fixes, etc. Especially because they really just generate garbage. The worldview I have is not something that can be found reflected in the kinds of training data that LLMs pull from (like Wikipedia). So none of them are really capable of generating anything I care about. That said I am not against using them to create things for background purposes.