Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

In prior articles, I have already discussed the fact that the left/right spectrum is a myth. I have also described the problems with terms like “conservative” or “right-wing.” We know that conservative, right-wing, and Republican (within the US) all mean exactly the same thing and refer solely to an adherence to a political alliance, regardless of what one believes. One can also say the same thing about the terms liberal, left-wing, progressive, and Democrat. I won’t rehash that here, as you can check out the previous articles to see my explanation of that particular fact.

Instead, I wish to cover a different angle here and point out that while the terms conservative, right-wing, and Republican are effectively identical (as it stands now), their counterparts have some important nuances. Calling someone a leftist is exactly the same thing as calling them a Democrat. Strictly speaking, “leftism” is indistinguishable from membership in the Democratic Party. In most circumstances, the same applies to anybody deemed a “liberal” or a “progressive.” In modern discussions, all four terms are entirely interchangeable. However, progressive and liberal both have usages that refer to something different from what exists today. This is where there is more nuance than their counterparts on the “right.”

Modern-day liberalism has become synonymous with the Democratic Party. When people use this term, they’re either referring to the Democratic Party as a political affiliation, or they’re making a similar error as they do with conservatism. They are wrongly referencing a made-up and arbitrary belief system. The error of treating a belief system as distinct from the political alliance it’s part of. There is no belief system of “liberalism.” People cannot be more or less “liberal” because it is now nothing more than an alternative term for Democrat.

The problem is that liberalism used to refer to an ideology with a more distinct set of beliefs. Classical liberalism refers to the beliefs and subsequent movement that emerged in the 17^th and 18^th centuries. Though the reality is more complex, people often credit John Locke as the originator, but no single founder can be said to have originated this belief system. The best way to understand classical liberalism is to view it as the direct ancestor and prototype of current libertarianism. Classical liberalism is a movement emphasizing liberty, personal rights, consent of the governed, political equality, private property, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. It is best understood in contrast with absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings, hereditary privilege and partiality, feudalism, and aristocracy. Classical liberalism (in various forms and with several other very important influences) is what motivated the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

The way people use liberalism now has nothing to do with that. The people who believe in the liberalism that we associate with the 18^th century are called libertarians now. However, we should point out that libertarianism developed from classical liberalism and is one resultant form of that philosophy. They are not perfectly comparable. It is better to think of them as neoclassical liberals. Modern-day liberals and classical liberals differ significantly.

This is because modern liberals advocate for statism, social welfare, socialism, hedonistic social movements such as the “LGBTQ+” movement, abortion, and transgenderism. None of which classical liberals would support. Modern liberals would not be allies of people like John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Jefferson (think of the hatred directed towards Jefferson in accusing him of being a racist, white slaver), Benjamin Franklin, or George Washington.

Therefore, it is an error to link liberalism (as a philosophy) to the political left, since authentic classical liberals and libertarians (who are the actual successors of classical liberalism) would more often be associated with the Republican party and be classified as “conservatives” in today’s political landscape. Instead, this term, as it is used currently, is just a synonym for Democrat. There are no fundamental principles tied to it. It is this confusion that makes the term “liberalism” problematic when applied to an ideology or belief system. True liberalism is not at all compatible with the beliefs of the people who claim that label now.

Progressive is another term with a similar history. Modern-day “progressives” (again, just Democrats/leftists in reality) do in fact share ancestry with the Progressive movement in the late 1800s and early 1900s. However, modern progressivism is very different. Though it has roots in the social gospel and social welfare movements that came from the late 19th-century progressives, it has evolved considerably. So much so that it is a mistake to even use that term as if it were meaningfully different from leftist/Democrat/liberal.

The core beliefs of the progressive/liberal/leftist movement are best understood as stemming from multiple distinct religions that now form the majority of the political left/Democratic party. Of these religions (note how I define religion here) the most dominant right now is Distrephism. The others are mostly different forms of Humanism and/or Neo-paganism. The religion and worldview of Distrephism is the impetus behind the belief in homosexual identities, transgenderism, promotion of abortion, climate apocalypse eschatology, and the prevailing victimhood culture within institutions dominated by people on the political left (academia, for example).

A perfect example of this is the problematic, and ultimately disingenuous, label of “Progressive Christianity.” There is no such thing as “Progressive” Christianity because that is the same thing as saying “Democratic Christianity,” which doesn’t actually make any sense. If we are trying to describe a belief system, then we need to portray them as syncretists and Distrephists. So-called “Progressive Christians” are not Christians; they are Distrephists wearing a Christian disguise. They are syncretists at best. Syncretists who have created a heretical pseudo-Christianity that has discarded actual Christian doctrine for Distrephist beliefs. They have done this while deceptively presenting themselves as “Christian” only because they use pseudo-Christian language and talk about “Jesus” in vague ways.

In the end, we have to stop the bad habit of conflating political allegiance with a singular religion or worldview. Just because political tribes lead to increasing homogeneity and conformity among their members does not mean that the parties are actually based on a coherent belief system. This fallacious way of framing things is why tribalism is as bad as it is, and why there are so many bad-faith arguments. Christians need to stop playing into this deceptive and contradictory narrative. We need to stop using the language that perpetuates these myths and avoid the simplistic and superficial tribal designations that “conservative” media keeps repeating.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

Be on your guard against false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravaging wolves. (Matthew 7:15 CSB)

So much could be said about this book that the temptation is to follow every rabbit hole. Of course, this isn’t practical because Megan Basham touches on a lot of issues. Individually, these issues could merit book-length treatment. There is also the fact that this book generated no small amount of controversy. With several people named in this book firing back at Basham’s portrayal of them. This is worth discussing first because it can speak to the integrity and reliability of this book.

Of these controversies, I have followed up most with the controversy surrounding Gavin Ortlund. Having watched both defenses of Ortlund (including Ortlund’s two videos responding to the book) and defenses of Basham. It is worth discussing, but I do not intend to deal with that issue in detail here, because it isn’t really the main point of the book. Though it involves a topic that I absolutely do plan to cover more fully, just not in this review.

While I feel there were a couple of valid points that Ortlund made in his defense, they don’t actually detract from Basham’s book or meaningfully alter the thesis she is making. A lot of the back and forth I found exposed, at most, an uncharitable portrayal of one point that Gavin Ortlund made. Whereas the defenses of Ortlund ironically mis-characterized Basham’s book or went on irrelevant tangents. Especially when Ortlund accuses Basham of outright lying but can’t really back it up except by doing exactly what he accuses Basham of doing in her book. He exaggerates what Basham actually claims about him. If anything, I have many more issues with Gavin Ortlund than what Megan Basham covers in the small section about him.

Though, it should be said that while I have many issues with Gavin Ortlund, including what Basham describes, he is not one who crosses the line into false prophet territory. I would argue that he is misguided and holds to very problematic stances (such as his insistence on OEC and waffling on inerrancy) but he is not a wolf.

Ultimately, I found that what Basham helps to expose (which isn’t exactly original but a deeper dive than we would usually find) is extremely important, and none of the controversy has any relevance to the integrity of this book. Though, just like with everything, do your homework and check up on the sources Basham uses.

For those who aren’t familiar with the premise of Shepherds for Sale, it is pretty self-explanatory. It details the extent to which non-Christian groups have infiltrated the Church to recruit political allies for “leftist” agendas. The way they do this is through the co-opting of various people in influential “evangelical” organizations to put a Christian/evangelical face on beliefs and social policies that align with the political left.

Of course, I need to point out that one weakness of this book, and many like it, is the usage of terminology that is poorly defined and rooted in mistaken assumptions. Just like in my previous review of The Christian Left by Lucas Miles Basham relies on several framing devices that plague discourse, including the vast majority of conservative and/or Christian content. We first need to reject the very left/right spectrum in the way that people think of it (see for example my review of The Myth of Left and Right). The biggest problem is that there isn’t a “leftist agenda.” The “left” is a loose political alliance, not an ideology or belief system. So describing things as such creates a lot of category confusion. We need to reject the usage of liberal/left and conservative/right when trying to portray belief systems.

The true root of the infiltration that Basham covers is actually syncretism with various humanist and neo-pagan religions. The most important is the religion of Distrephism. This is especially clear when you see the examples that are used in the book, such as climate change alarmism, homosexuality, illegal immigration, critical race theory, and abortion.

That said, I don’t really hold this against the book. It is simply the language and categories that most people are familiar with, and I do not expect them to recognize it necessarily. For all intents and purposes, this book is a must-read for Christians. The reason is that it is an eye-opening exposé of the deceptive and corrupt nature of many evangelical organizations. Putting aside the fact that “evangelical” is itself an extremely problematic category, we can see that there are organized efforts to compromise and manipulate within many large, “conservative” denominations. There are also several evangelical leaders who have most certainly sold out, pushing propaganda and deliberately promoting positions that are contrary to Scripture, if not outright heretical. Some of them have done so in ways that would demand strong rebuke, including excommunication, as wolves wearing sheep’s clothing. Others are closer to useful idiots and cowards who seek acceptance and the praise of society, rather than faithfulness to Christ.

The author covers 8 major topics in the book, each in its own chapter. These are as follows: climate change in chapter 1, illegal immigration in chapter 2, abortion in chapter 3, Christian media in chapter 4, Covid-19 in chapter 5, Critical Race Theory in chapter 6, the #metoo movement in chapter 7, and finally the “LGBTQ” movement in chapter 8. There is one curious omission from this list: evolution and long ages. Which I would consider to be just as relevant as the rest, if not more so, when you consider organizations like BioLogos (which the author actually mentions in the chapter on Covid-19). I find it interesting how much is leveled against Francis Collins (who is the founder of BioLogos), whom Basham (correctly) accuses of pushing Covid-19 propaganda and exploiting various religious organizations to do so. BioLogos receives mention solely because they supported Covid-19 lockdowns and other flawed scientific ideas that contributed to the government’s mismanagement and overextension of power during the Covid pandemic.

BioLogos promotes outright heretical views in its pursuit of syncretism between Christianity and Darwinian evolution. For examples of that check out the article by Peter Enns, “Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Bible”, where he states “Most Christians understand that, even though the Bible assumes a certain way of looking at the cosmos, from a scientific point of view the Bible is wrong. And that is perfectly fine.” I think this omission is a mistake because the compromises that come from theistic evolution, old-earth creationism, or Hugh Ross’ so-called “Progressive Creation” are just as much of an issue as the others. These ideas also closely link to each other. Show me a church that has compromised on evolution, and I will show you a church that has also compromised on one of the issues that Basham lists in her book.

However, the subject of this book doesn’t lie there. Nevertheless, I consider all these cautionary notes essential for a proper comprehension of what the book achieves and what is happening within Western Christianity. Such works really need to be evaluated and understood with better frameworks than we often get from most conservative and Christian media.

The book itself covers a few things that I want to highlight. The first is going to be just how bad Christianity Today and associated organizations are. In chapter 4, Basham dives into the funding of the supposed flagship Evangelical publication of Christianity Today. Rather tellingly, she points out that Christianity Today received substantial funding from the Lilly Endowment starting in 2016. The author notes the Lilly Endowment’s $750k funding for causes such as North Park University, an ostensibly Christian college that touts its “Queers and Allies” student organization (p. 74). She further explains that this same college “is so committed to excising traditional biblical beliefs on sexuality from its campus that it once pretended to shut down an entire department to rid itself of a tenured professor who had the bad manners to believe out loud what Jesus teaches in Matthew 19—that marriage is meant for one man and one woman for life.” (p. 74) Further references drive home the point that the Lilly Endowment is not a Christian organization and deliberately pushes Distrephist causes. Yet Christianity Today has taken considerable funding from them.

This point is illustrated by the content published by Christianity Today, for example, articles like “The Anti-Racist Curriculum White Evangelicals Need”. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the publication’s staff and board members contributed to seventy-four political donations between 2015 and 2022. Every single one went to Democrats (p. 75). Basham points out that not only do staffers donate entirely to one side of the political aisle, but several Christianity Today editors have directly donated to political candidates. Which is a serious breach of ethics in journalism. Serious enough that even MSNBC suspended Keith Olbermann over three donations that he made (pp. 75-76). Basham describes an article, since deleted, from a former CT editor who admitted the direction the organization takes, including openly stating the fact that they effectively never published articles in favor of complementarianism, but published plenty in favor of feminist egalitarianism. He also said that in over 30 years Christianity Today never ran an article in favor of six-day creation (pp. 76-77).

The interesting connection here is when you understand that Christianity Today hardly stands alone. To promote their non-biblical ideologies, evidently anti-Christian entities are pooling substantial financial resources and influence to create deceptive front organizations within Evangelicalism. Using organizations like Christianity Today to put a supposed “Christian” face on it. In the first chapter Basham covers the origins of the Evangelical Environmental Network’s (EEN) origin and influence with groups like CT (pp. 5-12). The EEN received a lot of funding from organizations such as the Clinton Global Initiative and the Hewlett Foundation (both of which are entirely dedicated to unbiblical causes) which it used to launch the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI). The ECI released a public letter called “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action.” Basham clarifies that “The letter was drafted by David Gushee, Christian ethics professor and self-branded public intellectual (who has since gone on to reject the Bible’s teaching that homosexual and transgender behaviors are sinful)” (p. 10). This was, of course, endorsed by various staffers at Christianity Today. The publication of course endorsed a bill pushed by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman that would put restrictions on carbon emissions for businesses (p. 9). The ECI was launched at a National Press Club event hosted by these senators.

Finally, I want to highlight Francis Collins and BioLogos once more. Despite not covering one of the most important things that BioLogos does, Basham rather clearly exposes Collins as a wolf. Showcasing the linkage between these issues and the various compromises that result. I’m going to let the author describe it herself because it is a great example of the work that she has done and who Collins really is (p. 107):

When it came to pushing an agenda of racial quotas, Collins was a member of the left in good standing, speaking fluently of ‘structural racism’ against minorities in America’s institutions. He put his money (or, rather, taxpayer money) where his mouth was, implementing new policies that required scientists seeking NIH grants to pass diversity, equity, and inclusion tests.

To the most holy of progressive sacred cows, LGBTQ orthodoxy, Collins was happy to genuflect. He declared himself an ‘ally’ of the gay and trans movements and said he ‘[applauds] the courage and resilience it takes for [LGBTQ] individuals to live openly and authentically,’ pledging his support to them as an ‘advocate.’

We could discuss much more, yet keeping track of these organizations consumes a lot of time. This is one of the most useful aspects of Megan Basham’s book. She has done the investigative work to spell out what connections exist between these organizations, the names of people who have pushed this infiltration, and the funding behind much of it. If anything, you will need to read the book slowly and take notes to follow everything.

Unfortunately, adversaries of the Church have worked hard to obfuscate their involvement. The real problem is the fact that so many leaders of “evangelical” institutions have compromised or tolerated corruption in their ranks. Basham’s book needs serious engagement and application. Probably the biggest lesson of all is just how much you need to research the involvement and leadership of any church organization you belong to. You cannot be complacent, and the work Basham did is proof of this. Compromise is not a side issue, and we must be vigilant. For that reason, I highly recommend Megan Basham’s book Shepherds for Sale because it will arm you with a lot of information to track down compromise or corruption wherever you might be and whatever church you belong to.

- Victoria Gratiae -

I am an affiliate of Bookshop.org and I will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase using the affiliate link below. Consider doing so to support my work!

Buy Here!

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

Earlier, I had defined the concept of Distrephism in summary form. The entire purpose of that was to encapsulate and define a specific religion that emerged out of the modern era. What people call “social justice”, “woke”, or various other terms. All of which are insufficient and do not offer a proper evaluative framework or categorization of this phenomenon. I am currently working on a book that offers a much deeper and more comprehensive review of the religion and worldview of Distrephism.

In the meantime, I want to provide information to help guide readers in understanding what Distrephism is and how to evaluate it. In my foundational article on Distrephism (see article listed above) I gave an overview and described Distrephism as a fusion religion of Neo-paganism and Humanism which has 5 defining traits: antithetical revisionism, intersectional identitarianism, hedonism, extrinsic evil, and victimhood culture. Here we cover antithetical revisionism by providing some examples.

The best way to understand it is as rebellion as a core ideal. While Distrephism incorporates this trait as a pillar of the religion, it exists elsewhere in various forms. It is not unique to Distrephism, though Distrephists have a unique variation of it.

Specifically, I want to cover the article “Six Steps to Abolish the Family” by M.E. O’Brien. There are several reasons for this. One is to show that the common occurrence of conflating Distrephism with Marxism/Cultural Marxism/Communism is a mistake (though they are related), while also showing what this particular trait looks like within Distrephism.

The purpose of this article is pretty clear, given the title. The subtitle explains even more: “The family is a lifeboat for those abandoned by capital, but fails and thwarts far too many. We need other ways to organize care and organize ourselves.” This statement helps capture the essence of antithetical revisionism (AR) very well.

The Distrephist pillar of AR makes Distrephists themselves always frame things as if they are the heroic underdogs. Their religion has some of its strongest roots in the things that they oppose and define themselves against, rather than the ideals they specifically support. AR is the rationale behind Distrephists always presenting a narrative of oppressor versus oppressed. It is why they see themselves as rebels against an evil empire. Even when they are in fact the majority and have majority control over most Western institutions (such as academia and governmental organizations).

Distrephism is best understood as an “anti” Christianity. The Distrephist worldview holds the Christian “Cisheteropatriarchy” and capitalism (effectively the Christian West) as the oppressor from which all, or at least most, evil in the world stems from. This means that structures and concepts derived from Christianity are the “antithesis” upon which Distrephism must oppose and “revise” (hence the name AR).

The revision of the antithesis is an essential goal in Distrephism. If the nuclear family is something that is associated with Christianity, that means it is oppressive. So this requires a revision of the nuclear family and the replacement of it with anything that opposes or warps it beyond recognition. Distrephism approaches society with a view of systematically dismantling and replacing anything that is seen to have roots in the antithesis (Christianity and Western culture).

In the article by O’Brien note that the very nuclear family itself is something to be abolished. But it isn’t just the family unit as a problem that is important. It is the language of rebellion. Here are a few examples:

The best starting point to abolish the family is a massive insurrection.

As the insurgency grows, continue the process of family abolition by deepening shared practices of mutual care.

Those seeking a return to the family as an isolated economic unit are counterrevolutionaries.

If global communizing insurgency doesn’t emerge, do your best with the imperfect options available.

Fight to destroy the white-supremacist states which reinforce the violence of the family.

The first temptation is to describe this language as Marxist, since it echoes Marxist/Communist propaganda of “revolution.” Marxism is certainly an influence, feeding the AR within Distrephism, yet it remains too reductionist and superficial to equate what we are seeing here with Marxism. This is just part of a greater whole and distinct from true Marxism. AR can be said to exist within Marxism, but should not be reduced to Marxism itself. Therefore it is a reductionist mistake to treat Marxism as equivalent to Distrephism.

Just take a few of the concerns voiced here. None of which are compatible with actual Marxism. The author claims that these communes/collectives should “Establish syringe exchanges and other harm reduction practices to welcome active drug users.” Which is not exactly something that Marx, or any of his initial adherents would agree with. That is one particular facet that distinguishes Marxism from Distrephism. Distrephists believe in things that Marx would not actually abide or advocate for.

This abolition of the family is also supposed to help allow for “most of life [to take] place in [a] shared collective space” in which “humanity can collectively address climate change.” If you try to find a concern for climate change in Marx’s work, you are going to be disappointed. Especially when we consider just how much this abolishing of the family is supposed to help protect “poor people and people of color who have long relied on shared networks of community support and resistance to survive” and “queer and trans people excluded from traditional families.” The goal is for “new forms of gender freedom and human flourishing” which is accomplished through forced destruction of the nuclear family, forced collectivism (i.e. the removal of private property and the expansion of government control) which will help “to expand and transform non-market housing, welfare benefits, universal medical care, and free education.”

So what is Distrephism advocating for here? The first thing is the destruction of the family in favor of a collectivist vision of childcare by people who are not the biological parents of each child. Which effectively means the removal of parental “rights” because those who actually try to maintain family units will be seen as “counterrevolutionaries.” The second is the active opposition of private property and management of resources in favor of forced collective control (government control). Then of course there is the forced promotion of policies to prevent “climate change”, supposed white supremacy, and sexual libertinism through transgenderism, homosexuality, and “gender freedom.”

In short, Distrephism seeks to dismantle anything that exists within the Christian religion and Western society (being a byproduct of Christianity). Distrephists oppose the family, oppose sexual monogamy and marriage between one man and one woman, oppose sexual distinctions themselves between men and women, demand partiality through racialist preferences, and advocate for an extreme statist system of control.

You can see this center of opposition even more clearly when you consider the seemingly nonsensical “queers for Palestine” movement. A lot of Christians and conservatives point out how absurd this is, given Islam’s treatment of homosexuality and Western hedonism. This is missing the point, though. Because the unifying factor here isn’t a shared religion between Palestinian Islamists and Ivory Tower LGBTQ+ activists. The unifying factor is the opposition to Christianity and the West. This is AR in action. That is why those advocating for “freed queer love and feminist care to create a basis for human flourishing” can simultaneously proclaim to be on the side of Palestinians in the Middle East. They share an opposition to Western culture (perceived Western culture at least), like the state of Israel, and Christianity. Think of how closely associated American Evangelicalism is with Israel.

We know that there is an extreme divergence between actual Palestinian culture and Distrephism. Palestinians are not actually supportive of homosexuality, pretty much at all! In fact, they are very hostile to “LGBTQ+” culture as you would find it within the West. According to the UCLA Williams Institute and their Social Acceptance of LGBTI People report, Palestine (as they define it) has one of the lowest rankings of 175 countries and locations they have ranked (Palestine is 130 out of 175). The country of Uganda actually ranks higher than Palestine. Uganda is the country that homosexual activists have long lamented about passing the 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act. This country, the one that passed a law literally called the “Anti-Homosexuality Act,” actually scored higher in “LGBTI” acceptance than Palestine did. Yet we still have “Queers for Palestine” despite Israel scoring much higher (44 out of 175 versus 130 out of 175). This is because AR is an essential part of Distrephism. That they oppose Christianity and the West is far more important to them than the differences between Islamic Palestinian culture and the beliefs in the religion of Distrephism.

Distrephism has positive beliefs, but most of them are framed around opposition in some way. Specifically, opposition to Christianity and Western culture. You will, more often than not, hear them describe what they believe as liberation, opposition to oppression, revolutionary, or as contrarian in nature. They define their identities in this way and constantly use language of opposition and rebellion. They perceive themselves as a “rebel alliance” against the evil empire. Even when they are actually the ones in power and the ones dominating institutions. Antithetical revisionism is why you will always see Distrephists push narratives of oppressor versus oppressed, revolution, subversion, and resistance. They are adherents of a religion that is the very antithesis of Christianity.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

Few people would say that online discourse is in a healthy place. Arrogance, vile behavior, self-righteous preening, foul language, extreme hostility, cynical rage-baiting, hypocrisy, and inauthentic virtue signaling abound. People attack each other viciously and justify themselves unashamedly. It is understandable why so many people are growing increasingly disillusioned and cynical. However, I think there are some wrong lessons being learned from the ugliness of public discourse.

But know this: Hard times will come in the last days. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, proud, demeaning, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, without love for what is good, traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid these people. (2 Timothy 3:1-5 CSB)

First things first, the Apostle Paul pointed out the nature of the unbelieving world around 2,000 years ago. And this is hardly the earliest verse pointing out the sinful nature of humanity. When human beings are given a platform to speak, such as through social media, we should not be surprised that from such platforms will come a torrent of despicable behavior. Later in 2 Timothy, Paul explains that “Evil people and impostors will become worse, deceiving and being deceived.” (2 Timothy 3:13 CSB). This is going to be true routinely, especially when they are protected by anonymity, tribalism, or just a lack of serious consequences. We should, in fact, expect this when the culture is increasingly godless in nihilistic and hedonistic ways. Far too many people think this is a technological problem (i.e. it’s the fault of social media) rather than a problem of sin and a corrupt culture that is increasingly hostile to Christianity.

At most, social media is an enabler. Technology is not the problem here; our culture and behavior is. Both in what we do and in what we tolerate from others. Also within 2 Timothy we are told, “Be diligent to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who doesn’t need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth. Avoid irreverent and empty speech, since those who engage in it will produce even more godlessness” (2 Timothy 2:15-16 CSB). If we speak, especially from a platform with any audience at all, we need to avoid irreverent, empty speech and to take care that we correctly teach the word of truth. Those who don’t are sinning, acting just like the unbelieving world, with evil people deceiving and being deceived.

Of course, I don’t think people need much convincing that people could be more gracious and self-controlled either in their speech or in what they put out in public discourse. Regardless of who that person is. It is worth reminding people that those who presume to be Christian, who presume to teach anything about the Christian religion (regardless of whether or not you are a minister/pastor), or who want to say anything of value should carefully control what they say—“Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you should answer each person” (Colossians 4:6 CSB)— and watch that they do not get into a habit of “foolish and ignorant disputes” (2 Timothy 2:23).

All of us should strive toward more gracious speech. And to be held accountable for it. Accepting rebuke and correction when given (legitimate admonishment in good faith that is). Any influencer, speaker, minister, or public figure worth listening to, especially those who take on the mantle of speaking on behalf of Christ’s kingdom, is one who will speak with salt, grace, and careful wisdom. When they don’t (and everyone will fall short) they will take to heart Proverbs 12:1 “Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but one who hates correction is stupid” and Proverbs 12:15 “A fool’s way is right in his own eyes, but whoever listens to counsel is wise” (both CSB).

There is another side to this. The opposite error of thinking that the cure for malicious invective, a hostile spirit, or outright slander is obsequious passivity and sycophantic people-pleasing. This is the false belief that “Thou Shalt be Nice” is the ruling principle for all engagement or speech, as if it were some hidden 11^th commandment, superseding all else. They rightly worry about people tearing each other down self-destructively, but their reaction stems from a place of cowardice and fear of conflict, not from compassion.

The corrective for malicious hostility, gossip, and hypocrisy isn’t spineless acquiescence and compromise. The attitude of fear that reflexively cries out, “can’t we all just get along!”, whenever uncomfortable or passionate discussions occur is not a pursuit of peace. It is cowardice in the face of evil. Just as prideful as hateful gossip, simply in the opposite direction. It is a pride that says truth should be sacrificed on the altar of false unity and false peace. The people who complain about “heresy hunters”, a “divisive spirit”, or “non-essential doctrines” whenever their false teachings, unbiblical positions, or outright wrong takes are called out are exploiting others. They are using “peace” or “compassion” as a shield for their errors. It is a deflection from their sin in order to forego repentance and correction in humility.

This reflects the fundamental error that being “nice” automatically makes you a “good” person, immune to criticism. As if somebody angrily pointing out their false teachings is always in the wrong. This foolishness is one reason people are so readily victims of con artists. Successful con artists rarely act like massive jerks. Instead, they are outright pleasant, even sycophantically so. Telling people sweet lies and whatever they want to hear in a pleasing manner. Some of the most predatory and depraved people that exist are shockingly charismatic and polite.

The same person who wrote a command to pastors that “The Lord’s servant must not quarrel, but must be gentle to everyone, able to teach, and patient, instructing his opponents with gentleness” (2 Timothy 2:24-25a CSB) also clearly said that “We demolish arguments and every proud thing that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ. And we are ready to punish any disobedience, once your obedience is complete.” (2 Corinthians 10:4b-6).

Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for God’s wrath is coming on the disobedient because of these things. Therefore, do not become their partners. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light — for the fruit of the light consists of all goodness, righteousness, and truth — testing what is pleasing to the Lord. Don’t participate in the fruitless works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what is done by them in secret. (Ephesians 5:6-12)

Putting this concept into practice, the Apostle Paul even confronted the Apostle Peter. Not subtly, but openly and to his face! Recording this event for all of us to witness in posterity. God sovereignly included several humiliating accounts involving Peter for us in Scripture. The account of Paul’s confrontation is recorded in Galatians:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned. For he regularly ate with the Gentiles before certain men came from James. However, when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, because he feared those from the circumcision party. Then the rest of the Jews joined his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were deviating from the truth of the gospel, I told Cephas in front of everyone, “If you, who are a jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Galatians 2:11-14 CSB)

Jesus himself, just after telling Peter he was blessed and giving the teachings of the keys, openly rebuked him in front of everyone else!

From then on Jesus began to point out to his disciples that it was necessary for him to go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, be killed, and be raised the third day. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “Oh no, Lord! This will never happen to you!” Jesus turned and told Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me because you’re not thinking about God’s concerns but human concerns.” (Matthew 16:21-23 CSB)

Take care to note that this was one Apostle publicly rebuking another Apostle. Even recording it for others to read about. This was not Jesus rebuking the Pharisees or a rebuke of an open apostate, degenerate unbeliever, or perpetrator of grievous evil. Jesus, being the one who can provide a perfect example of behavior, rather clearly said that what he came to bring would cause division and conflict.

“Therefore, everyone who will acknowledge me before others, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever denies me before others, I will also deny him before my Father in heaven. Don’t assume that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. The one who loves a father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; the one who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever doesn’t take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Anyone who finds his life will lose it, and anyone who loses his life because of me will find it.” (Matthew 11:32-39 CSB)

The point of all this is to show that, first, this world is filled with evil people who will blaspheme, mock, insult, spread gossip, and lie. That existed long before social media, and we should neither be surprised by it nor unprepared for it. This is the world we live in. A world of spiritual warfare where the Church opposes the vast powers of darkness. A world filled to the brim with depravity, self-righteousness, and lies. We do not get to shirk our duties in this war. Failing to confront evil is craven dereliction, not peacemaking. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you can’t handle the conflict that will inevitably occur, that means you are immature and just in the way. You need to let the adults handle things. Your opinion is not worth anything if you aren’t ready to handle the “heat” that inevitably comes from working in the “kitchen.” Do not confuse your fear with humility.

Second, we are called to engage with people. The same Peter who was rebuked publicly tells us that “even if you should suffer for righteousness, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear or be intimidated, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you. Yet do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that when you are accused, those who disparage your good conduct in Christ will be put to shame.” (1 Peter 3:14-16 CSB)

We need to be ready to give a defense, just without being a vulgar and insolent jerk. Yet again, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. That means you cannot have a thin skin. If, like a child, you are incapable of taking insults, accusations, or rebuke from others in stride, then you are not ready for the kitchen. You have to be able to offer rebuke while controlling your tongue and accept rebuke in humility. Being unable to do either means you are still immature. You are just in the way of everyone else doing the work of the kingdom. The apostle Peter was rebuked to his face in front of other people. Rather than acting like a fool, he repented. He did not turn his rebuke around on Paul. He did not defend his behavior by saying that this wasn’t “essential teaching.” He didn’t respond defensively.

Public discourse is a place filled with vile language, vile behavior, and vile lies. Slander, gossip, hatred, blasphemy, debauchery, and self-righteousness will always exist because “The light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light and avoids it, so that his deeds may not be exposed. But anyone who lives by the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be shown to be accomplished by God.” (John 3:19-21 CSB). This will remain the case until Jesus himself returns on Judgment Day. The Christian approach to public discourse is to grow a spine, because we know Jesus has already won this war. We can speak boldly. Do not wish for “nice” discourse filled with feel-good lies and hidden hatreds. Measure your speech, so that you speak with salt and wisdom, but do not equate wisdom with fear or flattery.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

The first thing to understand when talking about so-called “conservatism” is that the left/right political spectrum is a myth. There is a better way to understand the concepts people imply when discussing the supposed left/right spectrum. A way that avoids the misleading or even incoherent portrayals that we often see (such as the supposed “Christian Left”). I have already touched on the importance of wording and covered the problem with the term “conservative.” But how should we best understand and use it?

Conservative, or conservatism, is a term that is identical to the “Right,” anything right-wing, and the Republican party. It is not an ideology; it is an alliance comprising disparate groups that have fundamentally different belief systems. There is going to be an overlap in a lot of beliefs across the conservative movement, but there is no essential core to “conservatism.” The thing that is important to understand here is that a conservative, a Republican, and a right-winger are exactly the same thing. It is a binary thing too, with no meaningful gradation or variance. There is no spectrum of intensity or belief. Whenever somebody says “far-right,” it is pure propaganda and empty rhetoric. That is because these terms don’t refer to what a person believes; they refer to which political alliance a person belongs to, regardless of what they believe.

Think of the Central Powers vs the Allied Powers in World War I. These alliances did not represent belief systems held in common; they represented coalitions of different nations, with different cultures, united for a common cause against a common enemy. In fact, the significance of this is clear when considering that Russia, a member of the Allied Powers in WWI, withdrew (largely because of the Russian Revolution) only to join the Allies in World War II, albeit under the control of the Soviet Union. A vastly different society and culture. After World War II, the Soviet Union ended up in a hostile relationship with the United States and formed the Warsaw Pact in response to NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).

Anybody with a basic understanding of history understands that these alliances consisted of members who absolutely did not need to agree with one another. There was no need for ideological alignment. The Soviet Union was a member of an alliance with the United States and later in an alliance against the United States. Was there an ideological change involved? No, of course not. Because what anybody in either the US or the Soviet Union believed was irrelevant. The point of the alliance was not to unite in belief but to join resources and efforts against an enemy.

Thus are the Republican and Democratic parties. These are not ideological groupings but loosely connected coalitions. We might recognize this, but people still misguidedly think that there is an essential ideology that lies behind each side, which all its members unite around. That is why people think that “conservatism” is something separate from membership in the Republican party or that “conservatism” is a set of beliefs that all conservatives hold.

In reality, conservative is a synonym for Republican. They are one and the same. There is no “conservative” belief system, tradition, essence, or worldview. Whenever people attach “conservative” to something to try to frame it as ideologically distinct, they are misrepresenting what is actually happening.

Take, for example, supposed “Conservative Christianity.” What exactly does it mean to describe a “conservative” Christianity? The reflexive answer is going to be something related to various social issues, like homosexuality or abortion, or with core theologies in Christianity, like the Trinity or Biblical authority.

On the Wikipedia page for Conservative Christianity we are provided a list of some general beliefs associated with this claimed category:

• The Virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

• The doctrine of Trinity, i.e., God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

• The doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ (i.e., that Jesus is fully God and fully man).

• The literal, physical resurrection of Jesus.

Except these aren’t beliefs of “conservative” Christianity. These are the beliefs of Christianity, period! There is no such thing as Christianity without the Trinity (Unitarians are not Christian), the deity of Christ, and the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus. These are essential beliefs to the Christian religion and worldview. Rejecting these beliefs puts you outside of Christianity entirely. So to make these part of “Conservative Christianity” is a pointless and misleading distinction without a difference. It makes the conservative adjective misguided and redundant.

The only reason to make this distinction is to promote the false idea that “non-conservative” Christianity can actually exist. As if “Progressive” or “Liberal” Christianity was actually Christian. This term isn’t just useless; it is outright harmful. It perpetuates a falsehood, that “Christianity” can actually exist outside of true Christianity.

A similar problem exists when we realize just how much this term is used to describe utterly nonsensical things like gay “conservatives”, or conservative atheists. Especially when Wikipedia describes “Conservatism” as “a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology that seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values.” Though they give an important caveat “The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears.”

Of course, we should see the issue here. What are “traditional institutions, customs, and values”? Whose traditions? Whose values? Which institutions? If conservatism just means preserving local tradition than why do we think it is an ideology rather than narrow traditionalism? Just read through the rest of the introductory section of the Wikipedia article to see how arbitrary and ambiguous this is. Supposedly conservatism is “one of the three major ideologies along with liberalism and socialism”, but it is also something that “has varied considerably as it has adapted itself to existing traditions and national cultures. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world, each upholding their respective traditions, may disagree on a wide range of issues.”

So it means nothing? Conservatives can be whatever and not actually agree on anything? Then what exactly does it even mean? Just look at how Wikipedia ends the section: “Conservatism may be either libertarian or authoritarian, populist or elitist, progressive or reactionary, moderate or extreme.” Supposedly conservatism is so broad that it can be everything, including the opposite of everything!

Therefore, because of all this, we need to understand that conservatism isn’t an ideology at all. There are no “conservative beliefs” or “conservative principles.” In the United States, conservative is a synonym for Republican, which is itself a synonym for belonging on the right or being right-wing. These are all the same thing: membership in a political alliance that is united by circumstance, common enemies, or alienation from the other political alliance (the left/liberals/Democrats). Nothing more.

The conservative movement is just the Republican Party by any other name. There are many beliefs in common across the party, but nothing essential or universal. So we can use the terms right-wing, conservative, and Republican interchangeably.

That said, there is more to the story. Yes, these three terms are all the same thing. Being a conservative is the same thing as just being a Republican, but history has shaped who exactly belongs to each of these two political alliances. Which, over time, solidifies where a person will fall between the two sides.

The unfortunate reality of the United States political system is that only two dominant parties can ever exist, and two parties will inevitably exist, whether or not anyone wants them to. There is something called “Duverger’s Law” that helps explain why this is the case. Election systems that are single-district, winner-takes-all will always result in two parties forming over time. Third parties are not viable in the US because our election system makes partial success for them impossible. A third party could only succeed if it got so popular that it outright supplanted and replaced one of the two currently dominant parties. Once that happened, that “third” party would just become part of a new set of two dominant parties.

So our politics always funnels into a tribal back and forth between two sides. Our winner-takes-all elections force coalitions to form in order to triumph over the competing coalition. These coalitions form despite the significant ideological or worldview differences that exist within each coalition. People are falsely projecting a belief system onto these alliances. This illusion comes from the fact that if you have two, and only two, options to pick from, you will just pick the alliance that is closest to you. The reason could be finding a political alliance that aligns with your top priority social issue, wanting to fit in with friends who are already in one of the two groups, or any other typical ways people sort themselves socially. Often in superficial and conformist ways.

Take someone who is a Christian. What options do you have? You have the Republican Party, which comprises groups that are against abortion, against homosexuality, advocate for some Christian traditions in America, and generally consist of people who are culturally Christian. At least in significant numbers. You have the Democrat Party, which comprises groups that are in favor of abortion, promote homosexuality, and advocate for secularism in America. It also consists of people who are far less culturally Christian. In many cases, cultures that are entirely foreign to Western Christianity. It doesn’t matter how corrupt or flawed either party is. You only have these two choices. You can pretend there are other choices, but only these two parties will ever win elections and put people into positions of power and influence. You are compelled to select the party you are closest to. Even if you disapprove of a lot of what they might do otherwise.

This is why the term “far-right” is inevitably propaganda. The most common source of propaganda, coming from both “sides”, is through an accusation based on guilt by association.

This occurs whenever somebody tries to claim some widely despised group is either “far-right” or “far-left”, as if their membership in either coalition somehow reflects on everyone else in that coalition. Remember, you are forced onto one of two sides. There is no alternative, because our political system rules out anything else. These sides are not collections of people who like, agree with, or even know one another. White supremacists (real ones, not groups that grifters who claim everything is racist label “white supremacist”) do in fact exist on the “right.” White supremacists who vote Republican are conservative. By definition. But that means nothing. It doesn’t mean anyone else on the right approves of them, believes what they believe, or even views them as allies. When the media tries to smear the reputation of conservatism, the right, or the Republican Party by acting as if the mere existence of Republican voting white supremacists is a black mark against them, they are being deceitful.

This same thing applies when in reverse. Though covered in the next part of this series, leftism/liberalism is exactly the same here. It is not a belief system. It is just a different political alliance from which different groups have gathered together. Including groups that exist in hostility with the rest. Because of this, we can, and must, do better to avoid spreading tribal propaganda ourselves. Just as we must avoid giving credence to the typical tribal propaganda we see in the media. Better discourse is both possible and necessary.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

Lucas Miles’ book, The Christian Left, is an example of some major flaws within the “conservative” movement. Specifically, flaws in its response to the so-called “Christian Left” or “liberal” theology, and the context surrounding the author itself. A context hinted at briefly by two extremely problematic claims made within the book. My motivation to review this book comes mostly from the flaws I see within the book and those exemplified by the author himself; rather than the positive benefits that come from it. This is because it highlights an especially deficient approach. One that is far too prevalent in both American Evangelicalism and the broader conservative coalition. It is an approach worth dissecting.

Now, I don’t want to give the impression that this book is bad. So it would be unfair to portray it as such. Some issues I have come from the cursory treatment of a few subjects the author touches on. Yet, this book is not an academic treatise or a thorough analysis. It should not be expected to explain everything. It is actually a relatively short, but useful read. At least useful in a specific context. I found several points within the book to be insightful and useful for my research. Miles also explains some flaws with “Progressive” Christianity in a way that I think is both well thought out and succinct. So his book would be helpful for those who need an introduction to this material. Just so long as they have the discernment to read things he says with a huge grain of salt.

This book is instructive in a couple of ways. The first is the subject-matter itself, namely the problems, origins, and nature of the “Christian Left.” The second, and much more important of the two, is actually the treatment of that subject and the movement from which it derives. As opposed to the specific topic itself. In this case, American Evangelicalism and how representatives of it (like Lucas Miles) deal with the phenomenon that he calls the Christian Left.

Miles’ description of the Christian Left has several explanations for what is going on. He points to several factors like the shallow “seeker sensitive” model of churches (pp. 12-14), postmodernism (p. 15), pharisaical legalism driving people away from Christianity (p. 31), and rationalism (p. 34). In summary, he would describe what we are seeing with the Christian Left through a question he poses and answers, “how is it that the Left is succeeding in convincing Christians that its postmodern (and in some cases post-Christian) message embodies the true teachings of Jesus? As we will come to see, this obfuscation of the gospel stems from the successful infiltration of leftist ideologies in the church, which if left unchecked will inevitably lead to the eventual radical takeover of Christian doctrine.” (p. 15, emphasis mine). This premise is where we see the first major flaw.

The categorization and description of the “Christian Left” is riddled with faulty assumptions, misleading language, and overly simplistic framing. The most prevalent case here is the false left/right spectrum. No such spectrum exists. What we call the “left” and the “right” are just two different political alliances of loosely aligned groups. These groups only align because they oppose the other political side. Natural sorting, social pressure, and self-interest explain where people end up between the left and the right. There is no unifying logic or belief system behind either the left or the right.

This means there is no such thing as “leftist ideology.” There are worldviews, religions, belief systems, or perspectives on various social issues that exist within the “leftist” political alliance, but none of them are entirely dominant or define membership within that political alliance. It is a mistake to describe the social justice activists, “woke”, or Progressives who call themselves Christian as “the Christian Left.” Doing so conflates a religion or belief system with membership in a political tribe. Nobody on either the left or the right agrees with everyone else on their side. Not even on fundamental matters.

That is why I coined the term Distrephism. There was a need to label and portray the social justice/woke religion properly. Distrephism is a religion and worldview that exists within the political left. It is not itself the leftist political alliance. This category error and equivocation is a serious blind-spot in the conservative movement. A blind-spot prevalent in many works by conservative authors. Not just one found in Lucas Miles’ book here.

The first aspect of this blind-spot is the equivocation of Distrephism, the religion, with the Democrats/Left as if they were one and the same. This equivocation makes it seem as if only those on the political left adhere to the tenets of Distrephism. It creates an overly simplistic caricature that misrepresents a lot of what is actually going on. Distrephism may be dominant within the Democratic Party (which is identical to the political left in actuality) but it is not at all the only religion found within the left.

This flawed portrayal relies on another aspect of this blind-spot and that is the assumption that conservatism or the “right” is in fact a meaningful ideology or belief system. Rather than just the opposing political alliance. There is no such thing as “conservative Christianity” for the same reason we must reject the concept of “progressive/liberal/leftist” Christianity. We can talk about orthodox Christianity (by which we mean Christian traditions that fall within acceptable bounds of theological orthodoxy) if we wish to contrast forms of the Christian religion. Specifically, those that retain biblical faithfulness and adherence to historical Christian orthodoxy in theology, versus those that have departed into apostasy.

This very framing of left versus right, which assumes there is some kind of essential ideology uniting either the left or the right, creates a very distorted picture. Because, for all intents and purposes, conservative, right-wing, and Republican all mean the same thing. As do liberal, left-wing, and Democrat all refer to the same thing. Membership in an alliance doesn’t mean ideological agreement; it means cooperation for a common purpose. Sometimes a very loose and inconsistent purpose.

Miles falls into the same trap that every other conservative does when he tries to describe the phenomenon of “Progressive/Liberal Christianity” as left-wing or liberal. This gives the false impression of a politically motivated movement rather than an alternative religion. This is the factor that is really behind the so-called “Christian Left.” Distrephism is infiltrating the church. These people aren’t Christian at all but syncretists who have abandoned Christianity in everything but name. They present themselves as Christians solely because their true adherence to a competing, false religion, which is diametrically opposed to Christianity, has not been exposed. They wear Christian garb and falsely present themselves as within Christendom, but their self-identification is entirely false. Calling them the Christian Left is a mistake. They only exist on the “left” because they support the Democratic Party (which just so happens to be dominated by humanists and neo-pagans of various kinds). They aren’t Christian, so why are we even pretending they are? Why do we use that wording when it isn’t accurate? To even use such labeling is to give a false impression and to play the disingenuous word games that opponents of Christianity perpetuate.

The author does highlight the fact that the political spectrum isn’t a simplistic two-dimensional spectrum, but his “horseshoe” diagram fails to accurately address the failures of the political spectrum myth (pp. 43-46). It just slightly changes the shape of the line when it was never a line to begin with. No matter what shape you make it.

In the first chapter, Miles explains how Distrephism (the better descriptor of the phenomenon he is talking about) is a Trojan horse. An outwardly benign but inwardly malicious trap. He is absolutely right about this. Not because it is “leftist ideology” but because it is an entirely different and hostile religion wrapped in Christian dressings. His framing of the threat is off, but he is ultimately correct here.

In the third chapter, which I consider the best chapter in the book, Miles makes an excellent point that Distrephists hold to a corruption of Christian love. They use the word “love”, appealing to it quite frequently in fact, but their “love” is a self-indulgent and narcissistic perversion of the self-sacrificial love of God. They do not practice Christian agape love but a different, self-serving and hedonistic pseudo-love. He explains, “inherent within the nature of true love is the idea of self-sacrifice, not self-indulgence. Practically speaking, with Christ as our example, love is limiting my freedom in order to give life to another. And whereas the balance of grace and truth always guides biblical love, the love of the Left is without parameters, is void of rebuke or warning, and embraces truth only as long as it doesn’t violate personal preference.” (p. 49). Distrephists (noting again what I consider the true nature of what he calls the “Christian Left”) have redefined biblical sin to be almost irrelevant. In its place is what Miles describes as “Herodian politics” (pp. 56-58) whereby politicians (on the “left” of course) proclaim the “biblical” or “Christian” nature of their supported policies. Except their language is like that of King Herod, who might have given lip service to Scripture or Mosaic law, but was clearly a cynical and opportunistic unbeliever. These Democratic politicians attempt to give the appearance of Christian support by selectively quoting verses and using pseudo-Christian language about “love,” but in reality are promoting a heretical pseudo-Christian religion. Miles confuses it for the “Christian” Left, which is more properly understood as the non-Christian religion of Distrephism.

The second most interesting chapter is one where the author describes something he calls the “Christian Cabal.” Chapter 6 explains that part of the Distrephist infiltration of the church comes from a “cabal” of Evangelical leaders who have actively worked to promote Distrephism within the church. Miles describes this as “a group of Christian elites and leftists who control a significant portion of Christian publishing, religious news, faith films, and even Christian higher education” (p. 100). His point is very important here, though covered in arguably a much more cursory length than I believe it deserves. He explains the harmful impact that several have had on the church, like the reporter Jonathan Merritt, who represents “an interconnected network of journalists, bloggers, and university professors complicit in furthering pseudo-Christian ideas under the guise of orthodoxy.” (p. 100) He references JD Hall’s depiction of the “Evangelical Intelligentsia” to help explain that this network of people are a kind of elitist group that deliberately work against accountability and orthodoxy throughout American Evangelicalism. Besides Merritt, he calls out people like Beth Moore, Jen Hatmaker, Richard Rohr, and Peter Enns as influential individuals who have worked to spread heretical ideas but with the appearance of Christian orthodoxy or, at least, a “Christian” origin.

What he points out is useful, but it is actually worse than he describes. It’s a subject that highlights a serious issue I have with the church’s handling of this issue (Distrephism in the Church). In addition to issues I have with Lucas Miles himself. Which is what motivated me to review this book to begin with. There are two specific examples of this in his book. The first is something the author said that was a major red flag.

At the end of the chapter titled “Sovereignty and the Socialist Mindset” (chapter 4) he says this, “There exists a deeply related parallel between Socialism and sovereignty---the same spirit behind Socialism (unfavorable or preferential treatment of one over another) is present in any doctrine that claims God causes or allows circumstances in our lives in order to discipline people, teach them a lesson, or bring glory to himself.” (p. 77) I get that he might have an issue with the Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty (such as with double predestination) but his claim here is extremely off-base. He is saying that socialism, and any doctrine that maintains God “causes or allows circumstances in our lives”, is guided by the same spirit. Yet, isn’t that exactly what God says he does? On page 78 he continues this thought and says “And to the bible-believing Christian, late author Brennan Manning reminds us that the greatest expression of God’s sovereignty is whenever anyone ‘[readily accepts] the truth that each person’s destiny lies in his or her own hands.’” Which is just plain false. This form of decision theology is essentially a rejection of God’s sovereignty and is outright unbiblical!

As he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” Jesus answered. “This came about so that God’s works might be displayed in him. We must do the works of him who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” (John 9:1-5 CSB)

Jesus rather clearly responded to the Apostles’ questions about a man “blind from birth” by stating, in blunt fashion, that his blindness wasn’t because of something either he or his parents did. There was no sin that directly caused this blindness. It was this way so that God would be glorified by Jesus’ miraculous healing of the blind man. Jesus simply stated that some circumstances exist in order to glorify God. The exact opposite of what Miles claimed here.

For consider him who endured such hostility from sinners against himself, so that you won’t grow weary and give up. In struggling against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And you have forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons:

My son, do not take the Lord’s discipline lightly or lose heart when you are reproved by him,

for the Lord disciplines the one he loves and punishes every son he receives.

Endure suffering as discipline: God is dealing with you as sons. For what son is there that a father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline—which all receive—then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had human fathers discipline us, and we respected them. Shouldn’t we submit even more to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time based on what seemed good to them, but he does it for our benefit, so that we can share his holiness. No discipline seems enjoyable at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:3-11 CSB)

The author of Hebrews likewise makes it extremely clear that God absolutely allows circumstances for the purpose of disciplining those whom “he loves.” Miles got this entirely wrong. In such a way that I wonder what exactly he is trying to say here. I am not a Calvinist; I reject their view of predestination, yet God is most certainly sovereign and absolutely controls our circumstances. He absolutely allows things to happen either for discipline, his own glory, or to teach us lessons. This claim made me question his theology.

Lo-and-behold, another statement indicated a serious red-flag. In Miles’ chapter “Is the Right Right?” (chapter 8) he says the following: “Forged within the central framework of our faith is the paramount individual responsibility of cultivating a personal relationship with Jesus...reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Knox, resuscitated the biblical ideas of individual repentance and the confession of faith by the believer. The groundwork laid by the reformers, especially revitalizing the importance of personal faith in Christ, was perpetuated by later ministers in America, such as Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Finney, and eventually twentieth century evangelists, like Aimee Semple McPherson, T. L. Osborn, Reinhard Bonnke, and the Reverend Billy Graham.” (p. 141, emphasis mine)

This list of people should raise the hairs on the back of your neck. I won’t go into all of them; that is far beyond the scope of this review, but just take Aimee Semple McPherson. McPherson was a fraud and a false teacher. She is not at all worthy of praise, and for Miles to list her as one of these supposed great evangelists is an enormous problem. McPherson regularly performed fake healings, preached the heresies of the early 20th-century charismatic movement, and was involved in numerous scandals. Including the infamous kidnapping hoax. Several others on his list are likewise unworthy of praise such as Charles Finney who preached the false idea of perfectionism (that Christians can and should become sinless in this life) and T. L. Osborn (who is part of the heretical Word of Faith movement).

Such praise of false teachers and pushers of fraudulent “miracle” healings is not at all acceptable. If you do some research, you’ll find that Lucas Miles is part of the “Nfluence Church” where you see another red-flag. That is the fact that his church has Krissy Miles as an “Executive Pastor.” There is no such thing as a “female pastor.” This issue does not end here because Lucas Miles is the head of TPUSA Faith, which has proven itself to be lacking in discernment. That comes from its significant and uncritical association with false teachers in the Word of Faith and broader Charismatic movement. Sean Feucht is one particular example of this (I recommend checking out this video here). So you have praise for heretical figures in the Charismatic movement, female pastors, and involvement in an organization that is tolerating and promoting false teachers and frauds. There is an immense problem with the infiltration of Distrephism in the church. Unfortunately, Lucas Miles is part of that problem.

This is where I have to separate the book from the author because it is only those two points that Miles makes which I have very serious issues with. If we are talking about the book alone, at least. The book is well-written and offers useful points, once you look past its “Christian Left” framing. Including a commendable section encouraging those on the “right” to take a better, more humble, and fair approach towards those outside the church (see pp. 150-154). He deserves recognition for calling out those on the “right,” as too few Christians and conservatives do this properly.

The context of this book is rather problematic, though. Miles is involved in a movement that is part of the problem. His tolerance of female pastors showcases a massive blind-spot in his presumed Christian orthodoxy, and his promotion of false teachers is a very concerning indicator of his theology. Despite this, I would still recommend the book because it offers useful material, but you should know its originating standpoint. This side of American Evangelicalism is seriously compromised. It is just as responsible for allowing the infiltration of heresy and false teachings within the church, as the so-called “Christian Left” is.

Ultimately, that means the book is worth reading, and worth taking to heart some of the guidance it provides. One just needs to keep a hefty amount of salt available because it is derived from a corrupted and deeply flawed aspect of American Evangelicalism. One that creates as many problems as it solves because of its roots in unbiblical theology common to the mega-church leaning, charismatic movement. Though valuable, we still need better approaches to the problem of Distrephism and the other forms of pseudo-Christianity prevalent in Western Christianity.

- Victoria Gratiae -

I am an affiliate of Bookshop.org and I will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase using the affiliate link below. Consider doing so to support my work!

Buy Here!

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

I have to admit that the Huffington Post is an easy target for criticism. They are not a media outlet known for its objectivity or rigorous reporting. It is both fair and accurate to describe Huffington Post (or HuffPost) as a propaganda outlet and an uncritical mouthpiece for the Democrat Party. It is a quintessential Distrephist media organization (Distrephism is the term I use for the “social justice” religion). There is a risk of attacking a sort of strawman or punching down.

Despite this being the case, I found the article by Wadzeck to be worth discussing for several reasons. The main reason is that it is a good example of how the media promotes a counterfeit “Christianity” designed to manipulate public opinion and spread the religion of Distrephism. A couple of important factors enable this counterfeit. The first is the set of powerful incentives that pseudo-Christians have in claiming identification as a legitimate Christian or “Christ-follower.” Except, to do so while simultaneously hollowing out the real Christian religion so they can replace the core with another, more socially acceptable, religion. One that wears Christian dressings and uses Christian-sounding language but is entirely fraudulent and foreign to orthodox Christianity.

The second factor that matters here is the usage of manipulative terminology and false framing. Specifically, a false framing that creates a non-existent and meaningless category, “MAGA Christianity”, but one that hides a truly serious problem among Christianity in the West. These issues are important to cover because the broader conservative movement usually ignores them. Especially because addressing it means exposing nefarious aspects of the conservative coalition. Specifically, the corrupt and heretical Word of Faith movement, prosperity gospel, and New Apostolic Reformation (NAR).

The article begins with an important (but false) framing of an issue, while referencing a viral video that spawned this discussion. It begins by saying that “for many americans raised in conservative Christian environments, faith once felt like a matter of personal conviction and community — not overt political allegiance. But over the past decade, the boundary between belief and ideology has blurred.” This is already a false premise and a manipulative distortion of what is going on. Besides the fact that they are wrongly appealing to the myth of the “political spectrum” there is the question of what exactly it means to say that “the boundary between belief and ideology has blurred.” This statement doesn’t actually make much sense if you think about it. Even Wikipedia begins its article on Ideology by saying, “An ideology is a set of beliefs…” So, what is the author trying to say? Saying there is some merger between “belief” and “ideology” is a kind of like saying the boundary between words and language has been blurred. A meaningless statement.

This isn’t just incompetent writing, though. I don’t actually believe for a second this is a stupid mistake like a typo or lack of vocabulary. That might be the easy answer, but it is wrong. It is a conceptual error and category confusion rooted in a common myth within society. This is an attempt to separate “belief” (in reality, worldview and/or religion) from political allegiance. As if people can have political “beliefs” without being affected by “belief.” By “belief” you can almost guarantee the author refers to the confused, contradictory and ultimately false idea of religious belief versus “non-belief.” There is no such thing as a “non-believer” nor do the “non-religious” actually exist.

However, the more significant framing issue here concerns the actual identity of Christians/Evangelicals. The article refers to so-called “MAGA Christianity,” but what that is supposed to be is rather confused and arbitrary. The viral video that the article references is of a nurse who is criticizing “MAGA politics”, or various Trump policies on immigration or government welfare, all while reading a section of Matthew 25 claiming it is a “Christian” refutation of “MAGA politics.” I won’t really go into details on those but they revolve around the misquoting of Scripture in the belief that Jesus’ commands about caring for the poor/vulnerable therefore means we must support government welfare on these issues or to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. As if this is what Scripture describes.

The blatant hypocrisy of claiming that “Progressive Christians” are somehow fine for supporting government policy in favor of their religious views (which they adamantly claim to be legitimately Christian/religious) but “conservative Christians” doing it is “Christian Nationalism” and a scary “obedience to authority and nationalism over the traditional Christian values of love, service, and community” is obvious here. Yet, the genuine problem is actually the manipulative depiction of “Christian” or “Evangelical.” We have already seen how evangelical is a term with little meaning, especially when it is used to prop up pseudo-Christianity. This mistake is repeated here, but with another twist. For one, MAGA Christianity doesn’t really exist.

HuffPost claims to have spoken with “former followers of ‘MAGA Christianity’ about their experiences being a part of these communities — and why they made the decision to step away from them” but everyone they describe in this article cannot be considered to be a legitimate Christian. Not in any actual sense, at least. Especially when it is clear, they are just Distrephists and compromised syncretists at best. Even a very loose definition of “Christian” would not encompass these “ex-vangelicals.” They aren’t meaningful representatives of Christianity. They hold to the self-identification of “Christian,” but this is utterly meaningless. I have already gone into depth why. They are useful idiots quoted by media propagandists to give Distrephism a Christian veneer. Though there is a significant caveat here. One that legitimately indicts a significant portion of conservatism. However, this article paints a picture that confuses and conflates the groups involved. Creating a false category in order to manipulate.

One particular example shows just how useless the MAGA Christianity category really is. The article quotes Deidre Sugiuchi and refers to her experience in a “white evangelical reform school.” Leaving aside the fact that there is no such thing as “white evangelicalism” (especially when evangelical itself already means nothing) Sugiuchi’s experience at the infamous Escuela Caribe school is not reflective of this made-up MAGA Christianity. If you do even basic research, you find that Escuela Caribe was closed in 2011. Suguichi is quoted as saying, “MAGA Christianity is a cult. I know because I was in it.” How was Suguichi part of MAGA Christianity when the school closed in 2011? Suguichi, and others like her, who rightly pushed hard to expose the abusive and corrupt nature of that organization, partly forced Escuela Caribe to close.

MAGA (Make America Great Again) was the campaign slogan of Donald Trump. Who didn’t actually start campaigning and really using that phrase until 2015. His first presidency started in 2016. Nobody seriously believes “MAGA” as a meaningful political movement began before 2015. The earliest you can meaningfully trace this phrase is December 2011, but that is stretching it. If MAGA Christianity is now removed from Trump and the political movement associated with him, then either the authors are making things up or they are insinuating a lot more than mere association with Trump. The latter is almost certainly true. The authors really mean orthodox Christian views on various social issues because these views contradict the Distrephist religion in many areas and require people to hold unpopular opinions.

This is playbook we have seen before. The false framing of Christianity to include entirely non-Christian beliefs, using heretics and syncretists, to prop up as examples of supposedly “enlightened” or “progressive” Christians. “Good” people who aren’t like those evil Christian nationalists that actually think the Bible should be taken seriously. Another person quoted, Amy Hawk, explains that “for white evangelicals, I believe part of the waking up often happens to waking up to bigger issues of justice and privilege — i.e., when white folks realize that theirs (which is to say mine) isn’t the only story and perspective.” These are terms we should recognize right away. The racial framing that Distrephists attempt to do for everything. They have created the category of “white evangelicalism” because of the racialism inherent to their religion.

Another exvangelical quoted in the article, Cara Meredith, repeats this playbook. It is explained that “Meredith’s journey toward seeing the ‘image of God in everyone’ underscores how ignoring racial realities, or dismissing progressive ‘woke’ values from the pulpit, can perpetuate harm and marginalize voices seeking justice within the faith community.” Of course, this is just an attempt to shield Distrephism (what “woke” really is) from being called out as the false religion it really is. This is a manipulative attempt to fit another religion within a construct that has the appearance of Christianity. Except, without being honest about the fact that the Christian religion was switched out for another religion entirely.

While it is true that the article is propaganda—meant to facilitate the Trojan horse of Distrephism using a Christian veneer—there is a very serious problem that we can find within the story. In the linked article that covers the viral video with the nurse, we read, “The president has surrounded himself with a coterie of evangelical pastors and faith leaders, including Paula White, a tongue-speaking televangelist…” This is actually a very serious problem. Paula White is part of the Word of Faith movement. She is a false prophet and false teacher who preaches heresy. Without a doubt, she is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Amy Hawk is quoted as saying, “In the ten years since Trump came on the scene, I have learned that white evangelical spaces don’t follow Jesus as closely as they pretend to.” Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to this. To reiterate, white evangelicalism is not real. This is a false categorization. What is real is the Word of Faith movement and other heretical forms of charismatic theology. Conservatism is currently experiencing the outsized impact of a considerable surge in heretical churches and their leaders. They are taking up space as representatives of “conservative/white evangelicals” in the minds of many in society. Genuine Christians are being lumped in with heretical movements and frauds. The framing may be false, but a real problem exists nonetheless.

Instead of ambiguous, meaningless terms such as evangelical (used the way we typically see it in articles like this) we need to make better distinctions. Rejecting labels like “MAGA Christianity” which lumps in everything considered “conservative” together, as if there are no distinctions to be made, and calling out those within the conservative movement who bring shame and dishonor to any who associate with them. MAGA Christianity isn’t the problem. It is heretical pseudo-Christianity and the frauds within the larger Word of Faith movement, prosperity gospel, and NAR that give all of Christianity a bad name. They are just as much a problem as Distrephists; who attempt to claim Christian identity and promote the lie that one can adhere to woke/progressive values (the Distrephist religion in reality) while remaining a faithful Christian.

The fact that people like Paula White and so many in the movement she is a part of have such access to, and influence on, Trump (along with other conservative leaders) is a terrible thing. It is a nefarious and toxic influence that will have considerable negative repercussions on our nation. So much of this is facilitated by the flawed terminology and deceptive self-identification rampant in our society. The twisting of terms like evangelical and Christian all lead towards false narratives that deceivers can operate under. Wadzeck’s article should make this clear.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

We know self-identification isn’t reliable. We know that there are many reasons people falsely self-identify, ranging from ignorance to outright lies. Organizations that try to survey society, and measure the religion or worldview people belong to, rely on extremely faulty methodology. Basically, they just ask people to self-identify by checking a box or naming the label they prefer, with no verification or critical analysis. Yet people continue to use this data, despite its fallacious nature. It may be understandable, but it doesn’t work, and claims based on this unreliable data are extremely suspect.

There is another serious issue related to this problem. In part 2, one of the reasons given for faulty self-identification is compromise or syncretism. At root, the issue is one where social pressure, irrational views, emotional needs, or outright immoral behavior influence the beliefs one holds, instead of the truth. People are not required to be consistent in their beliefs or behavior. Hypocrisy, double-standards, and fickle superficiality are natural human traits. Stronger in some than in others. The beliefs one holds are just as much a reflection of our moral character as are our actions. Beliefs are not morally neutral. It is in fact immoral to cling deliberately unto false beliefs, to reject the truth, and to treat the truth contemptuously. This is why Scripture condemns the foolish so strongly.

A fool does not delight in understanding, but only wants to show off his opinions. (Proverbs 18:2 CSB)

Stay away from a foolish person; you will gain no knowledge from his speech. The sensible person’s wisdom is to consider his way, but the stupidity of fools deceives them. Fools mock at making reparation, but there is goodwill among the upright. (Proverbs 14:7-9 CSB)

We all know this. That is why it is such a social stigma to be considered stupid, irrational, or superstitious. It wouldn’t be an insult to be considered a fool if we did not directly associate moral failure with foolish and stupid behavior. Though, we recognize that being stupid (or a fool), in a moral sense, is derived from inexcusably poor reasoning and disregard for truth, the deliberate rejection of that which is true, or beliefs that are so grievously wrong they cause serious harm for oneself or others. We don’t (properly) believe that it is immoral (as in stupid or foolish) merely to be wrong nor to have limited mental capabilities from a physical impairment.

Why does this matter here? It matters because we have to recognize the moral character of self-identification and the fact that false self-identification is tied to a person’s moral behavior. That’s why compromise is an issue and why syncretism has an element of foolishness to it. Scripture is very clear that there are people who falsely and sinfully claim to be Christian. In Matthew 7 Jesus famously describes the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Matthew 7: 15) and those who try to claim to be of Christ, listing off things they have done, only to be told by Jesus that “I never knew you. Depart from me, you lawbreakers!” (Matthew 7:23). Paul explains Christians will face “Evil people and imposters [who] will become worse, deceiving and being deceived.” (2 Timothy 3:5 CSB). Notably, Paul describes here imposters, a theme repeated throughout the Bible. People exist who claim to be Christian, and who aren’t merely wrong; they are predatory frauds.

Allowing such meaningless self-identification to be used, or actually treating the data seriously—as if the narratives built upon it were valid—is misguided and harmful. Understandably, there are religions for which mere self-identification is good enough. Because not all religions or worldviews contain rigorous criteria that one must believe in order to be considered a legitimate “follower.” This depends on the religion. Christianity contains very clear doctrines about what makes someone a valid Christian. Islam and Judaism do as well. Hinduism, Buddhism, and other Eastern mystical religions are much less rigorous, allowing them to legitimately include a broader range of people as followers. Some religions, like Unitarian Universalism, outright reject criteria of exclusion and make mere self-identification good enough. Because the UU religion actively and deliberately believes in an extreme form of perennialism, that every belief imaginable fits within their religion. So whatever standard we apply for religious identification must reflect the religion in question. No general standard exists.

For Christianity, we must “test the spirits to see if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1 CSB). It’s improbable that God would require this of us if a feasible solution didn’t exist. It may not be easy, but the means exist. We do have Scripture itself which, right after Paul’s warning about imposters who deceive, tells us that “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16 CSB).

This first means recognizing how self-identification interacts with orthodoxy, heresy, and cults. Heresy, and cults derived from heretical teachings, usually need to operate under a shield of legitimacy. They require the perception of being a legitimate branch or group under the religion they claim adherence. This happened with Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple. Which operated under the illusion of being a Christian church, despite rather obvious and extremely serious deviations from Christianity. This is the case when talking about so-called “Progressive Christianity,” which is an oxymoron in reality. No such thing as “Progressive Christianity” exists. They are heretics and syncretists not a legitimate “Progressive” variation of Christianity. They are more properly understood as Distrephists, not Christians.

The world’s mockery of upholding Christian standards of belief as “fundamentalism” is of no concern to us. We have no incentive to tolerate laxity or complacency. The chief obstacle in more accurately identifying true Christians lies in the fact that such a definition would inherently involve clearly identifying many individuals who are not Christian. Creating a dividing line means many will find themselves on the wrong side of this line. Of course, the matter is very complex, and we do not know another person’s heart or the full picture of every situation. So there will be many times we have to reserve judgment. But there is a common belief that it is impossible to more properly define what Christianity is. Not because it is impossible, but because so many people disagree about how to do this.

It’s impossible to do this with perfect precision, so we must extend grace. However, it is not as hard as a lot of self-interested people pretend it is. The illusion of impossibility doesn’t come from the reality of creating a meaningful standard—especially when we already have an example of this in the Nicene Creed—it comes from those who profit from confusion and ambiguity. Heresy, false religions, and ignorance thrive in this confusion. Cults operate in the margins by exploiting people’s uncertainty and false beliefs about the “stretchability” of the term “Christian.” False prophets attempt to create an environment of confusion. Convincing people that nobody can meaningfully define what a Christian is, therefore we can make up our own definition.

Most of the confusion here comes from a superficial understanding of Scripture and history. People think that merely because a group exists, which claims to be Christian, we must take them seriously. Or include them within the broader category of properly Christian denominations. A typical argument by Catholics against Protestantism (which they usually define poorly and with much equivocation) is that there are some tens of thousands of denominations (the number varies). In reality, there are only a handful of legitimate branches of Christianity. There are only a handful of legitimate branches of Protestant Christianity. Organizations like Pew Research falsely include Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses within the umbrella of Christianity. They make the same error when including the prosperity gospel heresy and the Word of Faith movement within Protestantism. Most of the differences between legitimate branches of Christianity, though important, do not leave the sphere of proper orthodox Christianity. Distinguishing between clearly Christian and clearly heretical is not usually as difficult as people think.

There is a massive difference between churches that disagree on the mode of baptism, or the exact nature of predestination, and between those that accept Christ’s divinity and those that reject it. Those who claim that Christianity can include those who reject the divinity of Christ are not to be taken seriously. Nobody who claims that Jesus’ divinity is an optional feature of Christianity has even a basic understanding of Scripture or Church history. If they aren’t simply ignorant, then we have good reason to believe they are actually deceptive and outright enemies of the faith. They are the imposters Paul warned us about. Again, remember that Scripture tells us to test all spirits. Failure to do so is sinful disobedience. It is not a friendly suggestion, but a command we are to follow.

Of course, going through with this is easier said than done. But it isn’t impossible, and we need to be obedient to God in this case. Tolerating an environment of confusion and false identification isn’t acceptable. Christians need to be clear on what is and is not Christian. We must do so with grace, being careful to avoid ignorant and poorly researched claims (unlike most social media comments) and we must do so with humility, recognizing that we don’t know everything. It might be necessary to avoid saying anything until you have done your research. Rushing to judgment is foolish, but so is cowardice disguised as patience.

Just like the Bereans diligently studied the word to make sure that what Paul was telling them was true, we need to do the same. Whenever a group or person claims to be Christian, we must test this “spirit” to see if it is of God. If it is not of God, we must say as much and warn people of the same. Failing to speak out is not loving your neighbor. Failing to take your responsibility to learn what Scripture says is another failure to love your neighbor, and showcases contempt for our creator. It isn’t our job to avoid offending imposters who pretend to represent the Church. Division isn’t created by those who point out false teachings. Division is created by those who believe in, teach, or spread false teachings (see Romans 16:17). The world might rely on self-identification because it advantages those who wish to dilute and corrupt Christianity. We cannot. We must stand on truth, no matter what.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

One of the most damaging myths that exist in public discourse is the myth of the left/right political spectrum. As the authors describe it here, “the myth of left and right is the false belief that there is an essence behind the political spectrum” (p. 5). Basically, the problem with the left/right spectrum, as this work explains, is that it has no basis in any meaningful belief system or essential essence that connects all the ideas within either side. The book rejects the essentialist theory of ideology, which holds that the left and right have their respective views on various issues “because all political issues grow out of a single master issue (an essence)” (p. 5).

Instead of the essentialist theory the authors posit the social theory of ideology instead which “says that issues correlate because they are bound by a unifying tribe” (p. 6) this social theory “predicts that since the positions associated with left and right are not natural, but social, we should expect to see those on the left and right changing their political views depending on what their team is doing” (p. 7). The best way to understand this is that the left and right do not have core beliefs that they revolve around. Instead, they are social tribes to which people adhere, regardless of what they believe. In fact, people will change what they believe in order to better conform to the “team” they belong to.

This thesis is very important to understand. Especially because it is essential to expose a lot of the propaganda that exists on both “sides.” Lewis & Lewis do a very solid job of exposing and debunking this myth. Something that we all roughly knew was an issue, but didn’t really have a great explanation why and how. The book is short, only 100 pages if you exclude the notes and index. The book’s focus is very strong, with the most crucial material located in the first three of its seven chapters. I highly recommend this book because of how important it is to dismantle the myth of the political spectrum. It is a relatively easy read and doesn’t spend too much time outside the core issue.

In the first chapter, the authors break down the problem with the left/right spectrum, as we already discussed above. What is key to understand here is that the beliefs generally held in common for the left and the right are collected together only because of socialization and tribal adherence. We justify their being together through storytelling. Not through a meaningful, independent ideological basis. It is most important to understand that the left and the right are political tribes and alliances. Not belief systems that people adhere to.

This specific issue is covered in depth in chapters 3 and 4. With chapter 3 explaining just how nonsensical the idea of the left/right “spectrum” is. We all know what this is whenever we hear about “far-right” or “far-left” as if people can be more or less “right-wing” or “left-wing.” This is a fallacious and contradictory way of understanding political positions, though. It is just hidden by the use of equivocal language. Probably the best example is “liberal” and “conservative” which are used both as synonymous with left/right but also somehow something entirely separate when applied to Democrat/Republican even when Democrats are supposed to be on the “left” and Republicans on the “right.”

For example, the authors claim that “left and right will often be defined by whatever their associated parties stand for at a given moment” (p. 29). Which is definitely true. We see this all the time. People regularly point out the perceived hypocrisy of either liberals or conservatives for “changing” what they believe over time. Including in entirely opposite directions. This really is true, it is just framed incorrectly. The reason it is true is that the people making up the party, and the most influential groups within it, change over time. Not because people are violating some unchanging principle that exists behind either liberalism/left-wing beliefs or conservative/right-wing beliefs. No such principle exists.

A great example of how this works is found on p. 29 and reads as follows:

“When the Republican Party moved in a small-government direction under Barry Goldwater, the essentialists called it a move ‘to the right,’ but when the Republican Party moved in a big-government direction under George W. Bush and Donald Trump, they also called it a move ‘to the right.’ When the Republican Party moved to foreign interventionism under Bush, they said it was a move ‘to the right,’ but when the Republican Party moved to foreign isolationism under Trump, they also said it was a move ‘to the right.’ When the Republican Party moved in a globalist direction under Reagan, they said it was a move ‘to the right,’ but when the Republican Party moved in a protectionist direction under Trump, they also said it was a move ‘to the right.’ No matter what Republicans do—even when they pursue opposite policies—essentialists invariably tell us that it’s a move ‘to the right.’”

Such arbitrary and inconsistent explanations can be found all the time. Let’s just take the article by Kevin Drum as an example where this exact thesis is pushed. Drum claims that “Since roughly the year 2000, according to survey data, Democrats have moved significantly to the left on most hot button social issues while Republicans have moved only slightly right.” Of course, this claim doesn’t actually make any sense when you realize what it is actually saying. Lewis & Lewis point out clearly “that ‘liberal’ is coterminous with whatever the Democratic Party is doing and ‘conservative’ is coterminous with whatever the Republican Party is doing” (p. 33). They describe this in the context of a fallacious scoring system meant to categorize congressional representatives along a supposed left/right spectrum. Which ends up showing that liberal and Democrat mean the same thing. As does conservative and Republican. This is because liberalism and conservatism are nothing more than synonyms of left and right and indicate adherence to either the left/Democrat tribe or adherence to the right/Republican tribe. They are all one and the same.

So we can translate Drum’s claim and see why it makes little sense given the emptiness of the spectrum view. “Since roughly the year 2000, according to survey data, Democrats have [become significantly more democratic] on most hot button social issues while Republicans have [become only slightly more republican].” Obviously, this is complete nonsense. Saying that Democrats have become “more liberal” is the same thing as saying they have become more like the Democrats. A circular explanation. However, people make these claims all the time. Framing things in a false range between left and right as if it were a spectrum of belief. This spectrum simply doesn’t exist. It is a misleading way of framing things that conflates tribal adherence with ideological adherence. Drum’s claim is based on a fundamental error. He treats liberal and Democrat as if they are two separate things. With “liberalism” as some sort of belief system and Democrat as a political group. In reality, they apply to the same thing.

This is just an example of what the authors expose as a serious problem in their book. The point isn’t to pick on Kevin Drum, he just has an article that represents the issue well and showcases why the book is as important as it is. Conservative arguments against “liberalism” are often fatally undermined by the failure to recognize the real meaning of these terms. By using such arguments, we actually enable “liberals” to do the same thing in describing “conservatives.” By conflating a political party/tribe with a belief system, we misrepresent what is actually going on. If you look at Drum’s article, something is happening, but it has nothing to do with Democrats becoming liberal. We are witnessing a shift in society regarding belief systems overall. But these belief systems are not reducible to a contradictory and arbitrary “spectrum” between two sides.

One of the most important reasons this myth persists is that it allows people to hide their tribalism. The authors state, “Recent studies in psychology have found that humans are inclined not only to tribalism but also to cloaking their tribal instincts behind high-sounding, rational language… we tend to follow our tribes but fool ourselves and others (through creative storytelling) into believing that we are following principles” (pp. 67-68). This is important because it is one of the primary ways in which people justify conforming to popular opinion within their “in-group.” It is how people rationalize a lack of integrity and change their opinions in obvious ways to match whatever their team is saying or doing. That is why we see so much partisan hypocrisy and doublespeak. It is why people who have the highest need for social acceptance will believe whatever their “tribe” believes and change their beliefs because of shifting social opinion. As opposed to the examination of truth. We avoid accusations of hypocrisy, and believing what is popular versus true, by claiming that we are following some kind of principle like liberalism or conservatism instead of simply echoing whatever is widely held by the liberal or conservative tribe at the current time.

Lewis and Lewis help to expose one reason why self-identification cannot be trusted. It is also why we need new terminology to describe the religions and worldviews in our society. Specifically recognizing the difference between loyalty to a political party and the made-up ideologies or belief systems that it represents. The reason liberalism and conservatism have such contradictory, shifting, and ambiguous definitions is because they represent coalitions of loosely aligned people. People who have very different, even mutually exclusive religions and worldviews. People within a political party are allies against a common enemy. Not co-religionists or ideological partners. When you only have two choices, you simply choose the one closest to you, or the one you hate the least. When people become aligned with their party more and more, that is because they are putting tribe above the validity of truth.

In the final chapter, the authors reflect on what to do to get past this essentialist myth of left and right. There are two points in particular that are worth explaining. On pages 91-95, they describe the need to change our speech and to find healthier tribes. Both are extremely important solutions. They explain, “when we talk about ‘the left’ or ‘the right,’ we are falsely implying that there is some philosophical essence that divides these two political groups across time and place. If someone says, ‘Mary is a right-wing anti-abortion activist,” what does the ideological prefix ‘right-wing’ add? What informational value is there to calling Mary a ‘right wing anti-abortion activist’ instead of just an ‘anti-abortion activist’? Using the ideological prefix is either redundant or ant attempt to sneak an inflammatory term into the description by creating an association between the pro-life position and fascism” (pp. 91-92). Whenever we cling to the myth of the political spectrum and the false idea that left and right are philosophies, we enable this tactic of guilt by association. If we care about truth, we will avoid doing this.

This needs to be combined with recognizing that “yes, human beings are inevitably tribal—we are naturally inclined to seek out communities of meaning and belonging— but there are better and worse tribes, and ideological tribes [left and right] are among the bad ones” (p. 94). We will all have tribes we belong to but if the tribe that you identify with most is either Democrat/liberal/left or Republican/conservative/right then you will belong to a shifting tribe which lacks integrity and prioritizes social acceptance over concern for the truth. It does not mean we cannot vote for or support a political party, nor does it mean that “moderate” or “independent” actually mean anything (this is another issue not dealt with here) but it does mean that adherence to truth is key. Recognizing purely partisan tribal adherence is part of this. We can belong to an alliance without pretending we must agree with all members of the alliance. Nor do we owe allegiance to a hollow, arbitrary, and made-up belief system that this political alliance supposedly adheres to.

In that regard, the thesis presented by Hyrum Lewis and Verlan Lewis in this book is essential for understanding our society and escaping the harmful myths that pervade it. It is a quick read but direct and to the point, giving an extremely solid explanation and refutation of the essentialist viewpoint of the left and the right. Considering just how much modern discourse and propaganda relies upon this myth to inflame and mislead people in society, I can’t recommend this book highly enough. Christians need to understand this myth because political compromise and propaganda exist everywhere, and Christians are not immune to this. Language matters, the terms and concepts we use aren’t just for academics. The myth of the left and right is a great example of what that looks like.

- Victoria Gratiae -

I am an affiliate of Bookshop.org and I will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase using the affiliate link below. Consider doing so to support my work!

Buy Here!

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

Thankfully, when we are considering the concept of worldview, we have a lot more to go on. Unlike religion I have no need to construct something original. Though I build on the concept as it links so heavily with religion. So in this case, I am going to be keeping this shorter, with a more succinct overview. I give all credit to Steven Chisham because his work on clarifying and defining worldview is foundational. In fact, his understanding of worldview is what helped me in my work defining religion. His work was the key to truly understanding religion. Because you cannot understand it without understanding worldview.

Therefore, I first want to point to these two papers by Mr. Chisham in order to understand worldview properly. Both can be found in the Creation Research Society Quarterly:

The Anatomy of a Worldview: The Eternal Self-Identity

Clarifying Four Meanings for “Worldview”

He has more on this topic, but these two are the most important to understand what a worldview truly is and how it functions.

How I use worldview is based on Mr. Chisham’s definition. In particular, what he explains as “the range of replies to the question, ‘How do I understand myself relative to ultimate truth?’” (found in the abstract of “The Anatomy of a Worldview”). While this is not sufficient by itself, it is the most succinct way to understand what a worldview is and why it is universal to all human beings. It is epistemologically fundamental. Having a worldview is essential for understanding, and our worldview influences how we understand.

Now Chisham explains that worldview can be thought of in four different ways. Which, at least in one sense, explain parts of a worldview total. These are the following:

Worldview mechanism refers to the overall system by which all one’s opinions and views are generated. This is the worldview process and functionality of it as a whole, and when we describe the mechanics of a worldview, we are talking about the worldview mechanism.

Worldview structure is the collection of views and answers to questions. Think of it as the “bucket” with which all views within a worldview are collected. It should be understood as the collection of views and the “container” that they all fit within, as opposed to the individual views themselves. In computer terminology, it is the folder versus the files that sit within the folder.

Worldview perspective(s) are all the individual worldview beliefs that a person/worldview has. These are the files in the folder. So worldview perspectives are the specific values, answers, or beliefs that fill the worldview structure.

Social worldview, on the other hand, is what Chisham describes as the “second-order expressions of views accepted or adopted by individuals” within a social context. It is a person’s specific worldview perspective, or aggregate collection of worldview perspectives, as it relates to society and others more broadly. You can think of it as a part of a person’s worldview, or worldview taken as a whole, and how it fits within social environments. For example, you would have things like a Christian worldview or an Islamic worldview, which are more properly understood as social worldviews. Since they represent aggregates of worldview perspectives collected together and compared across individuals in society. As opposed to something that refers to the exact worldview a specific individual has, through which they interpret reality.

Mostly when referring to a worldview, people will mean a social worldview. So “worldview” by itself is frequently a metonym for social worldview. I do this myself unless I have need of much greater precision.

Additionally, the structure of a worldview in relation to religion is important to grasp. I describe the linkage between worldview and religion elsewhere, as they are inextricable and represent different sides of the same concept. Going into much detail is beyond the scope of this article, but it will be given an overview here.

We can best understand worldview by zooming into the worldview structure. Within the worldview structure, there are four major categories that result from the core question a worldview answers: “How can I understand myself relative to ultimate truth?” These are epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and origins/eschatology. Everything that a worldview question asks, or a worldview perspective provides an answer for, fits within one of these four fundamental philosophical categories.

A religion asks the counterpart question of “How do I live my life relative to ultimate truth?” The worldview provides the framework for thought and understanding. It is the theory to the praxis of religion. A worldview directly affects a person’s religion and vice versa. We can never understand a worldview without considering religion and a person’s life. Influence on a person’s worldview/religion comes from both ends (from the praxis of religion on one end and the theory of worldview on the other). This remains true even though worldview is much more fundamental (as it is the foundation upon which reason and comprehension of the world itself is built). A worldview is necessary for reason and intelligent thought (at least for finite beings, as Chisham explains) whereas religion is necessary to actually live a life in practice.

So whenever worldview is used, this is the best way to understand it, especially within my work. Please look at Steven Chisham’s work for some details that I gloss over, as his papers are very important to be familiar with if you want to know what a worldview is. Both worldview and religion are topics I intend on developing much further in both detail and structure, but that level of detail belongs elsewhere. This article summarizes it in order to be used within my work and to help others understand it properly and with more precision.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

There is a recurring problem we find in this article that takes us to an issue I have described before, that of terminology. What we see here is a case study for how false narratives and manipulation are enabled by both poor language and misleading self-identification. Here it’s the word “evangelical” that is key to a distorted and manipulative depiction of Christianity. The narrative being spun here has the purpose of legitimizing heresy, syncretism, and the general watering down of Christianity.

A huge incentive exists to adulterate terms like evangelical or Christian so that counterfeits and pretenders can claim the social clout and desired status of “Christian.” In this case, the self-identification that comes with “evangelical” is corrupted by compromise or syncretism. Throughout Hinch’s article he describes a supposed new wave of evangelicals who no longer believe in the same things as previous generations of evangelicals. The problem is that his usage of “evangelical” is both empty and outright manipulative.

The fact is that the term evangelical doesn’t mean a lot. Though there is a general idea of what it refers to now, it was never defined very well to begin with. The problem is even worse when you consider just how disingenuously it gets used in articles like this. Hinch starts his article with an anecdote about a supposed “evangelical Christian” named A.J. Zimmermann who attended Azusa Pacific University before directing a training program for soon-to-be pastors at the Pentecostal seminary Life Pacific University. According to the article “Since graduating from high school, Zimmermann has undergone a revolution in his thinking about evangelicals’ foundational text, the Bible, to the extent that he no longer regards the Bible as inerrant, dictated by God, historically accurate in all of its claims or even internally consistent with itself.”

The article continues to describe both Zimmerman and other supposed evangelicals who are “in the midst of a wholesale generational, cultural, and doctrinal transformation.” This “transformation” involves “revis[ing] their interpretation of key biblical passages (especially those addressing sexual or social justice themes), downgrad[ing] parts of Scripture as historical anachronisms, and reject[ing] the political call to arms still sounded by a dwindling generation of conservative elders.” Of course, what is being described isn’t a transformation of evangelicalism at all. In fact, describing it as such is disingenuous. What is happening is widespread apostasy through compromise and eventual syncretism. If this is evangelicalism, then it doesn’t mean anything at all. What exactly does the author think an evangelical actually is?

This is where we start to see just how manipulative it is to describe things this way. The article doesn’t bother to explain or define evangelical at all. We get a peek at the worthlessness of this designation by going a little deeper. Later in the article, the author talks about Pew Research data and pulls from the 2015 Religious Landscape Study. While describing demographic changes, he claims that “If current trends continue, evangelicals will be outnumbered by non-religious Americans in just a few years.” We already know this “non-religious” label is outright false. However, this is even worse when you understand just how the Pew Research study categorizes evangelical. Notably, the only thing that evangelical means is that Pew either put them in a list of denominations (based on unclear and clearly circular reasoning if you look at Evangelical Beliefs and Practices) or mere self-identification (see Appendix B). None of which are truly reliable.

Let’s look at a couple of examples of how bad this is. Note in the list of denominations the fact that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is part of the “Mainline Protestant Tradition” as opposed to evangelical. The United Methodist Church (UMC) is part of the mainline tradition, yet they would generally consider themselves to be evangelical. Both the ELCA and the UMC would self-identify as evangelical, and for some reason they aren’t included. So again, what exactly does evangelical mean here? If all it takes to be classified as “evangelical” is merely claiming to be “born again” or evangelical, then why isn’t this applied consistently? This is outright incoherent and contradictory.

Although evangelical clearly means nothing at all in this article, and even in sources cited like Pew Research, why exactly are we supposed to believe the thesis? If the only basis for evangelical is the fact that people self-identify as such, then it doesn’t mean anything. Yet we are supposed to think it does and that “evangelicalism” (or Christianity at large) is changing because supposed “evangelicals” no longer trust the Bible. We don’t have any reason to trust this label at all. It’s so bad that it would be more accurate to describe the article as deceitful propaganda. If the author actually believes what they are saying, they are too incompetent to be taken seriously. I would argue that it’s more likely this article is in fact deliberate manipulation. A purposeful attempt to legitimize syncretism with Distrephism (basically the “social justice” religion).

Let’s take a very basic definition of evangelicalism that you can find on Wikipedia as described by Bebbington. He explains that evangelicalism contains four traits: conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism. In short, conversionism is the emphasis on being “born again” or some kind of conversion experience. Biblicism is the belief in Scripture as authoritative, inspired, and infallible. Crucicentrism is the belief in the centrality of Christ and his substitutionary atonement. Activism refers to an emphasis on evangelism and the active expression of faith in the social sphere. There are nuances to this, and I definitely have my issues with this definition (what valid form of Christianity does not contain these traits?) but it at least has a degree of substance to it. It’s way too broad, but at least it gives us general guidance on the rough meaning of evangelicalism.

However, even if we use this basic definition (coming from Wikipedia, no less) we can see just how disingenuous Hinch’s usage of the term is. He constantly repeats this claim that “the days when evangelicals defined themselves by their uncompromising style of biblical intrepretation are over” in the most credulous way. He talks about Ken Wilson’s book A Letter to My Congregation: An Evangelical Pastor’s Path to Embracing People Who are Gay, Lesbian and Transgender into the Company of Jesus and describes it as such: “In 216 densely argued pages, Wilson tells how what began as a ‘fleeting unease’ grew into a wholesale reevaluation not only of what the Bible says about sexuality, but of basic assumptions about biblical truth long considered sacrosanct within evangelicalism.” How exactly is Wilson an evangelical? This isn’t a change in evangelicalism, even using poor and insufficient definitions; it’s an outright abandonment of evangelicalism (and Christianity) for social acceptance and syncretism.

There isn’t a good reason to call these people evangelicals except to spin a misleading narrative. Hinch’s article represents a trend within media to water down and corrupt terminology to make room for compromise or full-blown abandonment of the Christian faith. All while pretending these people are still Christian in any meaningful sense! This is only being done so that they can encourage others to apostatize and throw away what Scripture clearly teaches. They are useful idiots that enable further compromise within churches. Watering down the very meaning of evangelical (and Christian!) until it means nothing at all. If somebody like mega-church pastor Adam Hamilton who was “named a Distinguished Evangelist by the United Methodist Church” can be called an evangelical despite “dismiss[ing]...the six-day creation of the world, subordination of women, opposition to homosexuality” and even outright rejecting the belief in “biblical inerrancy or scientific accuracy [of Scripture]” then evangelical means absolutely nothing. It is a shield for a neo-pagan and humanist religion that has supplanted Christianity. This makes him a heretic at best and a false teacher at worst. His position as a pastor makes it much more likely to be the latter.

Articles like Hinch’s need to be seen as a warning of the dangers of compromise and the deceptive usage of terminology. The labels that are used are important to examine skeptically. We need to expose the dishonesty and manipulative framing behind such claims. Accepting people’s self-identification at face value is not the correct approach. We cannot trust the reasoning behind their stated religious affiliation without verification.

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1 CSB)

We especially cannot afford to be lax in guarding against compromise and false teachings. The title of the article contains an unfortunate truth: evangelicals are losing the battle for the Bible. Not because they are fine with it, though. But because they have grown complacent and tolerant of compromise. Far too willing to appease the world rather than to stand on Scripture. We have allowed unbelievers and frauds to speak for us and claim titles they do not deserve. The people described in this article aren’t “evangelicals.” They are unbelievers who simply cling to a hollowed-out and superficial pseudo-Christianity. They are not the future of the Church, but those who have abandoned it. We cannot do the same, and we dare not follow in their footsteps.

Enter through the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go through it. (Matthew 7:13 CSB)

- Victoria Gratiae -

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

In part 1 of this series we covered the fact that self-identification is unreliable by nature. We just can’t rely on polling data that simply asks people what they identify as. We cannot rely on people to tell the truth. This has many varied reasons. We covered several of them in part 2. While data on religious affiliation derived from self-identification is unreliable, it is understandable why organizations keep doing it.

Some of it is going to be intellectual laziness. Polling organizations, and others that rely on this methodology, often do it because it’s easier than having to come up with more reliable methods. Another reason is going to be the self-interest and strong incentives people have to allow an extremely elastic definition for certain identities. Religious ones in particular. An obvious example is the Christian identity itself, considering just how much Mormons, Unitarians, and so-called progressive “Christians” (Distrephists in reality) want to claim the label. These are just a few examples, among many, who would benefit from the social cachet that being labeled “Christian” would bring.

Accurately gauging religious identities is complicated by numerous significant obstacles, separate from the matter of defining heresy versus orthodox belief (which is explored further in part 4). Setting aside the indefensible lack of precision and the conscious ignoring of self-interest in feigned or deceptive self-identification, there remain significant problems that lead to higher costs and fewer available alternatives for any study. Some of these difficulties might even be intractable. Making it impossible to get accurate data, except in very limited ways. At least without some kind of development or clever solution. The problems are as follows:

1) Defining a religion/worldview

One of the very first problems is going to be the act of accurately defining a religion or worldview in the first place. This is not as easy as it might seem. That is because religions contain considerable amounts of teachings, assumptions, history, and philosophical views. Distilling a religion into a succinct definition is not very easy. It is also fraught with issues. One of the biggest is that trying to create a definition for a religion, based on only a handful of sentences (like to fit into a dictionary), will, at best, lead to an incomplete summary. A summary that can actually be misleading if it is taken as the standard for that religion.

These incomplete summaries might be useful to get an idea of a religion, but they will never give you the full picture. They are too broad for precise religious identification. Especially when such broad definitions are deliberately used to encompass groups that shouldn’t really qualify for inclusion. For example, dictionary.com gives this as the definition of Christianity:

The religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, sent by God. They believe that Jesus, by dying and rising from the dead, made up for the sin of Adam and thus redeemed the world, allowing all who believe in him to enter heaven. Christians rely on the Bible as the inspired word of God. (references to links removed)

This definition isn’t wrong, per se, but it is very incomplete. To the point that, if it were the standard, it would include groups that remain entirely outside the realm of true Christianity. Ironically, despite just how incomplete it is, it still contradicts beliefs that several supposed “Christians” claim to hold. Remember the Pew data? According to that, a full 12% of Christians say they don’t believe in the existence of heaven. Despite even having such an incomplete definition, it still ends up ruling out several people who get counted under this religious identification. Researchers include them anyway, which showcases just how misleading these studies can be.

Consequently, a dependable framework of criteria and definitions for various religions and worldviews will be considerably more extensive. That makes the problem much harder. Because it means you have to create a far more comprehensive set of doctrines, teachings, beliefs, or philosophical views. All of which need to be used to build well-defined criteria for all the different religions. This requires acknowledging the sheer scope of religions and worldviews, and organizing them with a greater number of detailed metrics and sophisticated algorithms, rather than relying on a brief question or definition. This rules out simple polls that do nothing more than provide a list of names and ask people to check a box for one they like.

2) Understanding a religion/worldview

Defining a religion is a problem all its own, one that leads into the next related reason. To accurately identify religious or worldview affiliation, you must understand those religions and worldviews at a level that goes beyond the superficial. Knowing only a religion’s dictionary summary means you aren’t qualified to perform accurate assessments of who belongs to that religion or what beliefs it is composed of. This severely limits accurate surveys of religious identification because it will require enough people who have enough expertise on the religions in question to provide the right set of criteria for religious identification.

This is an obvious problem found in a lot of mainstream media discussing religious affiliation. Often, the people writing these articles don’t have the slightest clue what a religion may or may not encompass. Worse still, they delude themselves into thinking they grasp the subject, but their overconfidence masks their lack of knowledge. This is an especially prevalent problem in the West regarding Christianity. It is extremely easy to find articles talking about Christian religious affiliation, but ones written by people whose understanding of Christianity is so distorted that it is obvious they don’t have any idea what they are talking about.

Understanding what Christianity is, what Islam is, what Buddhism, Hinduism, or Humanism are requires a level of research, time, and effort that cannot be bypassed. This is, of course, a serious obstacle to getting accurate data because it means that a level of expertise in many broad areas is required. Without this expertise, people rely on misleading heuristic definitions plagued with ignorant biases, preconceived notions, and outright falsehoods. That is one of the obvious problems behind the Pew research data. It’s obvious that many of the people who answer the questionnaire don’t have any idea what many of the religions listed actually are. Even when they identify themselves as part of it. The fact that atheists claim to believe in a god is a perfect example of such ignorance. This difficulty remains unavoidable, and polls or analyses offering merely a simplistic and incomplete summary of a religion or worldview cannot be trusted.

3) Working around self-interest

I have repeatedly mentioned the fact that self-identification is unreliable. But if we can’t ask people directly how they identify religiously, that means they have to be tested. This means you cannot ask only simple questions or rely on answers that are just checking boxes. Even if you had a perfectly acceptable definition of a religion, and provided these definitions, people cannot be trusted to answer honestly. Nothing guarantees people read these definitions, agree with them, nor answer truthfully. Self-interest, social incentives, and personal psychological incentives are too strong to guarantee reliable data.

This problem becomes even more difficult if you actually provide extensive, accurate criteria for all religions. Going beyond an incomplete, though accurate, summary definition of a religion means providing a considerable amount of text and reading for anyone being surveyed. You can’t accept people’s answers if in the end all they do is check boxes, with no validation. Even if you have accurate definitions and sufficiently comprehensive explanations of the religions or worldviews in question.

To reliably work around self-interest, people have to be put to the test and asked a rather large number of questions. This requires including mechanisms to catch people who answer in ignorance or who answer dishonestly. Implementing this will make any survey balloon into a very extensive test that has several deliberate guardrails built into it. Turning a questionnaire with a few dozen questions into an extensive test with hundreds of questions. The test would have to be designed specifically with the possibility of dishonesty or ignorance in mind and work to rule out false religious identification.

That’s just the problem as it relates to designing the survey or test itself. That doesn’t include dealing with the self-interest of people or organizations who have influence on the testing or design of the test. Without a doubt, there will be controversy in defining a religion, or how such criteria will affect the outcomes of any surveys or studies using such a rigorous methodology. That is because people have considerable incentive to change the test in order to generate outcomes that align with their own religion or worldview. A perfect example of that would be pseudo-Christian cults that need and want to be recognized as truly Christian (such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Unitarians, as I mentioned prior). Another example would be so-called “non-believers” who have incentives to be viewed as “non-religious”.

Therefore, social pressure and individual or group self-interest are factors that have to be worked around to test accurately. Of all reasons, this is the one that is least recognized and the one most important to have solutions for. Because religious identification is not just a data point. It is a point of leverage and a weapon used to support desired narratives. Though it is one of the toughest problems to deal with.

4) Logistics

Considering the aforementioned problems leads to the idea that they could be effectively resolved by developing a comprehensive process. This process would utilize a meticulously crafted set of standards to ascertain religious identity. Something like an extensive exam that has many questions designed to test a person’s knowledge, beliefs on many topics, and lifestyle. You can rule out a good chunk of cheating or dishonesty by doing an interview with a trained interviewer. The interviewees could be required to provide documentation, or other evidence, of certain claims to catch people who would lie or exaggerate. Such as following up with a church, mosque, or synagogue (or equivalent) to ask about their attendance to validate claims they make about their religious life.

The issue with this is obvious. The complexity and cost of doing such a survey are much higher than doing a basic phone, internet, or mail survey. Collecting accurate data in this way would involve the logistics of having to design the test in the first place, having enough staff and time to perform interviews, the equipment for properly recorded interviews, and the time and effort taken to validate any provided evidence or documentation. Beyond the logistics of the survey itself, you would need to take legal precautions and deal with privacy issues. If you are collecting extensive personal information, documentation, or evidence to validate personal behavior and beliefs, or even recording interview results, you must do all of this in accordance with privacy laws.

Doing these things makes large-scale data collection significantly harder. The Pew data has thousands of survey results because they are relying on a relatively simple paper or electronic survey that uses 100+ questions with mostly multiple-choice answers. Doing interviews of nearly 37,000 subjects would be an enormous project costing a considerable amount of money. Realistically, you would have to reduce the sample size by a few orders of magnitude. Which would reduce the usefulness of the survey.

A multiple-choice survey or a more detailed written survey could be used. However, achieving comprehensiveness and covering a wide range of religious identifications might necessitate a survey with thousands of questions. It would need to test people in order to rule out self-identification and to mitigate dishonest or ignorant answers. While not every participant must answer every question, the survey must incorporate a process for directing individuals to relevant questions and enabling them to bypass inapplicable ones. An example of this would avoid questions that differentiate between Shia and Sunni Muslims for non-Muslim individuals.

There are a lot of logistical hurdles to overcome in order to get reliable religious identification. Testing religious identification and collecting reliable data is not as easy as giving out surveys that just ask people what they claim to be. It may be understandable why organizations don’t do this, but it isn’t excusable. Instead of accepting low quality, misleading polling data, we need to demand higher standards. Especially when people are trying to sell narratives based on this data.

In the next part, we cover major theological issues as they relate to religious identification and the nature of self-identification. Especially as it relates to Christianity. We need to stop pretending that the data we have is accurate in determining the religious makeup of our society. Any analysis that relies on uncritical self-identification is not to be trusted. It just isn’t based on trustworthy data. People simply cannot be trusted to self-identify accurately or honestly. To pretend otherwise shows ignorance or even manipulative behavior. Scripture even makes such things clear. The mainstream media is guilty of this kind of lazy, disingenuous “analysis” because they are propaganda outlets with a deliberate narrative they wish to push. We, on the other hand, need to see through the facade. It is not a trivial or academic matter.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

There is a common mistake I see both atheists and Christian apologists making. My personal journey of learning apologetics led me to discover this concept years ago. Specifically, my experiences with the arguments from atheists that I ran into, along with my own mistakes in dealing with them. It stems from a fundamental misrepresentation of positions made by self-proclaimed “atheists.” Though this misrepresentation is almost always unintentional, making it a mistake to assume deception, it is a misrepresentation that most Christians (including Christian apologists) do not deal with effectively nor answer properly. Largely because people do not recognize the problem in the first place. I first had an inkling of a problem when trying to wrap my head around claims of “non-belief” but had a hard time understanding how to deal with or comprehend the actual issues at the heart of it. More recently, I came to understand what is going on here and saw just how much of an issue this actually is.

Essentially, it is a serious category error that is routinely made and inadvertently reinforced by the language Christian apologists typically use. In short, the problem lies with the term “atheism,” especially when people contrast it with “Christianity.” This juxtaposition creates a misrepresentation of and a false equivalency between the belief systems in conflict. The contrast, worded this way, treats these opposing beliefs as if they are properly comparable; enabling a false portrayal of what the self-proclaimed “atheist” actually believes. However, this false portrayal is almost never deliberate (though it is opportunistic). So it is better understood as a reasoning error perpetuated by sloppy language.

What do I mean by this? Well, as the title of the article tries to hint at, atheism versus Christianity is comparing “apples to oranges”. It’s a faulty contrast that relies upon a misunderstanding of what atheism actually means and what atheists themselves actually believe. Christianity is a specific religion. One with specific and definable beliefs. Whereas atheism is a category of belief. Atheism only means no god/gods. So an atheist is one who believes there are no gods (plural) or god (singular). Hence the very word atheism derives from the prefix (“a”) meaning no or none and the suffix (“-theism”) meaning god or gods. It is not something somebody believes in specifically, but a category of belief (or worldview) that a person’s actual religion falls under. Nobody is merely an “atheist”. They are a Humanist, or a Buddhist, or a Marxist, or some other atheistic religion.

Generic atheists don’t exist. Not because people who are atheists don’t exist, but because nobody exists within a generic category by itself. Just like generic “theists” don’t exist. You have Muslims, Christians, or (religious) Jews. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity possess entirely distinct beliefs that require separate handling in most situations. Atheism is no different. Atheism is a category that contains several atheistic religions. So it is often misleading to compare atheists versus Christians because it implies that atheists somehow don’t have any religion/worldview or positive beliefs (I explain what religion means here). It allows the falsehood of “unbelief” and enables the claim that atheists have nothing to prove because they don’t believe in anything.

Christianity, for example, is a theistic religion. Theism, contrasted with atheism, means a belief in a god. Many times theism is shorthand for monotheism, the belief in one (and only one) god. While all Christians are in fact theists, who actually identifies themselves as a “theist”? Nobody! That’s because it’s a broader category that one falls under. It’s not wrong, but useless in contexts that require more specificity. This is especially true when you understand that theism can mean different, mutually exclusive, things. The god of Islam is not at all the same as the god of Christianity. Nor is the god of Sikhism at all the same as the god of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

Theistic views of god can be, and in reality are, drastically different from one another. Comparing atheism (a category of religion/worldview) to Christianity (a specific religion/worldview) is like comparing apples (a specific fruit) to vegetables (a category of food) when discussing what is nutritionally optimal. It’s a comparison that makes little sense when one of the things being compared is an entire category of food.

Christians make a mistake in comparing the two rather than comparing one of the specific religions within atheism that atheists actually adhere to. If we want to make meaningful comparisons, then it means comparing atheism to theism more broadly and generically, or something like Humanism (what most self-described “atheists” actually are) to Christianity. Another mistake is in talking about what “atheists” believe, as if atheism were itself a coherent belief system. Because atheism is a generic category, the only actual beliefs held in common by “atheists” are the rejection of god/gods. That’s it. Many other things associated with “atheists” have nothing to do with atheism itself but instead apply only to specific atheistic religions that don’t apply to other atheistic religions.

It helps to understand this by seeing what it would look like by taking an example that replaces atheist with theist. If somebody talked about how “theists” are wrong because the Koran and the Book of Mormon are error-filled and contradictory, it would be immediately obvious what the problem is. “Theists” don’t believe in the Koran; Muslims do. “Theists” don’t believe in the Book of Mormon; Mormons do. Muslims and Mormons are in fact theists, but every other theist, like Christians and Sikhs, couldn’t care less what either of those sacred books claim because Christianity rejects the Koran and Sikhs put no faith in the Book of Mormon.

When Christians talk about atheism, as if it were a belief system, they allow actual atheists to pretend as if they are neutral non-believers with no belief system. Because Christians portray atheists as sitting under a categorical umbrella that has no coherent beliefs other than believing in no gods. This is a huge mistake, and one that has allowed many self-proclaimed “atheists” to rig the game in their favor by presenting themselves as vague non-believers with no positive belief system. Which is something that only exists at an abstract, categorical level. Specific atheists are always (without exception) adherents of a more specific religion/worldview that simply exists within the broader category of atheism. This needs to be made clear and brought up in any discussion that goes beyond the extremely general debates regarding the existence of a vague and deliberately undefined god (or gods). Using language that ignores this distinction is one of the major problems in Christian apologetics and religious debates today.

This problem is a factor in the overly broad generalizations that might be true in a theoretical sense but are entirely unpersuasive when applied to actual people. This is because any individual who hears these claims and knows they don’t apply to them will have good reason to disregard what you might say. Saying that atheists are “secular”, for example, is as misleading as claiming that theists believe in the Book of Mormon. Buddhism and Confucianism are both atheistic religions because they do not believe in a god or gods. That doesn’t mean they are secular. Buddhists, Marxists, Humanists, and Jainists are all part of the same atheistic category. Yet, we cannot accurately consider Buddhism and Jainism purely secular or naturalistic.

If you want to present arguments against secularism, then do not lump “atheists” in with this argument. Because at that point you are generalizing so much that many people who legitimately fit within the category clearly do not adhere to such a belief. If you are trying to debunk arguments made by people like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, then describe them as Secular Humanists, not merely “atheists.” Dawkins and Harris do not adhere to a non-belief system that believes in nothing other than a rejection of the Christian God. They are adherents of a Humanist religion that has many specific and clear positive beliefs about the world, human nature, creation of the world and humanity, etc. Do not present them as “non-believers” as if they are empty vessels devoid of “belief”. They aren’t non-religious they are non-Christian. They are atheists, yes, but more specifically they are believers in the religion of Humanism.

Christians need to understand that the labels and wording we use are very important. Sloppy categorization and poor framing allow many problems to manifest. Notably, category errors like a contrast between the category of atheism and the specific religion of Christianity have enabled a popular narrative of “disbelief”; as opposed to the reality of these individuals having a specific religion but hiding behind a vague category. It is not a minor error but one for which we should vigilantly be alert to reframe debates more accurately.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

There are several reasons people might identify themselves as something they are not, outside of petty deception or crime. Though in this case I am not talking about criminal pursuits where deception is part and parcel. Nor instances like adultery, or seduction attempts, where a man might pretend to be a “CEO” in order to exaggerate his accomplishments and wealth to impress a woman enough to sleep with him. Nor am I talking about spy-craft, in which impersonation is essential to evade detection and to obtain critical information on behalf of another organization or nation. Even though these cases still highlight the problem of relying on another person’s self-identification alone as trustworthy. Instead, my focus is on an issue I described in part 1 regarding people’s religious or worldview adherence.

The problem is the fact that we recognize deception as something all people are capable of, yet we still make determinations on things that are based on self-identification alone when it comes to the religious identities that they have. If you look at the Pew Research data, you would see just how unreliable this is. People answer the surveys in ways that are nonsensical and clearly not to be trusted. Yet this data is relied upon to make pronouncements like we find in this article. Supposedly, “The United States remains home to more Christians than any other country in the world. By 2070, those demographics could see a shift and the religion that has long been the country’s majority denomination could become a minority, according to a new study.” According to the article and the study, the “religiously unaffiliated” are projected to be near or exceed the number of Christians in the US by 2070.

Yet this premise is completely bogus. The basis for this data is merely people checking a box from a list of “religions” that they claim to be. That’s it. We are supposed to trust how people are identifying here, despite the data showing extremely serious problems in these identifications. Like those we covered in part 1 (atheists who believe in God? Christians who don’t believe in heaven?). This is such a flawed and almost worthless analysis as to make much of it pointless. There are a lot of problems if people are actually using such data to get an understanding of social trends without recognizing the unreliability of the premises behind these data.

First, we need to recognize that people make claims about their religious identity for many reasons. A lot of these reasons create powerful incentives to lie or misrepresent your religion. There is also the fact that people’s understanding of what “religion” actually means is usually shallow, inconsistent, and even outright self-serving (especially those who think “religion” is a bad thing). On top of the large number of people who have superficial or just plain false understandings of the religions in question. A perfect example of that would be the high number of “Buddhists” who believe there is a heaven. This confusion likely stems from ignorant Westerners who confuse nirvana with heaven, overlook the Buddhist cycle of reincarnation, and are simply drawn to new-age concepts. They clearly have a very confused understanding of the actual religion of Buddhism.

Let’s cover the reasons people have for claiming a religious identity that make self-identification such an immense problem:

1) Status

Social status is an enormously influential reason people would claim a religious identity, regardless of the truth. That is because we all want acceptance to a greater or lesser degree. Nobody is immune to the desire to be perceived in certain ways by their peers. Identities, including religious identities, all have a major impact on how you will be perceived by others. The social context in which you exist determines what kind of perception you will have. All religions are seen differently by different people and different cultures at various times. Some will give you more social acceptance, whereas others will create more conflict. Identifying as a Muslim in modern-day Saudi Arabia is something that would provide more social acceptance (ignoring all other factors) whereas identifying as an Orthodox Jew will do the exact opposite.

Therefore, we all feel pressure to identify with a certain religious identity, even to the point of lying about it, in order to change our status in our social circles and broader culture. The people who pursue social conformity, popularity, and general social acceptance as a priority are the ones most likely to claim religious identities, regardless of what they believe and the life they live, simply to gain status among their peers. This is one of the primary factors behind the band-wagoners who either claim to be a religion that is gaining in popularity within their culture or who downplay or outright reject a former religious identity, if it declines in popularity.

This is one of the most important reasons to reject the narrative about a former “Christian majority” in the study mentioned prior. This is because Christianity is increasingly perceived negatively in our society, which pressures individuals to minimize or abandon their faith. Conversely, in the past, Christianity held a much higher social standing and enjoyed favorable public opinion, encouraging people to identify as Christian. A better explanation of the data is that Christianity is fading in popularity, and those who used to have an incentive to claim to be Christian no longer have the social status gain that it used to provide. In reality, they were never Christian to begin with.

2) Ignorance

A lack of understanding of what a religion actually is and believes can lead to all kinds of ignorant religious identification. Especially when the lack of understanding stems from willful ignorance. One particularly relevant example of this (pulling from the Pew data) is the fact that 59% of self-identified Catholics believe that abortion should be “legal in all/most cases” and 74% who believe that homosexuality “should be accepted.” This phenomenon is not unique to Catholics (self-identified Catholics, that is) but is found in those who claim to be “evangelical Protestants” where 33% support abortion and 36% support the acceptance of homosexuality. What this really shows is a complete ignorance of Christianity. This is just a part of it, too. It is not unique to these specific beliefs in Christianity.

That self-identified Catholics support abortion is a particular problem here because, unlike Christianity more broadly, the Roman Catholic Church has very specific, official (and well-documented) doctrines on topics like abortion. The RCC is unequivocally opposed to abortion. To have such a high number of people outright defying the beliefs that the RCC holds shows how many self-identified Catholics are ignorant of their own religion. It is nothing more than a nominal identity that has no reflection on their individual beliefs.

Just review the fact that nearly 10% of atheists (which exceeds the margin of error) claim a belief in a god or universal spirit (it is unclear what “universal spirit” could mean). To call oneself an atheist while maintaining the belief in a god is a contradiction in the most direct sense. Many would dispute what Christianity is and teaches, claiming that one can be a Christian and still hold to the belief that homosexuality is morally acceptable. One cannot (by definition) hold to a belief in a god and be an atheist. Yet again, we have obvious ignorance of religious identification on display. Showing just how often people claim a religious identity while having little or no understanding of that religion.

3) Clout

When people are trying to make an argument that deals with right/wrong, public policy, or even overt religious disagreements, they might attempt to root their position in their religious position. For example, Hillary Clinton wrote an article in the Atlantic decrying the “MAGA movement” for its “war on empathy.” About a third of the way into this article she describes herself as a Christian and that her opposition to this “war on empathy” is because of her faith, what her reading of the Bible teaches her, and what she believes Jesus preached while on earth. She does this because she is using her religious self-identification in order to give some kind of authority to her claim. She is implying that “real” Christians (like her) reject the MAGA arguments that assert toxic empathy. She does this because she knows if she presented herself as an atheist, Humanist, Hindu, or some other religious identification, she wouldn’t have nearly as much clout behind her claims.

This happens all the time when people try to make their arguments more authoritative because of what religion they claim to have. Ex-Christians do this when attempting to debunk Christianity. They want you to think that they have “been there, done that” but escaped the falsehoods of Christianity once they “rationally” examined their faith. No doubt, some were truly Christian before they fell away from the faith. At the same time, many were never actually Christian to begin with. Not in any genuine sense. They think that having Christian parents meant they inherited Christianity, as if it were a hereditary thing like Jewish ethnicity. Or that being forced by their parents to go to a church when they were children meant they were actually Christian. They do this because they can present themselves as someone who “escaped” a cult or someone who isn’t motivated by hatred of Christians or Christianity.

This happens with Christians too. Those who claim to be ex-atheists or adherents of a previous religion will talk about that in a way that is meant to provide some sort of authority on the faults of their prior religion. That isn’t to say people are always manipulative or lying when they do this. The reality is that this situation creates an incentive to boost an individual’s perceived authority, leading people to be dishonest or to distort the truth. Individuals posing as “ex-Satanists” may exploit this to appeal to Christian groups excessively worried about Satanic infiltration. Furthermore, people might use their nominal religious identity for calculated self-interest, manipulating the public to support their political views, as exemplified by Hillary Clinton in the aforementioned article.

4) Self-interest/preservation

There is the fact that people will claim a religious identity solely out of self-interest, including self-preservation. One might seek to avoid embarrassment or association with unpleasant things, or conversely, protect themselves from persecution and physical harm, even up to death. The reasoning can be extremely petty and selfish, such as taking on a religious identification out of contrarian spite. Such as many Distrephists who “convert” to Islam out of spite against the perceived connection between the Republican party and Christianity or “solidarity” with Palestinians. Alternatively, to obtain welfare or charity contingent upon a specific religious identity. People can also do this to preserve their careers, specific relationships, or circles of friends.

This reasoning increases in relevance whenever there are more perks or dangers for having a specific perceived religious identity. Countries with significant persecution of specific religious identities reward hiding a persecuted religious identity and reward claiming majority religious identification. Especially if there are material benefits, such as favored legal status, that coincide with some religious status.

5) Compromise/Syncretism

Finally, we have a factor that is not really a single reason per se, but more of a combination of other influences that exist in opposition to one another. Compromise is best understood as conflicting pressures upon a person that result in a corrupted or hybrid belief system. With syncretism as the resulting hybrid belief system from significant enough compromise. The reason this is important to take into consideration is that syncretism creates a new religion. Yet, people’s language often struggles to convey this due to various factors. Especially when those who compromise have every incentive to still identify as the religion that is being compromised.

All religions comprise several individual beliefs that are interrelated. Followers of a religion do not, and cannot, hold to only a few of them. There are exceptions, since some religions deliberately reject the concept of truth or require consistency. Unitarian Universalism is an example of this kind of exception. Other than religions that are inherently universalist or perennialist, most religions contain truth claims that are mutually exclusive with other religions. The beliefs within the religion are interlocking parts of a whole, or individual threads woven together. Some are more essential than others.

When people disregard this or start accepting beliefs that exist in conflict with a claimed religious identification, they compromise. If they do this enough, they can no longer accurately represent their prior religion. No matter what they claim as self-identification. Take the example of someone who claims to be Christian, yet believes in reincarnation, rejects Christ’s divinity in favor of the “Christ Consciousness”, still believes in “god” and in heaven, and appeals to Scripture selectively while rejecting inerrancy. This is a perfect example of syncretism. Their significant compromise rejects essential Christian doctrines and views, so they cannot be considered Christian. They also accept things that don’t really make any sense when you understand what Neo-paganism is. Making them inconsistent and weak Neo-pagans, holding to Christian principles that contradict the Neo-pagan principles they pull from.

They believe in a hybrid religion that is not Christianity; it merely pulls from Christianity in a syncretistic fashion. Though they identify as Christian and will claim to revere the “Christ”, their compromise has caused them to abandon meaningful and correct identification as Christian. They exist in a conflicted state with both the initially identified and compromised religion and the other religion they compromise with. Syncretism is inherently illogical and contradictory. The prevalence of compromise and syncretism, where individuals conform to competing (even mutually exclusive and hostile) influences by diluting their religious convictions, is a frequent basis for questioning the legitimacy of self-identification.

All told, many different reasons exist why we cannot trust self-identification. People cannot be trusted, through identification alone, to actually have the identity they claim to have. We cannot categorize people through such methods because of the inherent untrustworthiness of human beings. One can identify as whatever one wants, but that clearly doesn’t make it true. The obvious reason so many organizations lean on this extremely flawed heuristic for the religious categorization of people in society is because it is a lot harder to identify people otherwise. It would require a lot more than a handful of questions. You would have to put them to the test, and you would have to more carefully and properly define religion itself and the religions we name, in order to do so. However, despite the inherent difficulty of doing so, this isn’t an excuse to rely on data that is entirely unreliable. If we only measured sentiment and religious self-identification, this would help us understand people’s views. However, we shouldn’t use this measurement as a proxy for accurate religious identity. Next, we will cover the difficulties and problems that exist for religious identification. Highlighting how problematic it would be to do so, but with an eye to the fact that it is possible to get more accurate data by approaching things through more objective measures.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

Make no mistake. I would disagree with Tara Burton on quite a number of issues. Especially as someone who was a former staff writer on religion for Vox. There are a lot of perspectives she has that I take issue with in her book. Yet, despite all the caveats that I would give, this book was both insightful and very well written. In fact, this book stands out as one of the most interesting and useful books I have read in quite a while. Ms. Burton is unquestionably a talented and knowledgeable writer. Readers can gain much from Strange Rites, and this book, unlike others I considered merely useful, proved to be an outright enjoyable read.

The book lays out an extremely important thesis. One that Christians would do well to understand. Specifically, Ms. Burton describes just how religious the “non-religious” really are. Throughout the book, she astutely points out the religious beliefs of the so-called “religious nones” (those who claim to have no religion on surveys) and the “spiritual but not religious.” This is extremely important to understand because it highlights the falseness of the “non-believer” and “non-religious” designations. Tangentially, the book also showcases the very serious issues that arise with religious self-identification.

Now, the overarching explanation that Ms. Burton provides in her book is that we are seeing a resurgence of what she describes as “intuitional religions” that emphasize emotion and feelings over institutions and creeds (p. 33). More specifically, she covers what she describes as the “Remixed.” These religiously remixed comprise three major categories: the “spiritual but not religious”, the “faithful nones” (those who claim no religious affiliation but believe in religious principles), and the “religious hybrids” (pp. 18-24). The religious hybrids are syncretists, those who claim religious affiliation but who reject core beliefs of their claimed religious affiliation and who subscribe to religious beliefs contrary to the religion they claim. An example given is that of someone who claims to be a Christian and also claims to believe in reincarnation.

Importantly, if you take these categories together, all the Remixed, you find they make up around 50% of the population. Though it’s most likely more than that. Especially since Ms. Burton was pulling data from Pew Research and PRRI surveys prior to 2020. If you examine the more recent data, there has been an upward trend of people who would fall into the Remixed category (as she defines it). Thankfully, the author takes an approach here that does not simply rely on self-identification (a serious problem). Instead; she dives much deeper into the nature of their belief systems. She perceptively infers the inconsistent nature of these self-designations throughout the book. Which is partly where she came up with the category of Remixed.

Another interesting insight here has to do with the three significant religions she covers that fit within the Remixed. The first is the religion of social justice, which the author clearly describes as a religion: “Social justice is a religion, and — as with any other religion — its potency as a source of meaning and its potential for zealotry are naturally correlated” (p. 177). The second is the religion of Transhumanism, or what she often calls techno-utopianism. Techno-utopians are described as “gleefully libertarian, comfortably capitalist, and deeply antiauthoritarian” (p. 189) who can be found to be “basically worship[ing] human potential and its technological manifestations, including artificial intelligence” (p. 191). Chapter 8, “Two Doctrines for a Godless World”, covers both of these religions. The third religion is something she calls “atavism” and covers in chapter 9, “Twilight of the Chads.” For all intents and purposes, atavism is a religion in which she lumps the non-Christian “alt-right,” the red-pill movement, MGTOW (men going their own way), Jordan Peterson followers, and other identitarian conservative movements together as a traditionalist, Darwinian, and reactionary Neo-conservative Remixed religion.

Ms. Burton’s descriptions of the social justice religion are particularly fascinating. Though I would actually describe it as the religion of Distrephism since the “social justice” label is just not an accurate designation. She spends most of the book describing it, just using different labels and a different frame of understanding. Ms. Burton covers several extremely important aspects of Distrephism that are key to comprehending it. One is the self-deification and hedonism inherent in it. Distrephists, drawing heavily from New Thought and the concept of “manifestation,” believe their thoughts and beliefs can change the world in a mystical way. Their beliefs possess a neo-pagan quality, elevating the self to a divine status. Making the “authentic self” the sovereign that determines right and wrong. Distrephists (whom she often just calls Remixed) “see the self as an autonomous being, the self’s desires as fundamentally good, and societal and sexual repression as not just undesirable but actively evil” (p. 57). She also explains that Distrephists believe “we have to listen to ourselves, to behave authentically, in tune with what our intuition dictates” (p. 94). The text provides many examples, especially in chapters 5, “Wellness Culture and the Rebirth of New Thought” and 7, “The New Perfectionism: Our Sexual Utopias”, demonstrating how the Remixed overall, and Distrephists in particular, elevate the self to deity status.

Another important aspect of Distrephism is its connection to the occult. In chapter 6, appropriately titled “The Magic Resistance”, Ms. Burton covers just how closely linked belief in magic or other neo-pagan “energies” and “powers” are with the religion of Distrephism. The neo-pagan nature of Distrephism, alongside its identity as a religion of antithesis, is highlighted. This is what I describe as antithetical revisionism (see the article linked above on Distrephism). Distrephism has a “contemporary occultism” that offers “a powerful spiritual counterpoint to organized religion, one that’s not merely orthogonal to traditional Christianity but actively opposed to it” (pp. 116-117). In fact, her book begins by talking about a neo-pagan theater event, Sleep No More (by British theater company Punchdrunk) that captures the essence of modern Distrephism: “Whether you were a superfan or just a Halloween reveler, these parties were, like the religious festivals they mimicked, rituals: ways of marking the passing of time through a carnival atmosphere of transcendence. They were invitations, not just to enter this world of witchcraft and magic that one British theater company had, via Shakespeare, created, but also to celebrate a very particular, if informally codified, worldview. A worldview that celebrated not evil, exactly, but subversion. A wholesale f*** you to repression, to patriarchy, to rules, to order, to the petty offices of men” (p. 7).

Strange Rites gives an excellent overview of Distrephism with the caveat that Ms. Burton’s interpretation of this religion is not something I always agree with. I frame it differently and categorize it more formally. That said, Tara Burton’s book here was an essential source for my research. I was able to extract quite a bit of useful information from her insights into this religion and the others within the Remixed. She does a fantastic job of exposing the religious beliefs and attitudes of those who often claim to be “irreligious.” She covers the difficulty in defining religion (p. 19) and shortly explains some of the better definitions of what a religion is (pp. 26-29). Specifically, Peter Berger’s definition: “Berger characterizes religion as the way in which humans internalize an orderly picture of the world and how we should act within it” (p. 28). This definition is actually very close to mine, though much less fleshed out. It helps us understand the nonsensical nature of the claim to be “non-religious” by many people in our society. People who actually adhere to one of the three major religions under the Remixed category. Just in ignorance of their own religious behavior. The Remixed is a category that is probably best understood as one consisting of different types of humanism and/or neo-paganism.

The weakest part of the book is going to be Ms. Burton’s chapter (chapter 9) on what she repeatedly calls “atavism.” This is because she paints a picture with overly broad strokes and falls into the trap that many people do when describing the so-called “far-right.” For example, she draws far too many connections between Jordan Peterson’s work and other ethno-nationalist identitarians. She hangs her understanding of issues on the false left/right dichotomy and therefore groups “far” or “alt” right groups merely because they can be labeled “right-wing” in some fashion. Giving the false impression that they are more ideologically aligned than they really are. Especially when she directly links fascism with atavism overall.

Without a doubt, she is pointing to a very serious problem within Christ-less conservative movements like MGTOW or the red-pill movement. Such as their Darwinian, nihilistic, and reactionary approach to modern social issues. She accurately points out that the broader pattern is a hostile overreaction to Distrephism. In particular, the problems brought about by feminism and the rejection of biological reality derived from blank slate views of human nature. Hence the emphasis on ethnic nationalism, strength, hierarchy, and Darwinian processes. However, this general trend is not as coherent as she thinks, and the attempt to link it to Jordan Peterson is weak, along with the attempt to link it to the broader “right” overall. This is a typical tactic that results from holding to the false left/right spectrum view of politics. Those who are unified by a common enemy, in this case social justice/Distrephism, are only related in so far as they have a common enemy. Not because they are necessarily aligned ideologically or actually work together. This atavism is far more fractured and divergent than the other two religions she describes.

What is useful about her description of atavism and of Transhumanism is the fact that it reinforces the thesis that the supposed irreligious are in fact very religious after all. Godless forms of conservatism aren’t non-religious; they just have a Remixed religion. Nor are the “left” or “progressives” irreligious either. The idea that our society has become less religious over time is outright false. What has happened instead is a shift in the majority religion. Christianity has declined, through complete apostasy or syncretism, and is being replaced by neo-pagan and humanist religions of various types. Strange Rites calls them Remixed, and though I would classify things differently, it is an accurate depiction.

Overall, Ms. Burton’s book is something I would actually consider to be essential reading for Christians. It requires some critical evaluation and an understanding of where the author is coming from first, though. She describes herself as a Christian in her other writings, but I personally doubt the validity of this self-identification. Her views do not seem to reflect orthodox Christianity. They echo “progressive” viewpoints instead. I would consider her a syncretist, mixing Distrephism and pseudo-Christianity at best.

Regardless of this, she is a very talented and engaging writer. She is much fairer in her treatment than many would otherwise be. Her book shows good sourcing, and she avoids exaggerated claims and unwarranted hyperbole. Even when it is obvious where she stands on an issue. Which means a lot of what she says is extremely useful when taken in context. Strange Rites is one of the best books one can read to shed light on the modern religious makeup of our society. It cuts through the nonsense of “irreligion” and reveals the highly religious nature of the “unbelievers” in our midst. If you want to understand the rise of Neo-paganism and Humanism in America, then you need to read Tara Burton’s Strange Rites.

- Victoria Gratiae -

I am an affiliate of Bookshop.org and I will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase using the affiliate link below. Consider doing so to support my work!

Buy Here!

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

In January 2026, Hillary Clinton wrote an article in the Atlantic where she attempts to defend “empathy” against what she describes as a “hard-right” campaign against empathy. This presumed-to-be nefarious campaign supposedly “threatens to pave the way for an extreme vision of Christian nationalism that seeks to replace democracy with theocracy in America.” The partisan and hyperbolic nature of the article is rather transparent, almost absurdly so. However, I would like to cover a few aspects of this article that are of particular interest and that I believe will be largely ignored. Mostly, I am going to ignore Hillary’s attacks on Trump and approach the issue of empathy from a different angle. Plenty of conservative commentators will deal with those topics, and I don’t feel it is worth defending Trump here. At least directly.

Mrs. Clinton says this about Trump: “No one mistakes him for a devout Christian or a person of faith or morality.” Which, I would actually say, is (mostly) correct. I have never viewed Donald Trump as Christian. Nor even a particularly moral or upright individual. Even though a majority of what Democrats and the mainstream media accuse Trump of are slanderous lies motivated by envy and hatred, there is little doubt that Trump is an extremely flawed individual. If he were a “person of faith,” that faith would not be Christianity.

However, there is a huge flaw in Mrs. Clinton’s assessment here. It reeks of hypocrisy and self-righteousness. While she is right in pointing out the lack of genuine Christian faith in Donald Trump, she exposes her disingenuity in claiming Christian faith of her own. Fact is, despite whatever she might claim, Mrs. Clinton is not a Christian in anything other than a purely nominal way. While she can call herself whatever she wants, the “fruit” of her life exposes this label as nothing more than a facade. She’s using a Christian identity, not because it’s authentic, but to pander to a specific audience and falsely appear morally virtuous. She is justifying herself and then relying on the complacency or ignorance of others to take her self-identification seriously. Self-identification is notoriously unreliable. Mrs. Clinton’s attempt to present a Christian identity is manipulative and deceitful.

The useful aspect of this article is that her actions in falsely claiming to be Christian are very typical of pseudo-Christian Distrephists (Distrephism is what I name the “woke” religion). It also reflects how many mainstream institutions (especially the media) deceptively dilute the meaning of “Christian.” The purpose of this dilution of the term “Christian” is to enable non-Christians the ability to claim social cachet in describing themselves as Christian. Mrs. Clinton does that here. She describes herself as Christian so that she can pretend to have some kind of authority in making her moral claims. If she described herself as an atheist, Humanist, or any other non-Christian religion, her claims of morality would lose considerable amounts of social persuasion and credibility. Especially when her argument hinges on her accusations that “MAGA,” and other “hard-right” Christian influencers, are directly opposing supposed Christian values like empathy and “neighborism.”

It is extremely important to understand what Mrs. Clinton describes Christians as and what their role should be, but we must first consider the context in which she presents these ideas. The context of this article was the killing of Alex Pretti and Renee Good by federal agents in Minnesota. Both were protestors who took part in the statewide protests against the large-scale (and highly controversial) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the state. For all intents and purposes, the broader context is around immigration/illegal immigration as a whole. The shootings were just the triggering event for the article. According to her, these ICE operations are just jack-booted tyranny based on “President Trump’s abuse of power and disregard for the Constitution.” It was a “moral rot at the heart of Trump’s MAGA movement” and the “goal of surging heavily armed forces into blue states such as Minnesota and Maine” is because “Trump and his allies believe that the more inhumane the treatment, the more likely it is to spread fear.”

I will not cover these shootings in depth, as that is not the point I want to focus on. The shootings were extremely polarizing and have been used for propaganda by both Democrats and Republicans. Others have covered these in more depth, and I won’t repeat that here. What is more important is to understand the fact that Mrs. Clinton is using these shootings, and the broader issue of immigration and illegal immigration, as a framing device for her opposition to what she perceives as a “war against empathy.” While clearly politically motivated—given her past failed candidacy against Donald Trump and her firm entrenchment in the Democratic political party—I want to put all that aside. Even though I question her motivations in writing this article.

With this context in mind, Mrs. Clinton accuses “MAGA” or “hard-right” influencers of championing cruelty and demonizing empathy. This is presented as a concern for her, as she quotes, “Jesus tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves and help those in need. ‘Do this and you will live,’ he says. Not in Donald Trump’s America.” She appeals to this supposed love for our neighbor when she portrays the protests against ICE, “the people of Minnesota have responded with an approach you could call “’neighborism’—a commitment to protecting the people around you, no matter who they are or where they came from. To my ears, that’s as Christian a value as it gets” (emphasis mine).

In reality, this manipulative plea for sympathy is a perfect example of the “toxic empathy” she so passionately criticizes. We know this is the case because her depiction of Christianity is superficial, distorted, and saccharine. Furthermore, its application is highly selective, aligning conveniently with prevalent Democratic talking points and, most significantly, the Distrephist religion. The religion which currently dominates both the Democrat Party and our mainstream institutions (academia in particular). Hillary Clinton is an extremely partisan individual, and it’s hard to disentangle the calculated political motivations from that which is genuine. However, in this case it is easier than normal.

I don’t actually doubt that she believes in what she is saying about empathy. Even when it has a manipulative and self-justifying character to it. What makes it so manipulative is the fact that she simultaneously misrepresents Christianity, creating a shallow, generically “good” pseudo-Christianity, while propping herself up as an exemplar of the values of this pseudo-Christianity she created. Take her claim that “neighborism” is “as Christian a value as it gets.” This just isn’t true. For one, she is describing protestors and activists who are protecting and shielding illegal immigrants. She even says that this “neighborism” is “a commitment to protecting the people around you, no matter who they are or where they came from.” The problem here is that Mrs. Clinton seems to have forgotten another essential Christian teaching. Let’s look at Romans 13,

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Romans 13:1-7 (CSB)

Mrs. Clinton is pretending as if her so-called “neighborism” excuses people from law-abiding behavior. She knows this is about illegal immigration, even though she uses the deceptive euphemism “undocumented immigrants.” She says as much when she says that “Other recent presidents, managed to deport millions of undocumented immigrants without turning American cities into battlegrounds or making a show of keeping children in cages.” Ignoring the outright falsehood of “making a show of keeping children in cages” it is pretty clear she knows what this entire issue is about. Does neighborism mean violating Christian teachings on the necessity of law-abiding behavior? People who come to the United States illegally are breaking the law. Christian love for the neighbor does not, and has never meant, shielding criminal behavior. There isn’t a single example in Scripture of love for our neighbor involving lawlessness.

It isn’t just the misapplication of empathy for lawlessness that is a problem here, either. Mrs. Clinton clarifies that this supposed empathy is also why we must accept both homosexuality and abortion. Her pro-abortion stance is unquestionable. So is her promotion of Distrephism overall (her campaign site contains her stances on major social issues). In response to Allie Beth Stuckey’s book Toxic Empathy (a book I intend on reviewing when I get the chance) she says the following:

“This is exactly the kind of mainstream Christian view that enrages Allie Beth Stuckey. The author of Toxic Empathy, who styles herself a voice for Christian women, has more than a million followers on social media. In between lifestyle pitter-patter and her demonization of IVF treatments, she warns women not to listen to their soft hearts. This commissar of MAGA morality targets other evangelicals whose empathy, she warns, has left them open to manipulation. Maybe they recognize the humanity of an undocumented immigrant family and decide that mass deportation has gone too far. Or they make space in their heart for a young rape survivor forced to carry a pregnancy to term and start questioning the wisdom and morality of total abortion bans. It’s all toxic to Stuckey.” (emphasis mine)

Her contemptuous and self-righteous tone comes through loud and clear. As does her attempt at emotional blackmail by her reference to a “young rape survivor” who is “forced to carry a pregnancy to term.”

First, Mrs. Clinton is being rather duplicitous about abortion. She talks about rape, but the fact is Hillary Clinton supports abortion regardless. So she is using rape only to tug at the heartstrings and misrepresent her much more permissive stance on abortion. She presented it as if she would be okay with a “compromise” of a non-total abortion ban that had exceptions for rape. Mrs. Clinton is notorious for her non-answers and unwillingness to give straightforward answers about her stances. So it is hard to tell, and given her general stance in favor of abortion, using rape is simply a dishonest misrepresentation. Especially when you consider the fact that the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape.

Second, abortion is simply murder. Christianity holds that life begins at conception. There isn’t a reason to believe there is any support for abortion in Scripture. Nor can you appeal to tradition, given the Roman Catholic Church’s official opposition to abortion. Pay close attention to the extremely selective and hypocritical attempt at framing this as an issue with empathy. She complains about total abortion bans and how they affect young rape survivors who become pregnant. Who actually believes we shouldn’t have empathy for them? That isn’t the issue here. What about empathy for the child? She completely ignores this aspect. Somehow her empathy for one person means a complete lack of empathy for the other person involved. Like the child she is trying to guilt you into murdering for the sake of another person! Where is the empathy for this child? The only person responsible for this evil is the rapist. Justice demands we punish the guilty. Not punish the innocent. The child had nothing to do with the actions of his/her father.

Not only is this not a Christian stance, this is not empathetic either. At least not without extreme hypocrisy and manipulative shifting of guilt and responsibility. In fact, at the end of the article she states, “When I see brutality like we’ve all witnessed in Minnesota, I ask myself: Can I really find empathy for people who insist on dehumanizing others?” (emphasis in original). Such a statement is rather rich coming from a person who consistently dehumanizes the unborn in order to rationalize one of the most selfish actions you can take. It is statements like these that are so lacking in self-awareness and rank hypocrisy that put her claims about Christianity and empathy in serious doubt.

The hollowness of Mrs. Clinton self-proclaimed faith is only made clearer when we consider the “faith” tradition she comes from. She describes herself as part of the United Methodist Church. A church she laments the “split by deep disagreements over gay rights.” This split created a “separate, less inclusive church.” Such language doesn’t come from Christianity. It comes from a religion entirely separate from and antithetical to Christianity. It just deceives people by using the name and title of Christian. This is exactly what Scripture describes as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” (See Matthew 7:15). Mrs. Clinton explains the politically convenient nature of her pseudo-Christianity, “Democrats need a big tent that welcomes people of faith into our coalition, even if we don’t agree on every issue. Don’t forget, liberal Christianity has a long and storied history. Progressive people of faith have led virtually every major social movement. Think of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. marching with Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel in Selma. That’s a spirit we should work to reclaim.”

Make no mistake “liberal Christianity” is an oxymoron. No such thing exists. It is a counterfeit that denies the very essence of Christianity. So-called “liberal Christianity” rejects anything about Christianity that conflicts with the modern neo-pagan, humanist zeitgeist of our age. That is why Mrs. Clinton’s “Christianity” can support lawlessness, support the dehumanizing murder of the unborn, the defilement of marriage through homosexuality, and any other cause championed by the political left. The main takeaway from this article is that we need to question whenever someone presumes the identity of “Christian” in an attempt to guilt us into following their lead on social matters. Hillary Clinton is not a Christian; she has no moral authority, nor is there any value in anything she says about Christianity; except insofar as it exposes how wolves attempt to look like sheep.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

When it comes to the matter of self-identification, and the problems that stem from it, we can point to one particular issue to see why it is an issue. The challenge of transgenderism. This belief relies on making a person’s biological sex a matter of self-identification. Transgenderism has been exposed as extremely irrational largely because of a nonsensical belief that being a man or a woman is something that you can simply “identify” as, regardless of biological reality.

The problem is obvious: our bodies are fundamentally male or female. Without exception. Even the rare cases of intersex conditions don’t actually validate the views of transgenderism. This is because they are not ever fully hermaphroditic in the way transgender advocates present them as. Besides the fact that intersex conditions are extremely rare, making them somewhat irrelevant, the majority of cases involve individuals where it can be determined that they are clearly a specific sex. They just have features or body parts of the opposite sex, which are deformed or non-functional.

You never have a perfect hybrid of male and female sexual characteristics. An examination of these conditions reveals the person’s actual sex, and then the genetic, developmental, or birth defects that led to stunted or partial features of the opposite sex. Making it an obvious physical defect. Just as Down syndrome creates physiological and mental issues as a person grows up. There may be some cases where we don’t really know, but not only are these so rare as to be useless as a point of validation for transgenderism, they only mean we don’t know all the details. Fact is, how many of those who claim to be transgender actually have a legitimate intersex condition? We all know the answer is close to zero.

However, there is another problem that goes far beyond this specific instance of self-identification. It is the fact that self-identification as a whole is extremely unreliable, yet it is constantly used to make determinations of what people are. Completely ignoring all the issues that exist in such lazy categorization. Examining the Pew Research data on the religious landscape of the United States provides a great example of this. I pulled data from the Religious Landscape Study, focusing on the 2023/2024 survey, to showcase this.

We get indicators of this overall problem by looking at a handful of the results. For example, we are told that 62% of US adults identify as Christian. However, this identification has some rather serious complications. First, we are categorizing people as Christians only through self-identification. The sole factor that makes a person a “Christian” here is having selected either Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mormon, or Orthodox on the question “What is your present religion, if any?” This means a person is treated as a “Christian” merely because they claim to be a Christian.

All we have to do is look at the beliefs held by these self-identified “Christians” to get a glimpse of why this is problematic. Of these so-called Christians, 2% “Do not believe in God or universal spirit.” Which makes absolutely no sense. Putting aside the issue of what a “universal spirit” is, and how it muddies the question, you have people claiming to be Christian while simultaneously stating they don’t believe in God. Even the loosest definition of Christianity would include a belief in God. Besides this group, you also have a full 24% who state that they believe in God or a “universal spirit” but aren’t absolutely certain. While people have doubts, it’s questionable what answering this way means. It is hard to accurately call someone a Christian when one is uncertain about God’s existence. Even if we give the benefit of the doubt to people who may experience some kind of crisis of faith or struggle.

However, it gets more absurd than this. According to this same survey, you have 1% of atheists who claim to believe in God’ or a universal spirit’ with absolute certainty! You have a full 7% who claim to believe in God, just without being absolutely certain. The very basis of atheism is to reject the belief in a god or gods, yet somehow a significant portion of self-proclaimed atheists state a belief in God. If you look at the survey data from 2014 and 2007, this percentage is much higher. In 2007 there were 8% who claimed to have certainty in their belief in God and 13% claimed less than certain belief in God. How do you have almost 1 out of 5 self-proclaimed atheists saying they believe in God?

The contradictions and nonsense found in this survey are plentiful. It isn’t restricted to Christians or atheists either. Clearly, people are giving answers in ways that make little sense. Or at least they make no sense if we assume they are telling the truth. Here is just a sample of the examples that can be found that cast doubt on the validity of these self-identifications.

• 14% of “Christians” claiming the Bible is “Not too/Not at all important.”

• 8% of “Christians” saying that “The natural world is all there is.”

• 5% of atheists saying they believe in heaven and 4% who say they believe in hell.

• 7% of “Muslims” say they do not believe in God.

• 25% of Muslims who say the Bible is “extremely/very important” (not the Koran but the Bible).

• And of course, a full 52% of Buddhists who say they believe in heaven (Not reincarnation or nirvana, but heaven).

What the data indicate is the fact that people are not honest about their self-identification. An atheist who believes in God is an impossibility. Either they are making a mistake in the survey, are ignorant of what any of this means, or are answering falsely on purpose.

We can’t rule out the possibility of people deliberately providing troll responses because of anti-social contrarianism. But this cannot explain all the discrepancies we find in the data. It cannot explain everything we see. Because these nonsensical outcomes exist in all kinds of polls. They are not restricted to this study, nor just on matters of religious identification.

Very importantly, it does not explain why 57% of “Christians” say that homosexuality “should be accepted.” That one particular conundrum should be a hint of the truth. What is really going on is an exposé of the unreliability of self-identifying labels. We are seeing deliberate obfuscation and manipulation of labels for some dishonest purpose. Yet, despite the provably unreliable nature of this data, we still blindly use it. Social analysis is made upon this garbage data and conclusions are drawn even when it is trivial to see how inaccurate it is.

People are ignorantly and falsely claiming a label for various reasons. Which is a phenomenon of serious importance. This initial article is the first in a multi-part essay where I describe the significant problems of self-identification. Especially when it is relied upon as a method of evaluating religious belief and categorization. This serves as the introduction to the problem. Next, we will cover the reasons a person might want to label themselves as something they really aren’t.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

This second part of our series on specific terms (see part 1 here) will cover the concept of religion. A concept that has been notoriously difficult to define and thus far is one that has not had an acceptable, consistently applicable explication. This problem goes back decades and has caused considerable problems in our society. It is actually one of the best examples of why definitions matter because of the impact that it has on our culture. Which include significant legal ramifications. It is far more than just an academic exercise. It literally plays a role in the way our laws are formed and in the narratives people perpetuate in our country.

However, the solution to this is not something that can be covered briefly. While I have what I am certain solves the problem of defining religion properly, it will be fully covered in more detail later. Here I will instead provide a working definition and a shortened summary. Many of my claims rest upon this definition, and it is necessary to make a shortened form accessible before I have the ability to complete the book-length treatment it actually deserves.

The fact that people heavily abuse and twist the term “religion” for self-interested purposes creates the primary need for a starting definition. One of the most obvious examples comes from a very common myth about “non-religion.” There is no such thing as a person without religion. There are no “non-believers” devoid of a religious belief system. Definitions of religion that create the false distinction between “religious” people and “non-religious” people need to be countered. As this creates an entirely fictitious portrayal of belief systems and leads to a distorted view of the nature of religious beliefs. The main purpose for people using this idea is to create a false impression of neutrality or objectivity. Rather than being an accurate description of their own supposedly “non-religious” beliefs.

That said, what exactly is religion? The short answer is the following: a systematic expression of behavior, meaning, and identity rooted in a worldview and centered on the answers to the question “How do I live my life relative to ultimate truth?” A religion is inextricably tied to an individual’s worldview, both informing and being informed by it. Religions have a structure, but a person’s individual religion need not be coherent or well thought out. Religions represent the outward expression, in a more fleshed-out form, of a worldview. These outward expressions all point towards the transcendent or the “ultimate truth” from which the religious question derives.

Religions can be understood as the other side of the coin of a person’s worldview. A worldview represents the basic understanding and epistemological foundation that someone has in interpreting the world. A person’s religion is built upon that worldview, and becomes the way a person lives in the world. Religions and worldviews tie together inextricably, mutually affecting each other. They are essential for all sentient beings living in this universe and are therefore inescapable.

The longer answer to this question is that religion consists of three major parts. These three parts, each having subcomponents, are the following:

Religious Structure

The entirety of a religious system of conduct and subsequent beliefs. Ultimately, in response to the question, “How do I live my life relative to ultimate truth?” The religious structure is effectively equivalent to what we would call a religion as a whole. “Ultimate truth” is here equivalent to the transcendent and makes up the ultimate (or final) source of truth or answers to the questions asked in both a person’s worldview and the religious principles (mentioned below).

Religious Principles

The answers and principles held in response to the above question. The questions are broken down into three primary categories, followed by four secondary categories. Each of which is listed below. Notably, the categories deal with concepts that are interrelated, and the lines between them can be blurred. Some questions or beliefs can overlap and fit multiple categories simultaneously. The primary categories represent the broad concepts covering everything religion deals with at a fundamental level. It constitutes the three primary types of questions or beliefs that deal with the ultimate question of “How do I live my life relative to ultimate truth?” The secondary categories are the more specific questions and beliefs that start answering the question and describe what exactly the “ultimate truth” is and the way in which the questions made under the primary categories get answered. Religious principles are what underlie religious expression and provide the reasoning for the specific methods of religious expression. It is what links the outwardly visible actions and behavior in religious expression with the fundamental question asked in the religious structure.

Primary Categories:

Teleology
One of the first primary categories of religious principles. This concerns questions of purpose, design, or meaning. Including when answers to this are negative answers (as in a belief that something or person has no purpose, design, or meaning). It also concerns the ultimate end “goal” of things. Regardless of whether this end state/goal is something intentional (such as an intelligent design by a creator) or is merely the inevitable end state (such as the entropic death state of the universe in a purposeless universe without a creator). Including the self, other people, humanity as a whole, groups of people, animals, inanimate objects, the world, or the entirety of the universe. There are various questions that are asked in this regard:
- What is the meaning of life?
- What is my individual purpose?
- Where do I belong in relation to others?
- What is it that decides my purpose?
- Do beings or this world showcase a kind of intelligent design?

Sociology
The primary category of Religious Principles that concerns a person’s relationship with others. Questions of belonging, role, or identity relative to others fit under this category. This would include questions such as the following:
- Who am I relative to others?
- Where do I fit within my society, community, and personal relationships?
- What determines my status and perception by others?
- What roles do I have in regards to my actions towards others?

Normativity
The primary category of religious principles that deal with questions of what “should” be. It regards concepts of “right” or “wrong” and dictates what the ideal state is. Whether that is “correct” or “moral” behavior, what the “right” method of organizing society is, or what the ideal world looks like. The questions involved in this principle include the following:
- How should I behave?
- How should I relate to and interact with others?
- How should this world be?
- How should society be structured?
- Who or what is the authority(ies) that determine what is right versus what is wrong?

Secondary Categories:

Sacred
The sacred is that which has been “set apart” or given significance beyond an object’s purely material or pragmatic properties. This, in so far as it points to, is a part of, or is the source of the transcendent/ultimate truth. Regardless of how the ultimate truth or transcendent is understood. Where the sacred is located and what it points to is one major factor in differentiating different religions and worldviews. For example, Paganism/Neo-paganism refers to religions that locate the sacred within the world (including pantheistic views with the world or universe itself as sacred). Whereas theistic religions locate the sacred as ultimately existing outside the world.

Social Status
A religion’s view of belonging/status has to do with social hierarchy, perception of moral virtue, ranking, and how a person relates to others. It also deals with how restitution and social standing are supposed to be handled in society. In particular, this deals with questions of how a person is perceived in their society or community and the standing or moral authority they have. It involves questions about the roles a person has regarding others and the hierarchy they are involved in. This concept intimately ties to the secondary religious principle of identity, but it revolves around public standing and relationships or perceptions with/from others. Examples include what people often understand as cultures of honor/shame, guilt/innocence, victimhood, or dignity.

Identity
Identity is concerned with who and what one is. It deals with the roles that one has, the nature of self, and how we view ourselves. A person has multiple and overlapping identities that exist in a hierarchy. With higher-order or primary identities having the most importance and secondary, tertiary, quaternary (etc.) identities having decreasing levels of importance and/or permanence. Identities can be immutable or mutable to various degrees.

Problematics
Problematics refers to the understanding of potential problems or issues in this world. They are the obstacles or barriers between us and the transcendent or ideal state as understood via the primary religious principle of normativity. This is the understanding of “evil”, “wrongdoing”, or “sin.” Even if understood as a merely “undesired” state. While normativity asks the question of what things “should” be, problematics is the question of what differentiates this existence from how it “should” be. This includes the “null” answer from a belief that our existence is in fact currently in an ideal state or that no such desired state exists.

Moral Code
The moral code refers to questions of proper behavior and right actions. It is the answer to questions about what a person “should” or “should not” be doing in various situations.

Religious Expression

The outward expression of a religion. This is what one sees and understands as a person’s religion. The previous aspects are the structure that underlies a religion. Religious expression is the praxis of the worldview and religious principles that make up this structure. It consists of the four categories listed below.

Sacraments
Sacraments are sacred acts, objects, and times which have been granted significance through a connection to, and ultimately point towards, what the religion and worldview hold as the transcendent or ultimate truth. There are three main types of sacraments: sacred acts (such as rituals), sacred objects, and sacred times (which include holy days, celebrations, and festivals)

Remediation
The things and actions one takes to remediate the issues highlighted by the religion’s problematics, which act as barriers to the desired end state defined by the transcendent or ultimate truth.

Symbolism
The symbols used to express, communicate, and visually represent the transcendent or ultimate truth or aspects of the religion

Community
The part of religious expression that involves community involvement and a status within that community. Even if the sense of community is minimal or theoretical (a solitary individual). Whereas social status involves the understanding of social ranking and perception, this concerns the actual structure and makeup of the community itself.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

That I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak. (Colossians 4:4 KJV)

This article is the first in a series in which I will cover several terms and concepts to give them a well-defined structure. This rationale arises from the failure of many Christians and conservatives to adequately categorize numerous belief systems that exist today. The problematic nature of this issue is greater than people might think. It is not just an abstract academic matter nor merely theoretical navel-gazing. It has real, significant impact on the way people think and act. This issue spills out into many other resulting problems that we see in society. Such as the problem of self-identification, or the framing of religion and supposed “non-religion.” Category confusion and misrepresentation of concepts have real-world implications. It is not just a philosophical problem.

The very first word to cover is a neologism that I coined. Specifically, the term Distrephism (pronounced diss-TREFF-fiz-uhm; with the emphasis on the second syllable), which refers to a religion/worldview and the term Distrephist (pronounced diss-TREFF-ist; using the same pronunciation rules as Distrephism) as the term that refers to, either, a follower of the religion of Distrephism or is an adjective describing something that adheres to the Distrephist religion. This new word aims to name and encapsulate a modern religion that has been extremely poorly defined up to this point. Prior terms used to describe this belief system were very flawed and often gave misleading impressions.

My upcoming book (stay tuned!) provides a fuller explanation of what Distrephism is, because fully understanding what it encompasses is not simple to describe. I give a shortened version here because I intend to use this word in my writings, instead of the common terminology found in most media. Terminology that comes from a failure to understand the phenomenon of Distrephism.

Need for a New Term

What religion am I talking about? Well, the short answer is that Distrephism is the religion and worldview (both terms to be covered in future articles of this series) that we associate with “social justice”, “woke”, “progressivism”, “cultural Marxism”, or other terms like “leftism” and “liberal.” I coined Distrephism because none of these terms are very good, nor very accurate. Woke is a rather silly pejorative that has gained wide acceptance but is not a satisfactory label. Especially when used to describe “wokeism,” which is a rather contorted term based on an already poorly defined concept. One thing those on the political left point out accurately is that “woke” is ambiguous and ill-defined. With far too many people using it pejoratively or sycophantically for it to be something to take seriously (making it a problem for whoever uses it, regardless of what they believe).

One could also say the same about terms such as social justice, cultural Marxism, or leftism. These terms are either misguided or so poorly defined as to have use only in casual conversation. These terms lack serious rigor and are prone to abuse. Thus, people either use them in propaganda or they lead to serious category confusion in more serious works. Especially when people use these terms interchangeably but attach different meanings to them. Creating equivocation errors in their writing.

Distrephism Overview

So, what does Distrephism mean then? This subject warrants a more in-depth discussion than I can provide here, but I am offering a summary so that my use of the term is clear to readers who haven’t encountered my forthcoming book on the subject. I define it here:

Distrephism is a neo-pagan form of humanism. Distrephism is both a religion and a worldview. It has roots in the Age of Enlightenment and the late 1800s, but officially started during the 1960s in Western academia, where it eventually coalesced into a fuller form publicly known as “woke” during the 2010s. Distrephism has two primary aspects, Neo-paganism and Humanism, along with five secondary aspects that uniquely distinguish it from other religions. These five secondary aspects are Antithetical Revisionism, Intersectional Identitarianism, Hedonism, Extrinsic Evil, and Victimhood Culture. Taken together the two primary and five secondary aspects serve as the full delineation of Distrephism as a religion and worldview. Uniquely distinguishing it from other religions with carefully defined criteria for what it is and what it is not.

First and foremost, one must understand Distrephism as a religion and a worldview. Which sounds like I’m repeating myself, but the importance of this is not to be understated. Distrephism is not simply a political movement, generic secularism, nor mere “left-wing” activism. It is a fusion of humanism and neo-paganism with the five mentioned secondary aspects being the defining traits of this specific religion (though they aren’t the same, religion and worldview are two sides of the same coin; so I often just use one of them to imply both). A summary of these secondary aspects is given below; I will clarify them elsewhere and provide a link to an article explaining the different parts of Distrephism more fully following each section (as they are written).

Antithetical Revisionism

Antithetical revisionism refers to the fact that Distrephism is a religion that centers an emphasis on opposing and contradicting an “antithesis.” This means that Distrephism is defined at least as much, if not more, by its opposition to something than by that which it positively supports. The religion of Distrephism has opposition to Christianity (and the Western worldview) as the antithesis around which it revolves. Distrephism isn’t the only religion with this trait, but it is primarily a reactionary belief system with an inherent adversarial stance. This makes Distrephism prone to heavy revisionism of any stances or narratives held by its antithesis (Christianity). One can think of Distrephism as an “anti-Christianity” where Distrephism takes a position directly opposing whatever the Christian worldview holds to be true. One of the primary roots of this is the belief in postmodern power dynamics and the “oppressor versus oppressed” framing of all issues.

Intersectional Identitarianism

Intersectional identitarianism is the secondary aspect of Distrephism comprising a unique form of identitarianism. Identitarianism, in this context, signifies a perspective where ethnic, racial, physical, or tribal identities are deemed most crucial for culture, social belonging, and civil governance. People often refer to this as “identity politics,” yet it’s a mistake to consider it solely a political perspective rather than part of a comprehensive religion. The Distrephist variant focuses on different identities than other forms of identitarianism do. Specifically, those derived from intersectionality theory and the perceived victim identities of Distrephism. It is also the most complex of all the secondary aspects of Distrephism, because of the inherent complexity and multifaceted nature of identity. Intersectional identitarianism comprises 5 major components: racialism, standpoint epistemology, uniform egalitarianism, the blank slate, and the noble savage.

The 5 sub-components together make up the unique way that Distrephism approaches identity in intersectional identitarianism. Racialism refers to their adherence to racial identities and the framing of issues through a racial lens (Critical Race Theory). Standpoint epistemology is the stance that Distrephists take towards knowledge itself. Where they believe that people have unique qualifications and authority based solely on their standpoint. The appeal to “lived experience” as an authority is an example of standpoint epistemology. Uniform egalitarianism refers to the Distrephist belief in equality of outcome and a complete leveling of humanity, rejecting merit and meaningful biological distinctions (such as between male and female). The blank slate refers to the belief that human nature is like a blank slate and that what we are, even our gender/sex, is primarily (or even solely) a social construct. Humans have no inbuilt human nature; society shapes them almost entirely. The noble savage is the belief that people are inherently good in a “natural” state and that without the large structures of society, humans would live in utopian, free societies. It is the idea that “indigenous” people like the Native Americans lived in collectivist and libertine societies without social oppression.

Hedonism

Hedonism is a simpler aspect that does not have a unique definition and refers to the belief that pleasure or “happiness” is the highest good in life. It is a devotion to sensual or psychological pleasure. Frequently understood as the pursuit of personal “fulfillment,” where such fulfillment means the satisfaction of one’s personal desires as the ultimate purpose and goal of life.

Extrinsic Evil

Extrinsic evil is also not unique to Distrephism but refers to the belief whereby people externalize all evil, or sources of problems, onto outside entities. It is not merely the belief that people are innately good, but one that views all “evil” as coming from an external, often systematic, source. It is a perspective within the problematics of a religion. This creates the rejection of personal responsibility within Distrephism because the problems that occur, such as crime, racism, and disparate outcomes, are not from individuals or specific cultures but from outside enemies. The clearest example of this is the belief that disparate outcomes can only come from things like discrimination or systemic racism.

Victimhood Culture

Within Distrephism, victimhood culture heavily dictates a person’s social status through their perceived victimization and “underdog” position. This is because Distrephism gives higher moral standing to those who have a perceived victim status. A person receives more moral weight as they accumulate “marginalized”, “minority”, or “oppressed” identities. Conversely, the more “privilege” a person has, the less moral standing they have. So, a hierarchy of victimhood exists. With the most “marginalized” on one end and the most “privileged” on the other end. This victim hierarchy is rooted in intersectionality and all the other secondary aspects of Distrephism.

The last point to make here about Distrephism is that it is meant to be distinguished from the false left/right “spectrum.” Distrephism is a religion that dominates the political left, such as the Democratic Party, but it is not to be confused as being the same as so-called “leftism.” That is because the left/right groupings are nothing more than political alliances. These alliances exist only because of the two-party system in the United States. Do not confuse a specific religion with the larger political alliance that its followers exist within. Even if they have a majority position within that party. Distrephism is only the current majority religion found within the Democratic Party and the political left (the left and the Democratic Party are really the same thing). This cannot be said to have been the case 100 years ago, nor will it likely be the case 100 years from now. This is yet another reason for the creation of a new term. Because this new term is not based upon the inaccurate depiction of left/right as an ideological spectrum.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.

Subscribe now

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. (Proverbs 26:4 NKJV)

At some point, you will have run across articles (or videos) that talk about “non-believers.” You will also likely have run into a person who identifies themself as a “non-believer.” They might use other terms instead, like atheist, unbeliever, skeptic, or freethinker. They may claim to be “non-religious” and therefore not a “believer” in anything. For example, an article from Salon, titled “6 kinds of atheists and non-believers in America,” explains that “unlike religious believers, non-believers have no authorities, no hierarchies, no theology, nothing for us to look at to determine exactly who these people are.”

A substantial problem exists with this ridiculous description. Understand just how self-serving and impossible this description is. While attempting to describe those who identify as having “no religion,” we are told we have nothing to look at to determine who they are. How exactly does this article even exist then? How do you have polls that categorize supposed “non-believers” if nothing exists to determine who they are? The real reason this confusion exists is that the category they created, this supposed concept of “non-believers,” is total nonsense.

Whenever we talk about “belief” we are using relative terminology. If I came up to you and told you that, “you just need to believe!” and then simply walked off, you would be confused. And it would be obvious why. Unless you are so shallow and devoid of thinking as to take an empty statement at face value, you would wonder, “believe in what?” That’s because nobody simply “believes” in a generic, contextless sense. We always believe in something. There are no “believers” there are believers in something.

This applies to so-called non-believers. Such a label is a worthless thing to say by itself, because everyone is a non-believer in something. The reason this ends up being so self-serving as a label is because it gives the impression that supposed non-believers are nothing more than neutral, free-floating observers devoid of bias. This is wrong, even disingenuous. To categorize people this way is very misleading. What is a non-believer? What exactly do they “non-believe” in? The Salon article insinuates they are non-believers in “religion.” Except we run into a very similar problem. One that becomes apparent if you were to ask them to define religion. Any definition they give is bound to be inconsistent, if not outright self-interested.

What makes this such a problem is that it allows people to portray themselves as neutral and purely rational, when they most certainly are not. It’s an extremely vain and self-righteous portrayal of themselves. It is part of how Humanists, which most of these supposed “non-believers” really are, get away with an image of a purely objective logic machine that only ever “follows the evidence.” This is far from the truth, and Christians would do well to call out this self-serving framing.

Atheists, so-called non-believers, and the self-designated “non-religious” are not being honest about who and what they really are. That’s why the author of the aforementioned article found such difficulty in understanding who the people from this category are. The category exists only because people were given a limited list of answers to a question that they subsequently answered in ignorance. Specifically, the ignorance that comes from the prevalent myth in Western society of “irreligion.” They’re not non-believers; they simply don’t subscribe to Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, or other widely recognized (and labeled) religions. None of these people are devoid of belief. They most certainly have a religion; they are just unaware of it because they do not grasp the actual definition of religion and instead adopt prevailing ignorance concerning religious belief systems (see my own definition of religion here).

Just take the quote from the Salon article at the beginning. It is outright false to say that non-believers have no authorities or hierarchies. What do you think communism entails? No hierarchies? Who are they kidding? What non-believing society or group exists with no hierarchy whatsoever? What about the appeals to “science” and “experts”? If science is something you can appeal to as an authoritative source of truth, then it is an authority! So-called non-believers have turned scientists into modern-day priests, with them having an authority all their own.

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot appeal to someone or something and then pretend you have no authority. The author seems to conflate divine revelation and sacred writings with authority overall. As if people needed something they consider the infallible word of God to be seen as a valid authority. That is not how it works. Anytime you hear a “non-believer” make any claim that is justified with “science says...” or “experts say...” then you have an authority.

Non-believers, devoid of context, don’t exist. To even present yourself as such is to be deceptive about your own belief system. Everybody, without exception, believes in something and has a religion they adhere to. Regardless of how well thought through or understood that religion is. Categorizing people as “non-believers” based on a credulous negation of “belief” is merely a tactic for self-proclaimed atheists/non-believers to shirk the responsibility of justifying their own beliefs, while expecting others to do so. Christians should stop playing this game and call out the framing of belief without context. We need to stop using language that gives this impression. We never deal with non-believers; we deal with non-Christians of a nearly infinite variety. They are never objective logic machines; they are followers of a false religion that requires understanding in order to deal with properly.

- Victoria Gratiae -