Post-modernism, however, can breed cynicism and hopelessness. Peruse social media long enough, and you’ll encounter the “LOL nothing matters” crowd, who have taken post-modern thinking to the extreme. Others, having found post-modernism wanting, are searching once again for meaning. Some have returned to faith, as Ryan Burge has noted.

Dutch thinkers Timotheus Vermeulen & Robin van den Akker theorize that society is not fully in a post-modern age, nor has it completely left the modern age. They describe society as oscillating between modern and post-modern, or “metamodern.” This seems valid. The enthusiastic proponents of AI certainly have the technological optimism of the modernists, while AI skeptics are more post-modern. They question the sweeping narrative of the enthusiasts, while others point out the dangers of losing our humanity, as Pope Leo XIV outlines in his Encyclical Letter, Manifica Humanitas, which we might categorize as metamodern, since the Pope does not fully reject AI, as some skeptics do.

Scandinavian thinkers, Daniel Görtz and Emil Ejner Friis, writing under the name “Hanzi Freinacht” have developed upon the idea of metamodernism, saying:

Metamodern philosophy enters the scene only once the Internet and the social media have become truly dominant factors in people’s lives and when many of us no longer partake directly in the production and distribution of industrial goods. It is a worldview which combines the modern faith in progress with the postmodern critique. What you get then, is a view of reality in which people are on a long, complex developmental journey towards greater complexity and existential depth. The metamodern philosophy is a whole world of ideas and suppositions that are counter-intuitive to modern and postmodern people alike. But since both the modern and postmodern philosophies are increasingly outdated, these metamodern ideas are set to develop, take hold, and spread. One day, they may become as dominant as the modern philosophy is today.

Let’s bring this back to our present political situation and assume the Metamodernists are correct. How do we, as Christians, deal with metamodern thinking? Consider this sentence from Hanzi Freinacht above: “people are on a long, complex developmental journey towards greater complexity and existential depth.”

The search for existential depth is not a rejection of faith in favor of science (modernism), nor a rejection of a sweeping explanation of reality (post-modernism). It provides Christians with an opportunity to make our case that the absolute truth of scripture and the Good News of the Gospels is the existential depth people are searching for.

This, in turn, requires us to live authentically. To demonstrate, not through words, Tweets, or YouTube videos, but to demonstrate the authenticity of Christianity in our entire lives. For the metamodernist, strong preaching and snappy videos aren’t enough. Is it real? Do we believe it enough to live it? This is what the metamodernist is asking. We are flawed human beings. We cannot, under our own strength, be perfect like Jesus, but living authentically doesn’t require perfection, and the grace of God is ever present - praise the Lord for that!

Subscribe now

Francis Schaeffer describes three avenues of achieving desired ends in the American system: political, legal, and what he calls “Christian alternatives.” The political is, of course, winning elections, using political power to pass legislation, etc. Legal action is sometimes necessary to block or overturn unjust laws. The power of the Judiciary is enormous in our time, as the Supreme Court almost always has the final say on major political issues.

The Christian alternative is Schaeffer’s term for what I call living authentically in this essay. All three (political, legal, and the Christian alternative) are necessary to change our political system. Schaeffer writes:

“Now I must quickly say there are going to be people who say, ‘don’t use the political and legal means, just show the Christian alternatives.” That is absolutely utopian in a fallen world, and specifically in a world such as ours at the present moment. But while it is utopian to say, just use the Christian alternatives and do not use the political and legal means, on the other hand, it is also incomplete and wrong only to use the legal and political means without showing forth the Christian alternatives. It is incomplete in conviction and will be incomplete in results; and it is wrong to the reality of the God we say we are obeying.” “A Christian Manifesto” pp 133-134

Aaron Renn’s 2024 book “Life in the Negative World” makes the case that we no longer live in a society where Christianity is the dominant cultural influence. This seems self-evident, but he goes on to say American Christians often behave as if this fact is not indeed a fact. The book is well worth your time, as he urges Christians to adapt to the new reality as a means of remaining true to our beliefs and becoming more effective witnesses to the Christian alternative. One recommendation he offers is that we must embrace countercultural living.

In his book Center Church, Tim Keller took H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and culture model and turned it into four main patterns of doing church that he labeled transformation, relevance, counterculture, and two kingdoms.

The bulk of evangelicalism is either transformation oriented (culture war) or relevance oriented (seeker sensitivity, cultural engagement). My argument is that there needs to be a rebalancing away from transformation and relevance towards being a counterculture.

That is, the evangelical church needs to spend much more time self-consciously and intentionally stewarding the strength and health of its own community.

Evangelicalism is very internally weak in my view. Churches are often shallow, etc. This augurs for an increase in internal focus vs. external focus.

I agree with Renn here. We must, as Schaeffer argues above, fight necessary battles. We must engage culturally, but we must also embrace the countercultural nature of Christianity. We are not the cool kids, and we never will be (if we ever were). Jesus was certainly countercultural. His Disciples embraced that and turned the world upside down. Christian history is filled with countercultural Saints who changed the world for the better and advanced the Kingdom of God. Why shouldn’t we do the same?

I hope that my recent essays have convinced you that Love, Accountability, Meekness, and Purpose are essential to demonstrating authentic Christianity in the political realm - they are most certainly counter-cultural as Renn urges. Our political system is desperate for something better, and our metamodern world is crying out for it.

Subscribe now

On Peach Pundit The Podcast this week, I was joined by two longtime friends as we reviewed the Primary Election results. Republican turnout across the state was lower than Democratic turnout by a sizeable amount. Several polls showed higher than usual numbers of respondents saying they were undecided, even the weekend before election day. Perhaps the perception of a more negative campaign season led to higher rates of undecided voters, resulting in lower Republican turnout. Perhaps.

Subscribe now

In the days following the Primary Election, I noticed a number of Twitter users professionally connected to political campaigns being snarky in the extreme about the success of their candidate and the lack of success of other candidates. They forgot that supporters of failed candidates will return to the polls on June 16th to vote again, and disrespecting their first choice could impact who their second choice ends up being.

This snarkiness culminated in one of the most spectacular campaign-related social media blunders I’ve ever seen.

I’m not going to mention names or describe the content of what was posted. My Georgia readers likely know what took place. The candidate fired the person responsible and claims to have made other staffing and procedural changes to ensure nothing like this happens again.

As the drama unfolded, my comments drew the ire of a podcaster from Florida who, as it turns out, works for the Georgia candidate in question. Like many political “tough guys,” he has a Christian Cross in his profile image, even as he used profanity to put me in my place in defense of his rather crude sexual remarks. Dozens of his fans took the time to inform me that my comments were a distraction from the real issues at stake and indeed evidence of my physical, mental, and spiritual weakness. According to one Tweeter, Jesus found the whole episode hilarious and was definitely on the podcaster’s side.

Sadly, several of these folks, like their podcaster hero, proclaim faith in Jesus in their Twitter bios.

I’m not here to cast stones at these folks for their specific comments towards me. We all fall short of the principles we aspire to live by, and social media tends to bring out the worst in people. Nor do I bring this up to make you feel sorry for me. I’ve been around politics long enough to have developed thick skin.

I want to put this into context with the things I’ve been writing about lately: love, accountability, meekness, and purpose. Believe me, the words I’ve written were ringing in my ears as this episode unfolded. You can’t be the “LAMP guy” and cast all that aside the moment someone confronts you. I hope and pray I stayed true to my own principles.

I’ve been re-reading some of Francis Schaefer’s works lately. I mentioned Schaeffer in my last post on purpose. Schaefer, through a series of books, developed the thought that as America has shifted away from the belief in absolutes in life, i.e., the absolute truth that Christ is Lord over grace and nature, we fell below what he termed “the line of despair.” In other words, by rejecting Christ’s Lordship over grace and nature, we struggle to find what does not exist outside of Christ: a unified explanation of life. This results in a division between rationality and faith.

Falling below the line of despair, mankind engage in “acts of desperation in order to find meaning, namely, he accepts a mysticism which gives an illusion of unity to the whole.1”

For far too many, politics has become their form of mysticism.

This is not new.

We crave assurance that the world still makes sense. When traditional sources of meaning weaken (i.e. faith communities, civic organizations, neighborhood ties), politics rushes in to fill the void.

Sociologist Robert Bellah saw this coming, warning in 1967 that the United States had formed a “civil religion” that told us who we are and what we should revere. Philosopher Eric Voegelin cautioned that when transcendence is lost, ideology becomes a substitute for salvation. Lesslie Newbigin observed that modern societies expect the state to provide not only security, but purpose.

Today, that trend is accelerating. Elections feel existential. Politicians speak in messianic terms.

Ordinary disagreements take on the heat of heresy.

Nowhere is this more true than in the heat of a runoff election for the United States Senate. But winning the Twitter battle, or even winning the election, will not give us what we are searching for, nor will it “save America.” I return to Schaeffer:

“Christianity has the opportunity, therefore, to say clearly that its answer has the very thing modern man has despaired of – the unity of thought. It provides a unified answer for the whole of life. True, man has to renounce his rationalism; but then, on the basis of what can be discussed, he has the possibility of recovering his rationality” (Escape From Reason, 262).

I’m not arguing that the 2026 elections are not important; they are. I’m not arguing that electing a candidate who will fight for what is right isn’t important; it is. But when we lose sight of the absolute truth that Christ is Lord over all, even how we engage on Twitter in support of a political candidate we support, we slip below the line of despair and put our hope in a mysticism that cannot give us what we seek. Let us resist that temptation. Christ Jesus, help me resist that temptation!

I once heard a story about how the singer Sonny Bono, of “Sonny and Cher” fame, decided to run for Mayor of Palm Springs, CA. Bono had a restaurant in town and wanted a bigger sign, but City Hall said “No.” Frustrated by what he thought was the “cliquey” nature of local government, he decided it would be easier to be in charge of City Hall than fight it, so he ran for Mayor and won. Later, Bono served in Congress until his untimely death in a skiing accident in 1998.

During my almost thirty years in politics, I’ve encountered thousands of political activists and politicians who were motivated to be involved for hundreds of different reasons. Some, like Sonny Bono, became involved because of a national or local issue that bothered them. Some were inspired because of a charismatic political leader. Others wanted to protect their way of life, while others wanted to ensure a better future for their children and grandchildren. All of these reasons are noble and important for one to become involved in politics, whether as an activist or someone seeking elected office. However, I have met those involved in politics who couldn’t clearly articulate a reason for their involvement.

Subscribe now

The desire for power motivates some individuals to seek political office for their own personal gain. Power can be intoxicating. As Brian Klass concluded in his book “Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us,” power attracts corrupt people, and even people with good intentions can become corrupted by a corrupt system. During my time in elected office, I’ve met corrupt people and well-intentioned people who, over time, became distracted from their purpose and did things they never dreamed they’d do. Assuming you are a person with good intentions, how can you protect yourself from being corrupted by the system? By having a clearly defined purpose, and as I wrote previously, by being held accountable.

The great thing is, as a Christian, we can know our purpose. The prophet Micah tells us in chapter six, verse eight:

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

Add to this the Great Commission for a fuller picture of our purpose:

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” - Matthew 18:20

Thus, our purpose as Christians is the following: act justly, love mercy, walk humbly with God, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to obey Jesus’ commands. That’s a mouthful.

My pastor distills this down to the phrase “to know God, and make him known.”

If we believe this to be true, then how does this apply to politics? Is our activity in the political realm separate from our Christian purpose? Let me introduce you to Francis A. Schaeffer.

It is not only true that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally. In this sense there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual.

Related to this, it seems to me, is the fact that many Christians do not mean what I mean when I say Christianity is true, or Truth. They are Christians and they believe in, let us say, the truth of creation, the truth of the virgin birth, the truth of Christ’s miracles, Christ’s substitutionary death, and His coming again. But they stop there with these and other individual truths.

Schaeffer goes on:

Christianity is not just a series of truths but Truth - Truth about all of reality. And the holding to that Truth intellectually - and then in some poor way living upon that Truth, the Truth of what is - brings forth not only certain personal results, but also governmental and legal results.1

Schaeffer is not arguing for a form of “Christian Nationalism,” a debate I will set aside for now. Instead, Schaeffer argues that, as Christians, we cannot claim to be Christians without believing that it requires us to be “living upon that Truth” in every aspect of our lives, including our political activity. Our belief in the truth of Christianity must consume every aspect of our lives. This is our purpose.

I could go on, but I think this is a good place to stop for now.

As always, thanks for reading and for your feedback as I wrestle with what all this means.

Other posts in this series:

• Now What Do We Do?

• Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and the Need for a Better Way.

• Start With Love.

• Be Accountable.

• Meekness Is Not Weakness. It’s Needed Now More Than Ever.

• More On Meekness.

Subscribe now

It’s a very interesting thought about meekness that builds on the idea that meekness is also strength under control (which I mentioned briefly yesterday).

I set out to find the source of Peterson's claim that our understanding of meekness has shifted greatly since the Bible was written. As Peterson says in the video, meekness used to be understood as “those who have swords, know how to use them, but keep them sheathed.”

Subscribe now

Now here’s where it gets interesting and how the Bible flies in the face of our modern perception of meekness. In Matthew 5:5, as Jesus is teaching his Sermon on the Mount, he says, “Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth.” (KJV). Jesus is quoting Psalm 37:11, which says, “But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.”

The Gospel of Matthew, written in Greek, uses the word πραΰς (praus) for meek. Scholars define the word praus as gentle, humble, not given to anger, and self-restrained (emphasis mine).

The book of Psalms was written in Hebrew, and the Hebrew word for meek used in Psalm 37:11 is עֲנָוִים (anawim), meaning the humble, the lowly, those who trust God rather than asserting oneself (emphasis mine).

The context of Psalm 37 is about how, even though the wicked prosper, we should maintain our trust in God. Thus, the Psalmist is urging us to be people who don’t seek to seize power through force or aggression, but rather to surrender our strength to God to be used by Him for the advancement of His will and His kingdom. This, of course, flies directly in the face of how people say political power should be obtained and exercised today.

Imagine how much better things would be if we;

• developed strength, morally, mentally, and spiritually,

• trusted God and exercised self-restraint,

• surrendered our strength to God in order to,

• build His kingdom, rather than our own fleeting political career.

Wow.

I’m grateful to the reader who pointed me in this direction.

Share

Other posts in the L.A.M.P. series:

Love

Accountability

Meekness

Purpose (coming soon).

Thanks for reading, and thank you for the feedback you’ve sent my way. Please, keep it coming.

Matthew Henry, in his book “Meekness and Quietness of Spirit,” says that a meek person does not respond to every provocation but instead keeps a calm spirit at all times. Imagine someone in politics today refusing to respond to a provocation? It rarely, if ever, happens, and the result is ever-escalating tensions and one side becoming more extreme in response to the other side's extremism. Back and forth we go. It’s exhausting, destructive, and leaves us angrier than ever.

Subscribe now

Meekness is not weakness, in spite of what the conventional wisdom is at the moment. Meekness is not cowardice, is not indifferent to evil or injustice, and never waters down the truth. Instead, as the Apostle Paul wrote in Galatians 5:22-23, meekness is one of the fruits of the spirit - evidence that we are a Christian. If I call myself a Christian, and people don’t see evidence of meekness in our lives, why would they believe I am who I claim to be?

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; against such there is no law.” - Galatians 5:22-23 KJV

“Don’t you know what time it is?” some may ask. Jesus knew what time it was, and he modeled what meekness truly is. He had sharp words for the hypocritical religious leaders of his day, but those barbs pointed people toward eternal truths and were not merely meant to score points for his political party. When we fire off an angry social media post at our political foes, are we doing what Jesus did? Are we calling people back to their true purpose and pointing people to the truth?

“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” Matthew 11:28-29 KJV

Aren’t we “heavy laden” with all the vitriol in politics these days? Is it solving any of the problems our country faces, or is it just grinding against our souls? Perhaps we should learn from Jesus. If we did learn from him, we would find rest for our souls, put the anger and vitriol aside, and love our neighbors once again. Maybe even begin to work together for the good of our nation.

Share

“I do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of this state and of the United States and, on all questions and measures which may come before me, I will so conduct myself, as will, in my judgment, be most conducive to the interests and prosperity of this state.” - Oath of Office for members of the Georgia Legislature.

When a newly elected member of the Georgia Legislature takes the oath of office, that elected official places their hand on the Bible, raises their right hand, and states the oath listed above. In addition, members of the Georgia Legislature vote to approve the rules that govern their Chamber (House or Senate). These rules describe how the Chamber will conduct its business and also how each member must behave. There are also unwritten rules in the form of traditions and conventions that can be as important as the published rules. Violations of these rules can result in minor penalties and, in rare cases, the expulsion of the offending member from the Legislature. Violations of the unwritten rules can render a Legislator ineffective. For the House or the Senate to accomplish what the citizens expect, Legislators must be held accountable to these rules, and a formal structure exists to ensure they are followed.

Subscribe now

One of the major complaints people have about politicians is that they don’t do what they say they will do. They run for office, saying they will remain true to the principles they claim to hold, but once elected, forget all about it and go with the flow. Some elected officials have made the claim, “There’s a difference between campaigning and governing.” That’s true in the sense that unrealistic campaign claims are just that, unrealistic. But the feeling the public has that once elected, people forget who they are is, sadly, true in many instances. That being said, none of the elected officials I served with wanted to abandon their principles or break their promises. How then can one stay true to their core beliefs while still being an effective elected official? In addition to following the rules of whatever office one holds, I believe it is about being accountable to your conscience and your constituents, and about being surrounded by a “band of brothers and sisters” you trust and who will hold you accountable.

Your Conscience.

Each of us, whether a religious person or not, has a conscience. There are certain things human beings instinctively know are right and wrong. When we listen to our conscience, it remains strong; repeatedly ignoring it, however, deadens it. It becomes, as the Apostle Paul wrote, as if our conscience has been “seared with a hot iron.” (1 Timothy 4:2).

As elected officials or people active in politics, it is crucial that we keep our consciences strong. More from the Apostle Paul’s first letter to his mentee, Timothy:

Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. 1 Timothy 1:18-19

Believe me when I say, holding elected office is not for the person with a weak conscience. You are pulled in a thousand different directions by people who want you to advance their interests, and will try to destroy you if you disagree. If your conscience is weak, or through repeatedly ignoring it, your conscience becomes “seared with a hot iron,” you might find yourself involved in things you never dreamed of, to your ruin and the ruin of your family and reputation. There are countless examples of this in our politics these days. For your own sake, please hold on to your faith and a good conscience.

Your Constituents.

Elected Officials must be accountable to their constituents. This doesn’t mean that you only ever do what is popular. Remember your conscience and your expertise. As Edmund Burke famously said, a representative “owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” There’s a fine line here because elections are perhaps the ultimate accountability for elected officials. Stray too far from popular opinion, and your service to the people will end. Be careful then, what promises you make on the campaign trail!

Joseph Overton of the Macinac Center for Public Policy developed what became known as the “Overton Window.” Overton’s window states that on any given issue, there is a range of solutions acceptable to the public. Politicians must stay within this window for their ideas to gain traction (and ultimately be reelected). Those with ideas outside the window take heart, the window on most issues shifts over time. Needless to say, we see this play out in politics on a regular basis. Ideas once thought absurd are now extremely popular, and politicians who promote outlandish solutions are sometimes booted from office.

In my experience, constituents will accept that you have a different opinion from theirs if you can explain your position and demonstrate that you arrived at it honestly, not because you caved to political pressure.

Band of Brothers & Sisters.

During my time in the Georgia Legislature, I was blessed to have a group of colleagues who shared my worldview and approach to serving in public office. We would often gather in our office suite, affectionately known as “The 504” (since it was room 504 of the Coverdell Legislative Office Building), and debate various political issues and bills under consideration. Sometimes our debates got heated, and sometimes we disagreed and ended up voting differently on a particular bill. But the great thing about this little band of brothers and sisters was that we held each other accountable. I lost count of how many times we asked each other, “Would you, as a candidate for office, have voted for this bill?” In other words, are you staying true to who you told the voters you would be? Obviously, a Legislator must be willing to change his or her mind based on new information, and as a Legislator, I learned new things every day, but my friends and I did our best to hold true to the principles that motivated us to run for office in the first place. We weren’t perfect, nobody is, and there are several votes I wish I could go back and change, words I wish I could take back, and actions I would love to undo, but in the main, I stayed true. I couldn’t have done it without the accountability those men and women provided.

An elected official, I’m convinced, must be surrounded by people who will look you in the eye and call you out when they think you’re veering from the straight and narrow path. Find those kinds of people and give them permission to hold you accountable, and when they’re right, admit your mistake and get back on track.

Subscribe now

A word to political activists and voters: Be realistic in what you demand of your elected officials. We see this frequently these days in social media posts demanding that a politician obey “we the people” or warning that they are on the “wrong side of history.” Oftentimes, those making such demands hold political positions far outside the Overton Window.

Instead of making bold, unpopular demands, recognize that incremental, positive change can be a good thing. There’s a reason football teams don’t throw “Hail Mary” passes every play - they almost never work. “Three yards and a cloud of dust” will get you to the endzone eventually - and that’s OK.

In November, I wrote of the need for a “better way” in politics. I mentioned a four-part framework I think should guide our political activity, especially for those who claim the banner of Christianity. That framework is Purpose, Accountability, Love, and Meekness, or PALM. After some reflection, I’m going to change the order from PALM to LAMP. Why? I think we have to start with love. If we don’t have love, as the Apostle Paul wrote, we are nothing but a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal (1 Corinthians 13:1). I also think love, especially love for people who aren’t our friends or allies, is sorely missing in politics today.

Love is an extremely broad topic, and there are billions of love songs, poems, books, movies, and numerous scriptures about it. For our purposes, I’ll limit the discussion of love to four areas: God, country, neighbors, and enemies.

God

For the Christian, our primary purpose in life is to “love God, and make him known.” For the Christian, our love for others flows from our love for God. 1 John 4:19 says, “We love because he first loved us.”

I’ve come to believe we cannot adequately love others unless our hearts are filled with love for God. Our human nature is selfish, and without God's power to help us overcome it, we’ll treat others poorly.

Therefore, if we, as Christians, wish to see our nation become a better place, to see solutions to the problems we face, or to heal the political divide, we must put God first in our lives.

As it says in Exodus 20:3, “You must not have any other god but me,” and then in verse 6, “But I lavish unfailing love for a thousand generations on those who love me and obey my commands.”

Jesus expanded on this in Matthew 22:37-38 when asked what Moses’ greatest commandment was: “Jesus replied, ‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’^] This is the first and greatest commandment.”

Can a non-Christian love others? Of course. But for us Christians, our love for others must flow from our love for God. It’s the only way.

Country

Christians of various stripes have a wide range of opinions about the United States. Is it a hopelessly irredeemable nation because of the sin of slavery, or is it God’s new chosen nation? I’m sure most of us are somewhere in between those two extreme views.

Can a Christian love America? I think we can and should. But our love of country must come after our love for God. America must not become an idol in our lives. Our love for America must be informed by our Christianity, not intertwined with it. We need to recognize that God may love America, and has certainly “shed his grace” on it, but only so far as its people follow him. In a certain sense, Christians are like exiles. As much as I love my country, it is not truly my home. My job as a Christian is to bring people into God’s kingdom, not into a human kingdom. Thus, Jeremiah’s words to the Jews living in exile impact how we should live:

“Build homes, and plan to stay. Plant gardens, and eat the food they produce. Marry and have children. Then find spouses for them so that you may have many grandchildren. Multiply! Do not dwindle away! And work for the peace and prosperity of the city where I sent you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, for its welfare will determine your welfare.” Jeremiah 29:5-7

If you’re looking for a deeper dive on this subject, let me recommend “In Defense of Christian Patriotism” by Daniel Darling and “Compassion (&) Conviction: The AND Campaign’s Guide to Faithful Civic Engagement,” by Justin Giboney and Michael Wear.

Subscribe now

Neighbors and Enemies.

I don’t think there’s much debate in Christian circles about the need to love our neighbors. In the Gospel of Luke, we find a famous story that many non-Christians will recognize as well, the parable of “The Good Samaritan.” Let's examine the story and the lessons I think it can teach us about how we should treat our friends and our enemies.

You can read the full story in Luke 10:25-37, but I’ll summarize it here.

A religious expert, seeking to trap Jesus, asks him how to obtain eternal life. Jesus turns it back on him by saying, “You tell me.” The expert answers in verse 27 with “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” Jesus agrees. But then the expert asks, “And who is my neighbor?”

Jesus responds with the story of a Jewish man who, while traveling, is robbed, beaten, and left for dead on the side of the road. First, a Priest travelling down the same road sees the man, but passes by. Then a Temple assistant passes by the man, also ignoring him. Perhaps they were too busy, or perhaps they didn’t care - Jesus leaves it to us to assume their motives.

Then a Samaritan comes down the road. The New Living Translation refers to this man as a “despised Samaritan.” In those days, there was a long standing rift between the Jews and the Samaritans. I’ve seen it compared to the hatred between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland from he 1960s to the 1990s. They were people who should have viewed each other as ethnic and religious cousins who were essentially at war with each other.

Yet this Samaritan man stops to help a Jewish man. He cleans and bandages his wounds, feeds him, and brings him to an inn where he can recuperate. He gives the innkeeper money and tells him that the next time he comes, he’ll cover the remaining expenses, no matter the cost.

Jesus then asks, “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?”

“The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.”

Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.” Luke 10:37

What does this powerful story tell us about how Christians involved in politics should behave? Three things come to mind:

• We should never be too busy or too calloused to help those in need.

• We should see our neighbor as anyone in need, even people who revile us, or we ourselves might revile.

• We should love our neighbor, this new, very broad definition of neighbor, as we love ourselves.

Imagine how much better our political system would be if we were like the Good Samaritan? Imagine how we could address the problems our nation faces if we didn’t see people as enemies but as neighbors in the sense Jesus defines them? Consider the mindset change needed to live and love like that.

Subscribe now

What path will you choose, MAGA? Invite the “groypers” to join the coalition, or appeal to the “normies?” Many on the political Left have made their choice and decided to turn on Israel and the Jews. What will the political Right choose to do, and more importantly, what will the Church do? The implications for our nation are enormous, as Rebeccah Henrichs outlined in her article “The Right’s 1939 Project.”

P.A.L.M.

What I hope to contribute to the debate is this: How, in this “negative world,” can Christians be effective in the political sphere, and how should we behave? I want to flesh out a concept for Christian public service and political engagement that I’ve been pondering for some time now. Christians are meant to be different. We are meant to behave differently. We are commanded to love our enemies, to bless those who curse us (Matthew 5:44). We are commanded to be salt and light. Is this what we see Christians involved in politics doing? Certainly, some are. But others are actively engaged in sowing seeds of hate and leading their respective political parties down the destructive paths we see those institutions on currently. NickFuentes, after all, calls himself a Catholic. Tucker Carlson claims to be a Protestant even as he platforms Fuentes and has as a frequent guest a so-called historian who claims the Holocaust was due to “logistical failures” and Churchill is the true villain of World War II.

Subscribe now

There’s no doubt we live in an age of distrust. Key figures in American life, including the media, government, political, and religious leaders, have let us down and outright lied to us. Being skeptical of things they tell us is good and necessary, but as YouTuber Jon McCray recently said, if we’re not careful, “the need to never be deceived can end up becoming the very thing that deceives us the most.”

To chart a different course, I came up with four lamposts that I think should guide Christians involved in political activism and those elected to political office: Purpose, Accountability, Love, and Meekness, forming the acronym P.A.L.M.

We must have a clear purpose for being involved in politics, and as Christians, our purpose must align with God’s purpose for our lives. We must then be held accountable to that purpose and conduct ourselves in such a way as to bring honor to God. We must have wise people in our lives willing to challenge us when we stray from the principles we claim guide us.

Politics isn’t exactly an arena filled with love. The old joke is that if you’re a politician who wants a friend, get a dog. But as I mentioned above, Christians are commanded to love our enemies as well as our friends. Imagine how different our political discourse would be if Republicans and Democrats disagreed with each other with love for each other in their hearts.

Finally, I think meekness is an undervalued trait that is in short supply in our modern world. Many equate meekness with weakness, and plenty of political Christians believe now is the time for anger and even revenge. But I believe meekness to be strength under control. Jesus had enormous strength, but he was always under control, even when he threw the money changers out of the Temple.

I intend to develop the P.A.L.M. lampposts further in the coming months. Paul tells us to “walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil” Ephesians 5:16-17. There can be no doubt that the days are evil. I pray for the courage to walk circumspectly. I welcome your feedback as I embark on this journey.

Subscribe now

Rather than rise to the occasion and attempt to bring healing to our broken nation, many political leaders continue to spew inflamed rhetoric. In Virginia, the Democratic nominee for Attorney General had text messages exposed where he wished for the death of the Republican Speaker of the House and his children. While his texts were roundly condemned, he remains in the race, with his fellow Democrats rallying to his campaign.

Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats argue on social media about who is to blame for violence and violent rhetoric that dominates our political discourse these days. It’s easier to point a finger at others than it is to examine our own behavior and try to be better people.

Subscribe now

In Washington, the federal government is shut down after Congress failed to agree on how to spend the almost $7 trillion they spend each year. Politicians in both parties think it is to their political benefit for this situation to continue for a while. To be sure, few of us feel the effects of a federal government shutdown in the short term, but the pain will get progressively worse the longer this drags on.

There are serious issues at stake here. The federal government spends well beyond its means, a fact that has been the status quo for decades. A reckoning will come, perhaps soon, and will be very painful for us all. Yet the political will to avoid financial ruin is nowhere to be found.

Our political leaders don’t seem inclined to lead. What do we do now?

Three hundred and seventy-eight years ago, following the defeat of King Charles I, a series of discussions began that, for the first time in English history (and perhaps the first time in world history), considered the views of the common people. These discussions became known as The Putney Debates.

From the 28th October to 9th November 1647, soldiers and officers of Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army, including civilian representation, held discussions on the constitution and future of England.

Should they continue to negotiate a settlement with the defeated King Charles I? Should there even be a King or Lords? Should suffrage (a civil right to vote, known as the franchise) be limited to property-holders? Would democratic changes lead to anarchy?

This historic event saw ordinary soldiers take on their generals to argue for greater democracy and provided a platform for ‘common people’ to make their voices heard. These debates, forced by the Levellers, paved the way for many of the civil liberties we value today.

The “consent of the governed,” an idea ingrained in our American way of thinking, was born in the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, in Putney, London, England.

Cromwell’s soldiers began to grasp the power they had and demanded that it be respected. The seeds of the American Revolution and the idea of a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” were planted.

All these years later, and despite the view of some that our nation is the Titanic, uncontrollably headed for an iceberg, we common people retain the power to change the course of our nation. All we need is the will to do it and the fortitude to see it through.

I’ll admit, I can be a bit of a romantic when it comes to the power of ordinary folks to change the world. I do understand the momentous task and years of hard work I’m calling for. It won’t be easy. The odds are against us, and failure may be the result. Perhaps a “peaceful national divorce” or, God forbid, a bloody civil war is inevitable, but shouldn’t we at least try to avoid that fate?

Now what do we do? Instead of waiting for a new, better politician to come along, understand and act upon the power you have as a citizen of this great nation.

Here are a few suggestions I have, in the form of three videos.

1. Be aware of the lies you are being fed and reject them.

2. Be different! Stop viewing your neighbors as the problem. Don’t respond in anger. Love your enemies and bless those who curse you.

3. Understand that our Constitution was constructed to force debate and bring about a resolution, even if temporary, to controversial issues. Don’t vote for the loudest candidate who promises to “fight.” Vote for the candidate who is committed to working within our Constitutional framework to get things done.

Subscribe now

Late last night, the suspect was apprehended after a massive manhunt involving federal, state, and local law enforcement officials. Many charges have been filed against him, and more could be filed in the coming days.

News reports state the suspect is a "devout Christian" and an ardent supporter of the pro-life cause. Needless to say, his actions do not represent the views of millions of pro-lifers, nor the beliefs of billions of Christians across the globe.

I don't care to hear theories attempting to shift blame to the other side of the political aisle. Nor do I care to hear him try to justify his actions. Downplaying his murderous rage is as disgusting to me as those who claim Luigi Mangioni has a point.

We have a political violence problem in this country, and we'd better lower the temperature before it spins out of control.

Subscribe now

I've said on Peach Pundit The Podcast numerous times that it feels like our political climate is a pile of dry kindling that could burst into flames from the smallest spark. I pray this event is not that spark.

Crimes and even murder in support of political aims are not new to our country. I was too young to remember, but the decade of the 1960s began with President Kennedy's assassination and ended with his brother's and Martin Luther King's murders following a decade of protest against the war in Vietnam and for civil rights. Candidate Trump narrowly survived not one, but two attempts on his life just last year. I shudder to think what would have happened in our nation if he had been assassinated.

Riots, violent protests, damage to property, assassination, and assassination attempts are all indicative of people who have given up hope that our political system can produce results. As Yuval Levin wrote following the first attempt on Trump's life:

We have grown more divided in this century, we use more militant rhetoric, and political violence has escalated. In the last 15 years, there have been shootings of members of Congress of both parties, a foiled assassination attempt of a Supreme Court justice and his family, a mob storming the Capitol to disrupt the certification of a presidential election, and rising levels of threats against public officials of all sorts. A near assassination of a once and perhaps future president might seem like all too natural a next step.

And yet, this moment feels like a sharp break. Maybe because it was by far the highest profile act of domestic political violence in this century, directed at the highest profile figure in our politics, in front of television cameras, that it struck even our cynical culture as a shock. It gave us a terrible glimpse into what it would feel like to live beyond the bounds of our constitutional republic.

We have tested those bounds pretty aggressively in the last few years. Our leading politicians have called each other fascists and enemies of the people, deployed or threatened to deploy the justice system against their opponents, declared that election results were illegitimate, and insisted that our society’s very existence would be imperiled if the other party were in power. Donald Trump himself has been the worst offender on this front, but his opponents and critics have frequently come close. Both sides have seemed incapable of criticizing one another’s violations of essential norms without engaging in their own. All of this has shown contempt for the character of our republic.

The answer to our present circumstance lies in recommitting ourselves to the principles and boundaries outlined in our Constitution (as Levin outlines in his book "American Covenant").

More Levin:

Our constitutional system exists to help us disagree well—and its degradation has meant we have gotten much worse at disagreeing. Our parties have lost sight of their proper work. Politicians want nothing to do with the kind of bargaining and competition that our system of government requires and prefer instead to traffic in extravagant displays of vicious bile. Congress has turned itself into a venue for their performative hysterics rather than an arena for negotiation.

The constructive reform of these institutions demands a reacquaintance with their purpose, and the purposes of our constitutional system. One of its primary purposes is to facilitate our disputes. And those disputes are bound to be intense and passionate.

Taking the Trump assassination attempt seriously does not mean censoring ourselves so we don’t argue with each other or criticize politicians we think are unfit to lead. We do need to do that.

Rather, it should reaffirm both the necessity of the boundaries of our politics, and the necessity of the politics that happens within those boundaries. We need to refocus our political debates on tractable public problems. And we need to lower the temperature of those debates by revitalizing the institutions that keep their stakes relatively low—making sure that no person or institution has all the power, no majority gets everything it wants, and no election is the final one.

Political violence is not the inevitable conclusion of the path we have traveled in our politics. It is a choice we risk making, and which we must now rise to reject by recognizing the options before us.

I pray we as a nation, and each of us as individuals, reject the path of violence, rebuild our political institutions, and solve problems within the Constitutional boundaries...before it's too late.

Subscribe now

As Rep. Panitch points out, the body of their murdered mother Shiri, was supposed to be returned with her children's bodies. Instead, Hamas returned an unidentified body - claiming it was Shiri. An autopsy confirmed it was not Shiri, nor one of the other hostages Hamas had murdered.

Other than the despicable Jackson Hinkle, American influencers and politicians who have given aid and comfort to Hamas have largely been quiet since the news of the Bibas' children's murder. Many of these folks have been quiet since the world saw the terrible condition hostages such as Eli Sharabi and Or Levy were in upon their return. Why people thought Hamas would be treating these people well is beyond me, but here we are.

The temptation we all face is to look away - to ignore the shocking nature of these crimes visited upon the Israeli people (including several Americans) and hope it all goes away. But we cannot do that. We must understand the evil represented by Hamas, and the other terrorist groups at work in Gaza, and act with strength and resolve. We must continue to support and aid Israel as they decide how best to move forward.

I wish only peace for the people of Gaza. But after witnessing the grotesque hostage release spectacles with crowds cheering Hamas and jeering at emaciated Jews and coffins of dead toddlers, I fear more war is inevitable. Palestinians must reject terror as a tactic, and drive groups like Hamas from their midst.

Israel meanwhile, is left with no easy choices, as The Commentary Magazine podcast explains. BTW, there was an unsuccessful terrorist attack in Israel late last week. The current ceasefire has ended and Hamas seems intent on returning to their murderous ways.

This brings me to the war against Ukraine.

It seems to me that the Trump Administration has adopted a "land for peace" strategy in their attempt to end Russia's war on Ukraine. It might be the sad reality of where things stand that Ukraine must relinquish territory occupied by Russian troops or face total defeat. But Trump has taken this a step further by claiming Ukraine "started the war" and if they had only "made a deal" (land for peace?) this entire bothersome episode could have been avoided.

However, land for peace hasn't brought peace to the Middle East. Rather the conflict had raged on almost continuously since the U.N. crafted the land for peace philosophy in 1967. Why would we think giving Putin more Ukrainian land will end his imperialistic designs now? After all, Putin didn't stop his aggression against Ukraine after seizing Crimea in 2014.

As economist Thomas Sowell said, "There are no policy solutions, only tradeoffs." I pray the tradeoffs made in Israel and Ukraine produce positive results for those nations.

Audio podcast here.

What makes this guest notable is the series of events that led to it. I first became aware of this story from artist and YouTuber Ruslan KD.

The gist of the story is that Huff was invited to join the Elevating Beyond podcast hosted by Mark Menard. Huff was to debate a fellow named Billy Carson. Carson, if you watch the video above, is many things, including a critic of Christianity who claims Jesus was never crucified and was likely married. Huff explained to Carson the sources of information he relied on either didn’t say what he said they said or were known forgeries.

After the podcast, things got interesting.

Subscribe now

Carson demanded that Menard not publish the podcast, sent a cease-and-desist letter to Huff instructing him not to publish the podcast, and recorded a video (now deleted) making all sorts of claims, including that Christians were conspiring against him. As you might imagine, this drew attention to the original podcast and caused it to go viral. You can view the original Huff vs Carson podcast here.

Huff’s appearance on Rogan’s podcast is fascinating, especially if you enjoy ancient history and how very old documents are authenticated. They also engage in respectful discussion of key Christian beliefs, a departure from what Rogan has said in the past. In typical Rogan fashion, it’s long, but worth your time.

I appreciate how Wesley Huff comports himself. He knows his stuff but doesn’t attempt to project expertise into subjects he hasn’t studied. As a Christian Apologist, he is very effective. He wasn’t seeking the spotlight, but when it shined upon him he was ready. This brings to mind 1 Peter 3:15 which says “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

A Fractured Support System

Carney’s central premise is that the challenges facing today’s parents are not merely personal or logistical but deeply rooted in societal trends that have fundamentally reshaped family life. He traces the decline of local communities, religious institutions, and extended family networks that once provided critical emotional, financial, and practical support.

For example, Carney notes how increasing geographic mobility has pulled families apart, with grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins often living far from one another. This physical distance translates into fewer opportunities for intergenerational caregiving, a resource that was historically vital for raising children. He also critiques the rise of an individualistic culture that prioritizes personal success and self-reliance over communal well-being, further isolating parents and leaving them to shoulder the burdens of child-rearing alone.

The Role of Economic Pressures

Economic factors also play a significant role in Carney’s analysis. He examines how the rising costs of housing, education, and childcare have placed immense financial strain on families, making it harder for parents to feel secure in their ability to provide for their children. These economic challenges, Carney argues, are exacerbated by public policies that often fail to adequately support working families, such as insufficient parental leave, inflexible work schedules, and a lack of affordable childcare options.

Interestingly, Carney connects these economic realities to the broader cultural narrative that has undervalued parenting as a vocation. In his view, the societal emphasis on career achievement and material success has de-prioritized the essential work of raising the next generation, leaving parents to navigate a system that seems indifferent to their struggles.

Subscribe now

Solutions Rooted in Community

While Family Unfriendly paints a stark picture of the obstacles modern families face, Carney offers a hopeful vision for the future. He emphasizes the importance of rebuilding strong communities where families can thrive. This includes revitalizing local institutions like churches, schools, and neighborhood associations, as well as fostering a culture that values interdependence over isolation.

Carney also advocates for policy reforms that would make family life more sustainable, such as tax incentives for parents, expanded childcare options, and workplace flexibility. However, his primary focus remains on cultural change, urging readers to consider how their personal choices and community involvement can help rebuild the social fabric that families so desperately need.

A Call to Action

Family Unfriendly is both a critique and a call to action, urging readers to rethink the way society approaches parenting. By shining a light on the systemic challenges families face, Carney invites us to consider how we can collectively create a culture that supports parents and nurtures children.

In a world where raising kids often feels like an uphill battle, Carney’s book serves as a timely reminder that the solutions lie not just in individual effort but in collective action. Parents, policymakers, and community members alike can benefit from his insights, making this an essential read for anyone invested in the future of family life.

Subscribe now

I spent a few days last week with members of my church working with Spokes of Hope in Chimney Rock, North Carolina. Spokes of Hope has been invited in by the people of Chimney Rock to help them clean up and recover from the staggering damage caused by Hurricane Helene.

The devastation to this region in North Carolina cannot be fully comprehended through social media posts or news reports. I’ve never seen anything like it. Our team worked hard for three full days, and while progress was visible, it nevertheless felt like we hadn’t done very much. It will be months, and perhaps years before the impacted areas are back to normal. In spite of the devestation, I saw a steely resolve to recover and rebuild from the residents I met.

Since Helene hit in late September, there has been a steady stream of volunteers helping the people of North Carolina and the other states she hammered. We saw a steady stream of volunteers coming to help. They came from at least a dozen states, had no financial or personal interest in the region, but just wanted to help. Some stayed a day and moved on to another community in need. Some stayed for several days and intended to stay longer. Others were making their second or third trip. It was amazing and inspiring to see.

Today is election day. Millions will vote and, Lord willing, we’ll know tonight or tomorrow who the next President will be. The assumption going in is that this will be one of the closest elections in our history.

Many people expect civil unrest and even violence in the coming weeks, no matter which candidate wins. Experts tell us we’re as divided as we were during the Civil War. But civil unrest and violence are choices. We can choose that path, or we can choose a better one.

The people I met volunteering in Chimney Rock recover didn’t care about the political persuasion, race, or religion of Helene’s victims. They simply saw people in need and asked “How can I help?”

Tonight, as you watch the election results roll in, remember the people of Chimney Rock, NC. Think about the long road they must travel to recover. But also remember the people from all over the country who are doing a little bit each day to help Chimney Rock get back on it’s feet. I pray that spirit inspires us all to reject anger, civil unrest, and violence in favor of kindness, empathy, and compassion.

Two recent books, Mustafa Suleyman’s The Coming Wave: Technology, Power, and the Twenty-first Century's Greatest Dilemma and James Pethokoukis’ The Conservative Futurist: How to Create the Sci-Fi World We Were Promised, tackle the questions of what our technology-driven future will look like—and how we should prepare for it. Together, these books explore the unprecedented opportunities and complex challenges emerging technologies pose for society and the profound power shifts these changes could usher in.

The Coming Wave

Mustafa Suleyman, co-founder of DeepMind, offers a cautionary yet optimistic outlook on the rapidly accelerating impact of new technologies. His book examines the massive power reshaping our society as AI, synthetic biology, and advanced computing increasingly take center stage. Suleyman addresses the “dilemma” that defines this new era: how to balance the transformative power of technology with the potential risks it brings to security, privacy, and the very fabric of democracy.

You might remember DeepMind from the documentary “AlphaGo.”

Key Themes:

• The Double-Edged Sword of Innovation: Suleyman emphasizes the “wave” of innovation as both a force for good and a potential source of harm. Advanced AI, for instance, can enhance productivity, healthcare, and learning—but it could also disrupt jobs, infringe on privacy, and amplify existing inequalities.

• Embrace the good. Mitigate the bad: A significant portion of Suleyman’s work revolves around the ethical considerations required for the safe deployment of AI technology. He argues the greatest challenge is not technological but human: whether we can develop ethical frameworks and enforceable regulations that anticipate the impact of these tools before they spiral out of control.

• Navigating the Shifting Power Dynamics: As technology becomes more powerful, Suleyman contends, so do the entities that control it. Governments, private corporations, and global institutions are all vying for influence over the technologies of tomorrow, and this could alter the geopolitical landscape dramatically. How society approaches governance in this era will largely dictate whether technology empowers or subjugates us.

Subscribe now

The Conservative Futurist

James Pethokoukis, AEI scholar and author of the Substack “Faster, Please,” takes a more practical approach, focusing on how to build a future that lives up to the lofty promises of science fiction. While his focus is distinctly optimistic, Pethokoukis recognizes that achieving a future where everyone benefits from advanced technology requires active policy-making, imaginative economic thinking, and a commitment to fostering innovation at every level of society.

Key Themes:

• Tech-Driven Prosperity: Pethokoukis makes a strong case for why the traditional conservative economic principles of small government, limited regulations, and a pro-growth focus, can help society achieve a more prosperous future. He contends that the United States’ potential for innovation is underutilized and that unleashing this potential could lead to breakthroughs across healthcare, energy, and manufacturing. Sadly, neither candidate for President is talking about limiting regulation, shrinking government, or creating a market-focused pro-growth economy,

• Overcoming Stagnation: Inspired by a future often depicted in science fiction, Pethokoukis urges policymakers to abandon “tech pessimism” and focus on creating conditions for breakthrough innovations. He is critical of “status quo bias” and risk aversion, which he sees as holding back technological progress.

• Constructive Optimism: While critical of over-regulation, Pethokoukis is not naive about technology’s risks. He advocates for a thoughtful approach that balances caution with a sense of adventure and ambition, stressing that proactive policy is necessary to make technology work for society’s benefit. He believes in promoting individual autonomy in decision-making while creating safeguards that prevent technology from becoming an engine of inequality.

Bridging the Two Visions

While these two books differ in tone and focus, both underscore a critical point: the future is upon us, changing rapidly, and society needs both vision and accountability to mitigate the dangers that exist. Suleyman’s cautionary approach to ethics, governance, and security pairs well with Pethokoukis’s enthusiasm for human potential, as together they offer a comprehensive view of the promise and challenges posed by tomorrow’s technologies.

Both authors emphasize that if society hopes to harness technology for the common good, it must adopt both cautious foresight and bold imagination. We need policymakers and industry leaders who will seek to protect individual freedoms without stifling innovation.

Ultimately, both authors underscore the idea that the technological choices we make today will reverberate for generations. It’s up to us to ensure that they’re choices we can be proud of.

Subscribe now

Lord, I pray for the families and friends of those who lost loved ones during the horrific attack of September 11, 2001. Remember, Lord, the families of our brave soldiers who lost their lives during Operation Enduring Freedom and other military actions against terrorist organizations. May you comfort them and hold them close to you.

Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and keep his commandments,  we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our politicians, our leaders, our ancestors, and to all the people of the land.

Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame—the people of the United States both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you. We and our politicians, our leaders, and our ancestors are covered with shame, Lord, because we have sinned against you. The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him;  we have not obeyed the Lord our God or kept the laws he gave us through his servants the prophets.

All this disaster has come on us, violence occurs daily in our schools and in our streets, yet we have not sought the favor of the Lord our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth.

Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions of your servant. For your sake, Lord, look with favor on us. Give ear, our God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation that covers our land. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. Lord, listen! Lord, forgive! Lord, hear and act! For your sake, my God, do not delay.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

Compare Reagan's statement to this from "National Conservatism: A Statement Of Principles" published in June of 2022.

We recommend the federalist principle, which prescribes a delegation of power to the respective states or subdivisions of the nation so as to allow greater variation, experimentation, and freedom. However, in those states or subdivisions in which law and justice have been manifestly corrupted, or in which lawlessness, immorality, and dissolution reign, national government must intervene energetically to restore order. (emphasis mine)

At times in our history, the national government has intervened in state affairs with positive benefits, as in the civil rights era efforts to topple Jim Crow. Other times, federal intervention has had disastrous effects. Nevertheless, the NatCon statement is much too broad for my taste. How should we define "lawlessness, immorality, and dissolution?" And what exactly is the government's role in enforcing morality? That idea is a long way from how I interpret the vision of the Founding Fathers of a government that doesn't allow one faction to dominate over other factions (see Federalist 10).

Subscribe now

This tension on the Right was discussed and debated this past weekend at the Club for Growth's Policy Colloquium. I was invited to attend as were several other state-based public policy groups. Also in attendance were folks from several DC-based center-right organizations. You can read the policy handbook they gave us here. It’s worth a read.

The event featured presentations from experts on topics such as energy, taxation, transportation, education, regulation, and legal theory. Our pal Erick Erickson delivered the keynote speech at the closing dinner Saturday night.

The session on legal theory was led by Club for Growth President David McIntosh. He began his presentation by describing the divide with the conservative movement as those who still hold to the idea of Originalism as opposed to those who want conservative Judges to become activists, overturning legal precedent in order to advance conservative political ideology. This would run counter to decades of conservative legal thought, which sought to understand how the Founding Fathers saw the Constitution and hold fast to that interpretation. Conservatives have never viewed the Constitution as a "living document," until now.

In my mind, this encapsulates the tension that exists currently within the conservative movement. NatCons would say that after decades of progressive victories in all areas of society, restraint must be cast aside. "Do you know what time it is?" is a common question asked of those of us saying we must continue to respect the restraints placed upon us by the Constitution and the rule of law. "We must seize power and use it to vanquish our enemies and start winning" is the goal behind this new line of thinking.

However, I and others maintain that using the power of government to create some sort of conservative utopia will fail as miserably as those on the far Left who seek to create a progressive utopia. Despite claims to the contrary, the United States is not a socialist nation. Is the government too big and too invasive? I would agree that it is. But the tools to beat it back into the guardrails of the Constitution are still within our grasp.

I'm sympathetic to the NatCon's assessment of American society. Hollywood, Big Media, and College Professors do lean heavily to the Left. They do attempt to shape the views of the next generation and have had a measure of success. Yes, we have seen a rise in anti-semitism across our country, which is cause for concern. Yet despite the "encampments" and protests on college campuses across the country and here in our own state, they represent a tiny percentage of those student bodies. At UGA, a dozen or so folks showed up to protest Isreal, out of a student population of well over 35,000. We even saw frat boys come to the rescue of displaced American flags in places like UNC and Ole Miss. Support for Israel's right to defend itself remains strong across the political spectrum. While we should oppose instances of anti-semitism we see, we can't really call what we saw on college campuses a victory for the far-Left. We can find other encouraging victories in Hollywood and in skepticism of Big Media and credible alternative sources of information.

Maybe I can be dismissed as another Zombie Reganite, and that's OK. I still think the tried and true principles of the free market, which has lifted 60% of the world's population out of poverty, are worth fighting for. I still think American leadership is preferable to a world dominated by authoritarian regimes like those found in Russia or China.

Is America perfect? Of course not and guess what, as long as humans instead of angels govern us, we never will be. But I'll take our imperfect freedom over activist government (be it left wing or right wing), any day of the week.

Subscribe now

I’ve created a Google sheet showing each candidate in every federal and state-level election organized by county. As often as I could find it, there are links to the candidate’s website and campaign cash on hand from the most recent reporting period. Also displayed are the expected Republican and Democratic votes from a website called “Dave’s Redistricting”. I came across this website in 2022 and found it to be extremely accurate at predicting the winner, even though it was not accurate as to the final margin of victory.

View the “Elected Officials By County” Google sheet here.

If you want to look at individual Google sheets for various types of Elected Officials, click here. This is also the page where the Elected Officials By County Google sheet resides.

Subscribe now

Please understand this is a work in progress. There is a massive amount of information to collect and I’m not all the way there yet. Nevertheless, Federal candidate data is pretty much how I want it, and State Senate and State House information is not far behind. Very soon I will turn my attention to county-level races. As updates are made, they will appear in the Elected Officials By County Google sheet.

If you know of information that should be in this Google sheet, such as a website for a candidate, feel free to email me and I’ll get it loaded into the sheet.

I hope folks find this information valuable. Post-election, the sheet will become a guide to help folks know who their elected officials are and how to get in touch with them.

Please share it with anyone you think might be interested.

Thanks!

There are several things I’m worried about too and I’m holding out hope that miracles can happen before the clock strikes midnight on Thursday.

One such miracle I’m praying for is that HB 738, introduced by Rep. Scott Hilton can find a new home. The bill passed out of the House Industry and Labor Committee with unanimous bi-partisan support but didn’t get a vote on the House floor before crossover day. We have a bill to add HB 738 to, but we need a committee hearing to get it back to the Rules Committee in time for the final legislative day.

Why is this bill important? My boss Randy Hicks explains how bills like HB 738 support reform efforts going on in Washington:

Toward that end, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), made a significant stride Feb. 28 by introducing a bill in the Senate that would give states the freedom to explore safety-net reform strategies similar to the successful “One Door” model in Utah. Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah) has already introduced a “One Door to Work” bill in the House. That measure passed out of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce in December.

The One Door to Work Act would give states the flexibility to implement Utah’s consolidation of federal workforce development and social safety-net programs into a single state entity. The end goal is to help work-capable recipients reintegrate more quickly into the workforce, empowering them to achieve the independence, stability and purpose that are crucial to human well-being.

The sad truth is that our current social safety net is a complicated maze. Recipients must navigate multiple disconnected programs, requirements and caseworkers. No matter how much welfare exists to help, this design makes poverty more difficult to overcome. Every hour someone spends navigating the system is an hour not pursuing a way out.

Without a doubt, we need a well-functioning social safety net. But it needs to be just that—a net to catch people—and not a way of life, not a system that creates generational poverty. As Mauricio Miller, a poverty fighter in the Bay Area, has said, we’ve made poverty tolerable when we should make it escapable.

On a happy note, I’m pleased to report that SB 233, the Promise Scholarship Account Act, received final passage in the House and Senate and awaits Governor Kemp’s signature. This is a solid step forward in providing options for parents. After nine years of supporting this type of legislation, first as a lawmaker and now as an advocate, I’m grateful to see it approved by the Legislature. Governor Kemp had expressed support for SB 233, so we expect him to sign it into law soon.

Please watch Senator Greg Dolezal’s closing comments for the final word on this bill.

Subscribe now

Finally, one of our new state-commissioned charter schools was profiled by NBC.

(Kolt) Bloxson, 39, was an Atlanta Public Schools educator for 18 years, but founding a school was not part of her career goals. Her zeal for children in general, and educating them in particular, however, were the paramount reasons she embarked on a new journey. 

In 2019, it appeared to Bloxson that opportunities for quality education for Black students in underserved communities near her home were dwindling. Two elementary schools had merged and, at the time, the specter of other closures loomed. Bloxson decided to take on full bore the laborious challenge of creating Miles Ahead.

“There was a growing gap that I wanted to fill,” she said.

And so, with that mission as her inspiration, Bloxson found a location for the school, carefully assembled a board, hand-picked teachers, and learned state regulations for opening and operating a school and countless other undertakings.

“Whew. It was by no means easy,” she said. “But as we continued to move ahead, it became more feasible.”

I was elected in 2010 at the height of Tea Party Movement and was part of a rather large freshman class. Many of these folks, on both sides of the aisle, became good friends and shared my desire to honor God through public service.

Subscribe now

My brother-in-law was elected to the Georgia House two years before me. As a history major, he would spend his evenings pouring over history books and such. One evening he came across the story of the Pine Tree flag used during the Revolutionary War.

Inspired, he had some lapel pins made, told us of the history of the flag, the meaning of the phrase “Appeal To Heaven,” and urged us to join him in regularly wearing the pin to keep us focused on our purpose as Legislators. The phrase comes from John Locke’s Second Treatise On Civil Government and for us was a reminder that “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.” - Psalm 24:1 Our job as Legislators was to seek God’s will, do our best to follow scriptural instructions, vote according to our own conscience and in the best interests of our district. These days, this would get us labeled as “Christian Nationalists,” in some quarters, which brings me to what I want to talk to you about today.

None of our little band of brothers and sisters ever sought to impose our religious views on the people of Georgia through the force of law. In fact, to attempt to do such a thing would have been diametrically opposed to the founding principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. God is a benevolent dictator but as mortal humans, we have no right to rule over our fellow mortal humans as a dictator, benevolent or otherwise. We are all made in the image of God, have rights endowed to us by God, and far from having certain religious beliefs imposed on us by the government, should “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.” - Phillippians 2:12. Our goal was to maximize freedom so that all our citizens could live as free and prosperous people.

I understand why many Christians today feel as though they are under assault. As our nation becomes more secular, traditional Christian beliefs become less popular and more controversial. Some in our country have paid a heavy price for staying true to their beliefs. But this is nothing new for Christians. In other parts of the world right now, people are in prison and some have lost their lives for their faith. Throughout history, Christians have faced persecution. Jesus said more than once that in the world we shall have trouble (John 16:33), and that when the world hates us, remember it hated him first (John 15:8).

While I don’t want to minimize what some have suffered, in relative terms American Christians face much less persecution than others around the world. No Americans are in prison in this country for merely being a Christian. While our beliefs may be mocked in a movie or we might be criticized on social media, that’s hardly persecution in a historical sense. This brings me to my final point: Does Christianity need to be “saved” and does it “need protection.”

Our laws and our constitution protect the right of Christians, and those of other religions or no religion at all, to practice our beliefs as we see fit. Of course, the practice of religion cannot infringe upon the rights of others. How those rights are exercised is the subject of intense debate, but in the main, we can worship as we please in America.

Should religious people engage in political activism and even hold elected office? Absolutely. However, as Christians, we must always remember our protection and salvation come from God, not the government. While it would be better if a humble God-fearing person were President, neither our salvation nor the fate of the Christian faith depends upon it. Historically, Christianity has thrived and spread across the globe during times of intense persecution.

In recent years I’ve been disturbed by certain Christian leaders prophesying that Donald Trump would win reelection in 2020. When he didn’t, others prophesied that Trump’s political enemies would visited by the angel of death by the end of 2023. The angel of death must have changed his mind because all those folks are still alive. We should also be grateful that some who prophesied Trump’s 2020 victory have admitted they were wrong and asked God for forgiveness.

All of us who call ourselves Christians must be careful not to let our political beliefs influence our faith. Our nation needs a spiritual awakening, but it won’t be brought about through political victory, but rather when we as Christians grow stronger in our faith, go deeper into the study of God’s Word, and more diligently put Biblical principles into practice in our lives.

I’ll write more about this again soon, but I’ll leave you with this thought: What if Christians involved in politics are poor in spirit, meek, mourn over the things God mourns over, hunger and thirst after righteousness, are merciful, are pure of heart, and are peacemakers (Matthew 5:3-9)? Would our nation be as politically divided as it is currently? Would politics be as nasty as it is right now?

As always, thanks for reading.

Subscribe now