The Religion That Started in a Hat

Common ground4

“Thanks for your patience and engagement brother. Here’s my response to specific points expressed in Common Ground 2 & 3. Our sticking points are rooted in ontological differences in our beliefs about the nature of reality. We are diving deeper as we each present our case.

The ideas I’ve shared so far have elicited

a Trinity of responses from you. Let’s call them type 1, 2, and 3. The first type of response is resonance and agreement, representing our common ground. You love these ideas because they reflect something you’ve already accepted as part of you. An example would be the idea of Christians as healers. The second type of response is more tentative, you’re not fully on board with these ideas yet.  An example of this would be the idea that our function calls for us to be happy. You like these ideas, but still need more convincing. The third type of response is categorical refusal. These are the ideas you find mistaken, objectionable, impossible, ridiculous.  The eyes as projectors is an example.

I’m not asking you to be credulous. Belief isn’t faith. Although the allegories, analogies, and anecdotes I share are supported by rigorous reason and Aristotelian logic, these concepts are not meant to be taken as abstract toys for intellectuals who live and play in a virtual sandbox of ideas. They demand to be known through our direct experience. To know is to embody. These ideas bring healing to mind and body, turning our hearts into radiators of love that ripples outward to others. Apologia is “of words”, which are symbols, twice removed from reality (God).  Words never satisfy, but reality always does. Apologetics is good, but the world needs our love more than our apologies.

Carrying the heavy cross has already been accomplished. Repetition of the past is unnecessary. Being compassionate does not require that we suffer. Joy always feels joyful, never like suffering. Those who suffer lose the way, the truth, and life, limiting their ability to help. Suffering arises out of complexity, which is obfuscation of truth. Love is simple. Only love alleviates suffering, and brings joy. Being joyful, we extend joy. When we suffer, we extend suffering. Why would we want to share that?  Our brothers have forgotten what happiness looks like. Our function is to remind them, and if we don’t have it, we can’t share it.

We agreed that Jesus’s teachings transcend all categories, spheres, and fields of human endeavor. What I see doesn’t contradict Kuyper, Reformation, Protestants, Mormons, Catholics, Orthodox, or any other of the 30k+ Christian denominations running amok with division. Their differences, which sometimes appear semantic, are rooted in level confusion. The answer is a level correction (paradox) which you’ve eloquently described as God’s infinite wisdom transcending our earthly categories.

Total agreement with your theology of dominion. Exploitation is the distorting belief that God created the world as a giant Supermarket filled with creatures as commodities for our consumption. That is an example of level confusion. Level correction turns the getting mechanism into giving, by raising the belief in exploitation to the understanding of dominion as stewardship.

However, this understanding doesn’t rise high enough. Level correction is completed with the understanding that there are no differences in God’s creation. Differences derive from form (perception). Stewardship turns the nightmare of exploitation into a happy dream, where we find ourselves playing on the front lawn of Heaven. From there God takes the final step, lifting us up to Heaven, where all is formless and beings are equal.  Mastery lies beyond stewardship.  It’s the understanding that raises perception to Knowledge, ego to God, earth to Heaven, and illusions to Reality.

Perception is legion, knowledge is singular. Religion is all about the undoing of perception. We’re still confused about the difference between it and knowledge. That the world we see is an illusion is obvious when we realize that there are 8 billion versions of reality. Yet everyone believes his version of reality is the truth. How is this possible?

Apoltical teaching does not equal side-stepping, denial, or exclusion of politics. It doesn’t diminish the scope, grandeur, beauty, and truth of the teaching, and doesn’t imply a neutral position. There are no neutral thoughts. Each points to either truth or illusion, nothing in between. Apolitical subsumes politics. To believe is to cherish, and we believe in a political Jesus because we cherish politics. The acceptance of this idea doesn’t require giving up politics. The Holy Spirit never asks us to sacrifice anything.  He asks that we willingly offer everything to Him so that he can transform it. As long as we pick and choose what we offer, what we end up withholding becomes a sore spot of unhappiness.

Theo

Jesus’s teaching does call for engagement with the world, which includes politics. Politics is to His Teaching as color is to Light, perception to Knowledge, science to Faith, earth to Heaven, and the ego to God. The former must always be raised to the latter for salvation. Level confusion is the attempt to bring the latter down to the former, which is impossible. Politics must be raised to knowledge, not vice-versa. If it were possible to bring the teachings down, politics would have been transformed by now. There have been many faithful politicians and citizens engaged in that effort. Yet politics is still ruled by chaos. Christians are still split, making up differences, acting hostile towards each other, therefore equally perpetuating the problem.

The idea that the eyes are projectors isn’t merely poetic. If the world is a perception, and perception is an illusion, the eyes must be projectors. Seeing is always outward. Private investigators and surveillance agents are trained to shadow their targets without ever looking directly at them, as this risks betraying their presence. Consciously or unconsciously, everyone feels eyes that are focused on them, even if their back is turned.

There is a corollary to this in physics. In quantum mechanics, the collapse of the wave function is associated with the observer effect. What this means is debated by theoretical physicists, but that the phenomenon exists has not been questioned since it was discovered a century ago. Perception is the observer effect.

The world we perceive and experience is not what God created. The body is perceived as another object in the world, therefore equally unreal. We are not a body. This only appears to contradict Genesis. God created us in his image, and of a like quality, means that we too are light. God is still the animating force that blows life into everything, including our (perception of) bodies. Our mind has all the power of belief that God gave us, including the power of perception, which gives the world its perceived quality of solidity. The dream always appears real to the dreamer.

To say that perception is distorted by sin is to reverse cause and effect. Sin is an effect of perception, which is the effect of the separation from knowledge (fall from grace). Neither sin nor separation have causal power. The fall from grace is a deep sleep that we have fallen into.

To say that the problem is not perception per se, but its divorce from God, is akin to saying that the problem is not that we sleep, but that we dream ungodly nightmares. When a sleeping child cries out because of frightening dreams, his parents rescue him by turning on the light or gently shaking him. The dreaming mind often incorporates these into the dream, and the light becomes the dawn of a new day or a dream lamp.  The shaking may be interpreted as an earthquake or a roller coaster ride at the amusement park. These new projections may turn the nightmare into a happier dream, but they’re still illusions. Christ consciousness is an awakened state.

Christians are asleep. They daydream as they gaze toward the sky, wistfully waiting for Jesus to emerge from the clouds on a white winged horse, hoping he’ll rescue the world once again from its nightmares. They don’t see the second coming as it unfolds before their own eyes, which are blinded by their own projections. The second coming is not in time. It’s in the here and now, where nobody is looking.

Analogy Overkill. Polarized light is a blinding reflection. Polarizing political perception is a mirroring phenomenon. We are never upset for the reason we think. We’re upset because we see something that isn’t there. There is no difference between blue and red, left and right, globalists and nationalists, free traders and protectionists, theists and atheists. Labels like these are arbitrary lines of demarcation of a single field that do not exist in reality. Polarized thinkers are like Siamese fighting fish. They don’t understand that they are looking at a mirror. Misperceiving an opponent “out there,” they attack, failing to see that they are locked in an insane battle against themselves.

The question about how our calling as healers is to unfold in different spheres is placing the cart in front of the horse. We should instead inquire into the meaning of healing and ask if such a thing is possible.  We won’t agree on what healing is or how it’s accomplished until we can agree on what we are, what Jesus taught, the meaning of perception and knowledge, and what God created. Let’s keep working on our common ground.”

Back over to you, Jack..

Hey brother, I’m thankful for your thoughtful engagement and the depth you’re bringing to this conversation. You’re right—we’re diving deep, and it’s a joy to wrestle through these ideas together, even when our perspectives differ. I’ll respond carefully, grounding my thoughts in the truth of God’s Word and the reformed theological framework.

I like how you’ve framed our dialogue as eliciting a “trinity of responses”—resonance, tentativeness, and refusal. That’s a helpful way to map where we’re connecting and where we’re not yet aligned. On the first type, we absolutely share a heartbeat for Christians as healers, reflecting Christ’s love to a broken world. That’s a beautiful truth we can stand on. On the second, ideas like happiness as a core function spark some hesitation for me. Scripture calls us to joy in the Lord (Phil. 4:4), but happiness tied to our earthly experience can feel fleeting, especially when we’re called to take up our cross (Matt. 16:24). I’d love to unpack this more—how do you see happiness aligning with the suffering we’re told to expect (1 Pet. 4:12-13)? On the third, ideas like the eyes as projectors feel like a stretch. I hear you on perception shaping our experience, but I’d anchor that in the reality of a God-created world, not an illusion. Genesis 1 declares creation “very good,” and while sin distorts our view, the world itself remains God’s handiwork, not a projection of our minds. Hopefully, I am not misunderstanding you; if so, please correct me.

Your emphasis on embodying truth resonates. Knowing isn’t just intellectual—it’s transformational, lived out in love that radiates to others (1 John 4:12). I agree that apologetics, while valuable, can’t replace the witness of a life transformed by Christ. Words are symbols, and as you said, they’re “twice removed” from the reality of God. Yet, Scripture itself is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), and through it, the Spirit reveals truth. I’d gently push back on the idea that words “never satisfy.” The Word became flesh (John 1:14), and that reality satisfies eternally. Still, you’re correct that love, not just arguments, is what the world needs most.

On suffering and joy, I hear your heart for simplicity and love as the antidote to suffering. Absolutely, love is central—God is love (1 John 4:8), and we’re called to extend it. But Scripture doesn’t shy away from suffering as part of our calling. Jesus says, “In this world you will have trouble” (John 16:33), and Paul speaks of sharing in Christ’s sufferings (Phil. 3:10). I don’t see suffering as a requirement for compassion but as a reality we endure with joy because Christ has overcome. Joy isn’t the absence of suffering but the presence of God in it (James 1:2-3). I’d love to hear more about how you see joy and suffering interacting without diminishing the weight of the cross.

Your point about Jesus’s teachings transcending categories is excellent. God’s wisdom challenges our earthly boundaries (1 Cor. 1:25), and I agree that confusion—mistaking perception for knowledge—causes division. The Reformation’s call of “sola Scriptura” roots us in God’s revealed truth, not our fragmented perceptions. See my “The Five Points of Scriptural Authority: A Defense of Sola Scriptura,” Paperback – July 16, 2021. I mention this because there is considerable confusion about the topic, even among those who claim to believe it.

Regarding dominion, we’re in agreement: it’s stewardship, not exploitation. Genesis 1:28 calls us to care for creation, not to plunder it. I’m curious about your move beyond stewardship to a formless equality in God’s creation. I would connect that to the eschatological hope in Revelation 21—a new heaven and earth where everything is reconciled. However, I would be cautious about eliminating differences entirely in the present. God’s creation is diverse, and distinctions (such as male and female in Gen. 1:27) reflect His glory. How do you see this “formless” reality developing in our current situation?

Regarding perception versus knowledge, I agree that human perception is fallible and clouded by sin (Rom. 1:21-22). However, I believe that the world’s reality is not an illusion—it’s God’s creation, broken but still redeemable. The eight billion versions of reality reflect our fallen subjectivity, not a lack of objective truth. Christ is the truth (John 14:6), and His Word anchors us beyond what we perceive. I’m interested to hear how you reconcile the idea of an illusory world with passages like Psalm 24:1, which declare the earth as the Lord’s.

Your take on politics is fascinating. I agree that Jesus’s teachings encompass all areas, including politics, and that we’re called to elevate our engagement to align with God’s truth. Politics, like all human pursuits, must submit to Christ’s lordship (Col. 1:16-17). However, I’d caution against viewing politics as inherently chaotic or beyond redemption. Faithful Christians have shaped societies through godly governance (think Daniel or Joseph). Also, consider all the hospitals and schools built by Christians. The problem arises when we idolize politics, not when we participate in it under Christ’s authority. I’d love to hear more about how you see “apolitical” teaching transforming political involvement without neutralizing it.

On the eyes as projectors, I appreciate the creativity, and the quantum mechanics analogy is thought-provoking. The observer effect shows perception influences how we interpret reality, but I’d stop short of saying the eyes project the world itself. Scripture affirms the physicality of creation (Gen. 1), and our bodies, though affected by sin, are God’s design (Ps. 139:14). The idea that we’re not bodies feels like it veers from the resurrection hope of 1 Corinthians 15, where our physical bodies are raised imperishable. I’d love to explore how you view the body’s role in light of being “light” in God’s image. Again, please forgive me if I have misunderstood you.

Your point about sin as an effect of perception rather than a cause is a big one. I’d hold that sin is the root (Rom. 5:12), distorting our perception and separating us from God. The fall wasn’t just a dream but a real rebellion, though God’s grace restores us (Eph. 2:8-9). I hear you on Christ-consciousness as an awakened state, but I’d frame it as the Spirit’s work in us, renewing our minds (Rom. 12:2) to see reality through God’s eyes. The second coming, I’d agree, isn’t just a future event—it’s unfolding now as Christ reigns (Heb. 2:8). But I’d still hold to a future, visible return (Acts 1:11).

Regarding healing, you’re right that we need to define what we are and what Jesus taught before we can unpack our calling as healers. I’d start with John 17:17—sanctification through truth—and 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, where we’re ambassadors of reconciliation. Healing flows from Christ, the Great Physician, through us as we proclaim and live His gospel. Let’s keep building on this common ground, brother. What’s the next step you’d propose to clarify our understanding of healing or perception? I’m all in for continuing this journey together!

Theo, back to you,

The Eternity of Divine Judgment: A Theological Reappraisal of Annihilationism

Jack Kettler

Abstract

This paper critically examines the theological doctrine of annihilationism, encompassing subcategories such as conditional immortality and soul sleep, in light of biblical texts, historical confessions, and scholarly exegesis. Employing a systematic analysis of key scriptural passages (e.g., Matthew 25:46, Revelation 14:9-11, Daniel 12:2), lexical evidence, and theological tradition, it argues for the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious punishment over against annihilationist interpretations. The study addresses the linguistic, exegetical, and theological challenges posed by annihilationism, concluding that the biblical witness consistently affirms the eternal duration of both divine reward and punishment, thereby upholding the immortality of the soul and the finality of divine judgment.

Introduction

The question of the nature and duration of divine judgment remains a contentious issue in contemporary theological discourse. Annihilationism, the view that the unrighteous face ultimate destruction rather than eternal conscious torment, has gained traction in some theological circles. This doctrine, alongside related concepts such as conditional immortality and soul sleep, challenges the traditional Christian affirmation of eternal punishment. This paper seeks to evaluate these claims through a rigorous engagement with biblical texts, lexical analysis, and confessional standards, aiming to glorify God through faithful interpretation of divine revelation (Psalm 25:4). The central thesis is that Scripture consistently teaches the eternal conscious punishment of the unrighteous, a position grounded in the linguistic symmetry of key passages and the broader theological framework of divine justice and human immortality.

Definitions and Conceptual Framework

·         Annihilationism: The doctrine posits that after death, the unrighteous endure God’s wrath temporarily before being annihilated, ceasing to exist. Some variants suggest immediate annihilation at death, while others allow for a period of punishment proportional to one’s sins (Grudem, 1994).

·         Conditional Immortality: This view asserts that immortality is a divine gift bestowed exclusively upon the redeemed through faith in Christ. The unrighteous, lacking this gift, face destruction, either immediately or after a finite period of punishment (Fudge, 2011).

·         Soul Sleep: This teaching holds that the soul ceases to exist or remains unconscious between death and the final resurrection. While not heretical, it is often critiqued as an interpretive error, given scriptural indications of post-mortem consciousness (e.g., Luke 16:19-31; 2 Corinthians 5:1-10) (Berkhof, 1941).

Biblical Evidence and Exegesis

·         Matthew 25:46
The text states, “And these shall go away into everlasting (αἰώνιον, aiōnion) punishment: but the righteous into life eternal (αἰώνιον, aiōnion).” The Greek term aiōnion, meaning “eternal” or “age-long,” is applied symmetrically to both the punishment of the unrighteous and the life of the righteous. Annihilationist interpretations, which argue that aiōnion denotes a temporal duration for punishment, falter on the principle of linguistic consistency. To suggest that aiōnion implies a finite punishment for the unrighteous while affirming eternal life for the righteous introduces an equivocation, undermining the grammatical and contextual unity of the verse. As Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown (1871) note, the parallel structure of Matthew 25:46 underscores the finality and irreversibility of both destinies, with the “everlasting fire” (v. 41) prepared for the devil and his angels indicating a shared, unending fate for the unrighteous.

·         Revelation 14:9-11
This passage describes the fate of those who worship the beast: “The smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night.” The imagery of unending smoke and relentless torment strongly suggests perpetual punishment. The Pulpit Commentary (Spence & Exell, 1890) aligns this with Isaiah 34:9-10, where unending smoke symbolizes eternal judgment. Annihilationist claims that the fire consumes its objects, leaving only smoke as evidence of completed destruction, are unpersuasive. The text’s assertion of “no rest day nor night” implies ongoing conscious existence, as cessation of being would negate the need for such a description (Peterson, 1995).

·         Daniel 12:2
The Old Testament contributes to this discussion with Daniel’s prophecy: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting (עֹולָ֔ם, o·v·lam) life, and some to shame and everlasting (עֹולָ֔ם, o·v·lam) contempt.” The Hebrew term o·v·lam, like aiōnion, denotes a duration of perpetual significance. The parallel use of o·v·lam for both eternal life and eternal contempt mirrors Matthew 25:46, reinforcing the argument that divine judgment is eternal in both its reward and punitive aspects. Attempts to interpret o·v·lam as a finite period for punishment while maintaining eternal life for the righteous commit the fallacy of amphiboly, an inconsistent grammatical misreading (Orr, 1915).

Theological and Confessional Support

·         Immortality of the Soul
The doctrine of the soul’s immortality is foundational to the traditional view of eternal punishment. Contra annihilationist claims that immortality is a Hellenistic import, Louis Berkhof (1941) argues that Scripture assumes the soul’s continued conscious existence post-mortem. Old Testament texts (e.g., Psalm 16:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11) imply a divine design for human communion with God that transcends temporal existence. New Testament passages, such as Matthew 10:28 and Luke 16:19-31, explicitly affirm the soul’s survival and conscious state after death. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646, Chapter XXXII) codifies this, stating that souls “neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence,” with the righteous entering God’s presence and the wicked cast into torment awaiting final judgment.

·         Divine Justice and Finality
The finality of divine judgment is a recurring scriptural theme. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:26) depicts an impassable gulf between the righteous and the unrighteous, underscoring the irreversibility of their states. Hebrews 9:27 emphasizes that judgment follows death, with no indication of a post-mortem opportunity for repentance. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Orr, 1915) highlights the New Testament’s consistent portrayal of judgment as decisive, based on actions in this life (e.g., Matthew 25:31-46; 2 Corinthians 5:10). This precludes theories of universal salvation or a second probation, which lack explicit biblical warrant.

Counterarguments and Responses

·         Annihilationist Linguistic Claims
Annihilationists argue that terms like “destruction” (olethros, apollumi) and “death” imply cessation of existence. However, J.I. Packer (2015) counters that these terms denote ruin or loss of function, not annihilation. For instance, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 describes “eternal destruction” as exclusion from God’s presence, implying continued existence in a state of deprivation. Similarly, the “second death” (Revelation 20:14) signifies eternal separation from God, not extinction, as evidenced by the ongoing torment described in Revelation 14:11.

·         Conditional Immortality and Universalism
Conditional immortality posits that only the redeemed receive eternal life, with the unrighteous facing annihilation. This view struggles to account for passages like Matthew 25:46, where the same term (aiōnion) governs both destinies. Universalist theories, which propose eventual salvation for all, rely on speculative interpretations of texts like Ephesians 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. These passages, however, speak of Christ’s ultimate sovereignty, not universal conversion, and are countered by explicit warnings of eternal judgment (e.g., Matthew 7:23; Hebrews 6:6).

·         Soul Sleep and Post-Mortem Consciousness
The doctrine of soul sleep, while less problematic, is undermined by texts suggesting immediate post-mortem consciousness (e.g., Luke 23:43; Philippians 1:23). While Scripture does not exhaustively detail the intermediate state, the weight of evidence favors continued self-awareness, aligning with the traditional view of eternal destinies.

Conclusion

The biblical testimony, supported by lexical analysis and confessional tradition, affirms the eternal nature of divine judgment for both the righteous and the unrighteous. Key passages such as Matthew 25:46, Revelation 14:9-11, and Daniel 12:2 employ parallel linguistic structures to underscore the symmetry of eternal life and eternal punishment. Annihilationism, conditional immortality, and soul sleep, while offering alternative perspectives, fail to account for the consistent scriptural emphasis on the soul’s immortality and the finality of divine judgment. The traditional doctrine of eternal conscious punishment, though sobering, upholds the justice and holiness of God while affirming the enduring significance of human existence in relation to divine purposes. Further theological reflection is warranted to explore the pastoral implications of this doctrine, ensuring that it is communicated with humility and fidelity to the biblical witness.

References

·         Berkhof, L. (1941). Systematic Theology. Eerdmans.

·         Fudge, E. W. (2011). The Fire That Consumes. Wipf & Stock.

·         Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic Theology. Zondervan.

·         Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1871). Commentary on the Whole Bible. Zondervan.

·         Orr, J. (1915). International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Eerdmans.

·         Packer, J. I. (2015). “Why Annihilationism Is Wrong.” The Gospel Coalition.

·         Peterson, R. A. (1995). Hell on Trial. P&R Publishing.

·         Spence, H. D. M., & Exell, J. S. (1890). The Pulpit Commentary: Revelation. Eerdmans.

·         Westminster Assembly. (1646). Westminster Confession of Faith.

Declaration

“For transparency, I acknowledge the use of Grok, an AI tool developed by xAI, and Grammarly AI for editorial assistance in drafting, organizing, and refining this manuscript’s clarity and grammar. All theological arguments, exegesis, and interpretations are my own, and I take full responsibility for the content.” – Jack Kettler

Response

Hey brother, I’m really glad we’re seeking common ground. Your thesis—that Jesus’ teachings are apolitical and that a Christian’s role is to heal—is thought-provoking, and I appreciate the passion behind it. Let’s try to understand this from a perspective that honors God’s sovereignty over all things, while keeping the conversation warm and grounded. You’re right that true debate, in the Socratic sense, is about pursuing truth, not winning. From a Van Tillian view, though, truth isn’t something we stumble upon through neutral reasoning—God, rooted in His nature, reveals it. Every thought, every argument, starts with Him as the foundation. As we explore your ideas, I’m leaning on the reality that Christ is Lord over every sphere—politics, science, and even our perceptions—because He holds all things together (Colossians 1:17). Let’s see where that takes us. Jesus’ Teachings and Politics, your claim that Jesus’ teachings are apolitical is an interesting angle, but I’d gently push back here. Jesus didn’t align with any political faction of His day—He didn’t join the Zealots, Pharisees, or Sadducees. Yet, His teachings were deeply authoritative, proclaiming a Kingdom that upends worldly power structures. When He said, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21), He wasn’t sidestepping politics but redefining it.

Everything belongs to God, so even Caesar’s realm is under His rule. From a Kuyperian perspective, there’s no “neutral” or apolitical space—every square inch of creation, including government, is claimed by Christ. That said, Jesus wasn’t chasing earthly power like a politician. His mission was to reconcile us to God, to heal our brokenness through the cross. But healing isn’t separate from His Lordship. When He heals bodies, minds, or souls, He’s restoring creation to reflect God’s glory. So, while His teachings aren’t “political” in a partisan sense, they transform how we engage every sphere, including politics, by calling us to serve rather than dominate.

The Christian’s Role: Healing and Joy. I like your emphasis on healing as our calling. It resonates with the idea that Christians are to be a redemptive presence in the world, bringing wholeness wherever we go. You’re spot-on that this doesn’t mean we all become doctors—it’s about redirecting our vocations to glorify God and bless others. A Kuyperian lens would suggest that we do this in every sphere: art, business, family, and even politics. Whether we’re teachers or farmers, we’re called to reflect Christ’s restorative work. Your point about joy as a gauge of our calling is beautiful. A heart aligned with God’s purposes naturally overflows with joy, not because life is easy but because we’re anchored in His unchanging love.

But I’d add that joy doesn’t always feel like happiness. Sometimes, carrying our cross (Matthew 16:24) means embracing suffering for the sake of others, trusting God’s bigger story. That’s not heavy—it’s freeing, because Christ carries the weight. Perception vs. Knowledge Your distinction between perception and knowledge is fascinating, especially the idea that perception fragments while knowledge unifies. From a Van Tillian standpoint, I’d agree that human perception is limited and often distorted by sin. We see “through a glass, darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12). But I’d frame it differently: our perceptions aren’t inherently opposed to knowledge. God created our senses to know His world truly, though not exhaustively. The problem comes when we lean on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5) instead of submitting our minds to God’s revelation. Your take on perception as projection, with the eyes as projectors, is poetic, but I’m not sure it fully aligns with how Scripture describes sight. Jesus often uses seeing and believing together, like in John 9, when He heals the blind man to reveal spiritual truth. Sight, when redeemed, points us to God’s reality. I’d argue that when perception is submitted to Christ, it becomes a tool for knowing Him and His world better, not a barrier. You’re right that scientific reasoning can pile up data without getting us closer to actual knowledge. The “tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:17) wasn’t about knowing facts but about usurping God’s authority to define right and wrong. True knowledge starts with fearing the Lord (Proverbs 1:7), which humbles us to see the world through His lens. So, while I agree that fragmentation (like dividing light into colors) can distract us, I’d say the issue isn’t perception itself but perception divorced from God’s truth. Dominion and Mastery: your reading of Genesis 1:26—dominion as mastery—hits a deep chord. But let’s nuance it. Dominion, in the biblical sense, isn’t about control for control’s sake. It’s stewardship, reflecting God’s image by caring for His creation.

For example:

Theological Meaning: Godly Dominion

The concept of dominion in Genesis 1:26 is inherently godly dominion, defined by its connection to God’s image and the pre-fall context. Here’s how this unfolds:

• Rooted in God’s Image: Humanity’s dominion flows from being created bĕṣalmēnû (in our image). As image-bearers, humans reflect God’s character—His wisdom, justice, and care. Dominion is not autonomous but derivative, exercised under God’s authority. Just as God rules creation with goodness (Genesis 1:31, “very good”), humans are to rule in a way that reflects His benevolence.

• Stewardship, Not Exploitation: In the historical context, rādâ could imply forceful subjugation, but the pre-fall setting excludes oppression. Genesis 2:15 complements this, where Adam is to “work” and “keep” (‘ābad and šāmar) the garden—terms associated with service and protection (e.g., priests “keep” the tabernacle, Numbers 3:7-8). Godly dominion is stewardship, cultivating creation for flourishing, not domination for self-interest.

• Harmony with Creation: The scope of dominion (fish, birds, etc.) places humans as caretakers of God’s creatures. The absence of conflict in Genesis 1 suggests a harmonious relationship, where dominion fosters life. For the Israelites, this contrasted with pagan views of nature as chaotic or divine, affirming Yahweh’s sovereignty and humanity’s role as His vice-regents.

• Relational and Functional: The image of God includes relationality (male and female, v. 27) and purpose (dominion). Godly dominion is exercised in community, reflecting God’s unity, and functionally, as humans extend God’s creative order (e.g., naming animals, Genesis 2:19-20), which mirrors God’s naming in Genesis 1.

• Contrast with Sinful Dominion: Post-fall, dominion is distorted into exploitation (e.g., Genesis 3:16, where rādâ describes oppressive rule). Godly dominion, as intended, is restorative, pointing to Christ, the true image-bearer (Colossians 1:15), who rules with justice and love (Psalm 72).

To repeat, in Genesis 1:26, dominion is godly dominion—a delegated authority to rule creation as God’s image-bearers, reflecting His wisdom, justice, and care. Grammatically, rādâ conveys authority, but the historical context and pre-fall setting define it as stewardship, not oppression.

Adam was tasked with cultivating the garden, not exploiting it. Sin twisted dominion into domination, but Christ redeems it, calling us to serve, not to lord over others (Mark 10:42-45). I hear you on the ego’s drive to control out of fear. That’s the fallen self, rebelling against God’s sufficiency. But as we’re renewed in Christ, we don’t just let go of control—we surrender it to Him. And here’s the Kuyperian twist: that surrender doesn’t pull us out of the world but sends us into it, to work, create, and govern as His ambassadors. Politics, when redeemed, isn’t about power grabs but about seeking justice and flourishing for all, under God’s rule. 

Wrapping Up, Brother, I’m with you in wanting to avoid circular debates that spiral into nothingness. Your vision of Christians as healers, bringing joy and simplicity, is compelling. But I’d encourage us to see Jesus’ teachings as bigger than apolitical—they’re all-encompassing, claiming every corner of life for His Kingdom. Our role as healers flows from His Lordship, transforming how we engage the world, not retreating from it. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on how this healing calling unfolds in specific spheres, such as family, work, or even government. And how do you see the balance between joy and the cross in our daily walk? I look forward to part two of your post and to continuing this fruitful exchange! With love and respect, Your brother, Jack

A Case for Christian Involvement in the Culture Wars: Theological Imperatives and the Perils of Inaction

Abstract: This paper argues for active Christian engagement in the contemporary culture wars, positing that such involvement is a theological and moral necessity rooted in the Christian mandate to embody truth, justice, and love in the public square. Drawing on biblical, historical, and theological sources, it contends that abstaining from cultural conflicts risks ceding moral ground, undermining the Church’s prophetic witness, and neglecting the call to steward creation and culture. The dangers of disengagement are explored, including the erosion of Christian influence and the potential for societal moral drift. This argument is framed within a peer-reviewed academic style, integrating primary and secondary sources to substantiate the case.

Introduction

The term “culture wars” denotes the ideological and moral conflicts shaping contemporary societal values, encompassing issues such as abortion, marriage, religious liberty, gender identity, and free speech. These debates are not merely political but deeply theological, touching on the nature of humanity, truth, and divine order. For Christians, the question of engagement in these conflicts is pressing: Does the Church have a responsibility to participate actively, or should it remain aloof, prioritizing spiritual concerns over temporal ones? This paper argues that Christian involvement in the culture wars is a theological imperative, grounded in Scripture, tradition, and reason. It further contends that sitting on the sidelines poses significant dangers to the Church’s mission and society’s moral fabric. By examining biblical mandates, historical precedents, and contemporary theological perspectives, this study advocates for a robust yet principled Christian presence in cultural debates.

Theological Foundations for Engagement

The Christian call to engage culture is rooted in the doctrine of the imago Dei (Gen. 1:26–27), which affirms the inherent dignity of all persons and humanity’s vocation to steward creation (Gen. 2:15). This stewardship extends beyond the natural world to the cultural and moral orders, which Christians are called to shape in accordance with divine truth (Col. 3:17). The Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20) further mandates disciples to teach all nations, implying a public witness that encompasses societal structures and values. As Niebuhr (1951) argues, Christians are called to a “Christ transforming culture” paradigm, actively reforming society in light of the gospel rather than withdrawing from it.

The prophetic tradition of the Old Testament reinforces this imperative. Prophets like Amos and Isaiah confronted societal injustices, calling Israel to align with God’s justice and righteousness (Amos 5:24; Isa. 1:17). Jesus Himself engaged the cultural and political realities of His time, challenging religious and secular authorities while proclaiming the Kingdom of God (Matt. 22:15–22; John 18:36). These examples underscore that Christian faith is not privatized but public, demanding engagement with the moral and cultural issues of the day.

The Case for Involvement in the Culture Wars

• Defending Truth and Moral Order: The culture wars often hinge on competing visions of truth—whether rooted in divine revelation or human autonomy. Issues such as abortion and marriage involve fundamental questions about human life and God’s design (Ps. 139:13–16; Matt. 19:4–6). Christians, as bearers of revealed truth, are obligated to defend these principles in the public square. Hunter (1991) notes that culture is shaped by institutions and elites who define societal norms; Christian silence risks allowing secular ideologies to dominate these spheres unchallenged.

• Exercising Prophetic Witness: The Church’s role as a prophetic voice requires speaking truth to power, even when unpopular. Bonhoeffer (1955) warned that silence in the face of moral crises equates to complicity, a lesson drawn from the Church’s mixed record during the rise of Nazism. In contemporary contexts, issues like religious liberty and free speech demand Christian advocacy to preserve the Church’s ability to proclaim the gospel freely (Acts 4:19–20).

• Loving Neighbor Through Cultural Engagement: The command to love one’s neighbor (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:39) extends to advocating for societal conditions that promote human flourishing. For instance, defending the sanctity of life or traditional marriage reflects a commitment to the well-being of individuals and communities. As Stackhouse (2002) argues, Christian social ethics demands active participation in shaping a just and virtuous society.

• Stewarding Cultural Influence: The early Church transformed the Roman Empire through its countercultural witness, influencing laws, ethics, and social norms (Stark, 1996). Today, Christians are similarly called to steward their cultural influence, lest they forfeit their role as “salt and light” (Matt. 5:13–16). Disengagement risks marginalizing Christianity, reducing it to a subculture irrelevant to broader societal discourse.

The Dangers of Sitting on the Sidelines

• Ceding Moral Ground: Inaction allows opposing ideologies to shape cultural norms unchecked. For example, the rapid normalization of secular views on gender and sexuality reflects, in part, the Church’s hesitancy to engage robustly (Gagnon, 2001). This cession of moral ground undermines the Church’s ability to influence future generations and perpetuates societal drift from biblical values.

• Erosion of Religious Liberty: Cultural disengagement often leads to the erosion of protections for religious practice. Recent legal battles over conscience rights and free speech illustrate the consequences of Christian silence (Laycock, 2014). Without active advocacy, the Church risks losing its freedom to operate according to its convictions.

• Diminished Prophetic Credibility: A Church that avoids cultural conflicts may be perceived as irrelevant or morally compromised. The failure to address pressing issues like abortion or human trafficking can weaken the Church’s moral authority, alienating both believers and seekers (Sider, 2005).

• Neglect of Missional Calling: The mission to make disciples requires engaging the cultural context in which people live. As Newbigin (1989) argues, the gospel must be incarnated in every culture, addressing its idols and brokenness. Withdrawal from the culture wars abandons this missional task, limiting the Church’s evangelistic impact.

Counterarguments and Responses

Critics of Christian involvement in the culture wars argue that it risks politicizing the gospel, alienating nonbelievers, or fostering division within the Church. While these concerns are valid, they do not negate the imperative for engagement. Politicization can be mitigated by grounding advocacy in theological principles rather than partisan agendas (Wallis, 2005). Alienation is a risk, but winsome, truth-filled engagement can draw seekers to the gospel (Keller, 2012). Division within the Church can be addressed through humble dialogue and a shared commitment to biblical fidelity.

Conclusion

Christian involvement in the culture wars is not optional but a theological and moral necessity. Rooted in the doctrines of creation, stewardship, and the prophetic witness, engagement reflects the Church’s calling to embody truth, justice, and love in the public square. The dangers of disengagement—ceding moral ground, eroding religious liberty, diminishing credibility, and neglecting mission—far outweigh the risks of involvement. By participating winsomely and courageously, Christians can fulfill their vocation as salt and light, shaping culture for the glory of God and the good of humanity.

References

1. Bonhoeffer, D. (1955). Ethics. New York: Macmillan.
2. Gagnon, R. A. J. (2001). The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
3. Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic Books.
4. Keller, T. (2012). Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
5. Laycock, D. (2014). Religious Liberty and the Culture Wars. University of Illinois Law Review, 2014(3), 839–880.
6. Newbigin, L. (1989). The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
7. Niebuhr, H. R. (1951). Christ and Culture. New York: Harper & Row.
8. Sider, R. J. (2005). The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
9. Stackhouse, J. G. (2002). Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Stark, R. (1996). The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
11. Wallis, J. (2005). God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

The above article was Groked under the direction of Jack Kettler and perfected using Grammarly AI.

“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)

Mr. Kettler, an author who has published works in Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum, is an active RPCNA member in Westminster, CO, with 18 books defending the Reformed Faith available on Amazon.

Dear Friend,

Thank you for your thoughtful and engaging response, which I received. Your reflections demonstrate a deep commitment to wrestling with the implications of Jesus’ teachings, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to continue this conversation in the spirit of mutual edification. Your thesis that Jesus was apolitical, framed through the lens of perception as illusion and forgiveness as healing, offers a stimulating perspective. While I find much to affirm in your passion for Christ’s transformative power, I’d like to gently probe some points and offer a perspective shaped by Reformed convictions, particularly Abraham Kuyper’s doctrine of sphere sovereignty and the comprehensive lordship of Christ.

Affirming Common Ground

Your emphasis on Jesus as the ultimate healer, restoring wholeness through forgiveness, resonates deeply with my of salvation as a holistic restoration of our relationship with God (Col. 1:19–20). Your insight that healing moves us toward holiness echoes the Reformed doctrine of sanctification, where the Spirit conforms us to Christ’s image (Rom. 8:29). I also appreciate your focus on perception shaping interpretation, acknowledging that our fallen minds often project our desires onto reality. The Reformed tradition, with its commitment to the noetic effects of sin, affirms that our understanding is clouded apart from the Spirit’s illumination and the authority of Scripture (1 Cor. 2:14).

Your recognition of paradox in Jesus’ teachings is another point of convergence. Like you, the Reformed tradition embraces paradox—not as contradiction, but as a reflection of God’s infinite wisdom transcending human categories. Your statement that “there is nothing outside of God” aligns with Kuyper’s bold claim that Christ’s sovereignty extends over every sphere of life, proclaiming “Mine!” over all creation. This shared conviction provides a good foundation for our discussion.

Engaging the Apolitical Thesis

Your core argument seems to be that Jesus was apolitical, with politics being part of the illusory world of perception that He transcends. You interpret Matthew 22:21 (“Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”) as a call to reject material idols (coins) in favor of our heavenly inheritance, emphasizing the spiritual over the temporal. This reading rightly highlights Jesus’ redefinition of power and authority (John 18:36), but I’d suggest that, in the Reformed tradition, Jesus’ teachings engage politics as part of God’s created order, not as an illusion to escape.

As alluded too in my previous reply, Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty offers a helpful framework here. He taught that God ordained distinct spheres—family, church, state, etc.—each with its own authority under Christ’s lordship. The state, while fallen, is not illusory but a God-given institution for justice and order (Rom. 13:1–4). When Jesus acknowledges Caesar’s claim, He affirms the state’s limited role within God’s economy, not as ultimate but as subordinate to divine authority. This doesn’t endorse Caesar’s idolatry but recognizes that even flawed structures serve God’s purposes. For Kuyper, Christ’s kingship doesn’t abolish politics but calls Christians to redeem it through faithful stewardship, promoting justice and the common good.

Your analogy to Socrates is insightful—both he and Jesus challenged cultural powers without holding office. Yet, Jesus’ proclamation of God’s kingdom (Mark 1:15) had political implications, subverting earthly authorities by asserting God’s reign. His actions, like healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1–6), disrupted social and religious hierarchies, confronting the status quo in ways that were not apolitical but prophetic. Kuyper would see these as evidence of Christ’s lordship over every sphere, including politics, which Christians are called to engage without idolizing.

Perception, Reality, and Creation

Your view of perception as projection, creating illusions like sickness or politics, raises questions about reality. You argue that Jesus repurposes perception for healing, revealing the truth of God’s kingdom. This resonates with the Reformed emphasis on renewing the mind (Rom. 12:2), but I’d caution against equating the material world with illusion. In Reformed theology, creation is good, though fallen (Gen. 1:31; Rom. 8:20–21). Politics, as part of God’s created order, is marred by sin but redeemable. Kuyper’s vision encourages Christians to engage temporal realities, not to escape them, trusting that Christ is reconciling all things (Col. 1:20).

Your interpretation of healing in Mark 2:5, where forgiveness liberates from false beliefs, is compelling. The Reformed tradition would agree that forgiveness restores wholeness, impacting every sphere. For Kuyper, this includes politics, where Christians apply gospel principles to advocate for justice and mercy. Your call for forgiveness in all spheres aligns with this, suggesting that politics, while not ultimate, is a field for Christ’s redemptive work.

Simplicity and Faithful Engagement

You note that your interpretation’s simplicity inspires joy, optimism, and love, a beautiful measure of theology’s fruit (Matt. 7:20). The Reformed tradition values clarity in proclaiming the gospel but also embraces the complexity of applying it to a fallen world. Kuyper’s framework invites us to navigate politics with humility, not as an illusion but as a sphere under Christ’s lordship. Your question—whether an interpretation yielding joy and love needs correction—is reflective. I’d suggest that truth, not just fruit, must guide us, and Scripture, illumined by the Spirit, is our standard.

An Invitation to Continue

I’m grateful for your desire to “chew on this” before adding more, and I share your commitment to digesting this fully. Our differences hinge on whether Jesus transcends politics as illusion or transforms it as part of creation.

Thank you for this enriching exchange. May we continue seeking Christ’s truth together, guided by His Spirit (John 16:13). Another area of possible discussion would be “Dominion” found in (Genesis 1:26; 2:5). The word dominion is used in the KJV. Some believe this translation is misleading, leading a license to rape and pollute the earth. 

In His service,

Jack