You decide what the fence is for.

Start with a small, strange fact, and let it set the tone for everything that follows.

On the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba — the Saudi Arabian side — an investigator named Ron Wyatt reported finding a granite pillar standing in the shallows, a twin to one he’d documented on the Egyptian shore directly opposite. Two matching columns, he claimed, one on each coast, bracketing a crossing. And then, by the account, before anyone could return to photograph and study the Saudi pillar properly, the Saudi authorities removed it. [The Edge — this is Wyatt’s account, and I’ll flag exactly what’s claimed versus shown as we go.]

Now, a skeptic has a ready and fair response to that, and I’ll give it to you before I give you anything else, because that’s the deal I’ve made with you in this series: of course the inconvenient artifact is always the one that conveniently vanished. “They took it before I could prove it” is the oldest dodge in pseudo-archaeology, and a careful person should hear that alarm bell loudly. I hear it too. I’m not going to ask you to take the pillar on Wyatt’s say-so.

But hold the alarm bell next to a second fact that isn’t Wyatt’s claim and isn’t disputed: the region around the mountain in Arabia that this whole reconstruction points to — Jabal al-Lawz, in northwestern Saudi Arabia — is fenced, guarded, and closed to ordinary access. That’s not a rumor. Saudi Arabia restricts the site. You cannot simply go and look. [Bedrock — the access restriction is real and documentable.]

So set the two side by side and notice the shape, the way we noticed it with Göbekli Tepe back in Part 1. There, a site with no religious stakes at all was frozen at five percent and handed a hundred-and-fifty-year timeline, and we learned what the dig-stop mechanism looks like when nobody has an axe to grind. Here we have a coastline and a mountain that — if the reconstruction is right — would be among the most explosive archaeological sites on earth, and the relevant stretch is fenced off and the relevant artifact is, by the account, gone. I’m not going to tell you why. I learned my lesson in Part 1. I’m going to lay it on the table and let the empty space do its work. You already know how to read a fence.

Let’s walk the actual evidence, firmest ground first.

Subscribe now

Read more

There is a building in Bologna, Italy, that has been continuously operating as a university since 1088. It has survived plague, war, political revolution, the fall of empires, and the rise of the secular state. For most of its history, the discipline that sat at the top of its academic hierarchy, the one that all other disciplines were understood to serve and to which they were all ultimately answerable, was theology. The queen of the sciences, they called it. Not because theologians were the most powerful people in the room, though sometimes they were. Because the question theology asked, what is real, what is good, what is this all for, was the question that gave every other question its meaning.

They dethroned her in the nineteenth century. They told themselves they were cleaning house, removing superstition from the temple of reason, liberating inquiry from the dead hand of dogma. What they did not notice, because it takes generations to notice this kind of thing, is that when you remove the question that orients all the other questions, you do not get purer science. You get science without a compass. You get inquiry without a destination. You get the most technically proficient, directionally lost institution in human history.

We are living in that institution now. And the bodies it keeps producing, not just literal bodies, though those too, but the moral wreckage, the civilizational drift, the narrowing of human possibility dressed up as its expansion, are the predictable output of a machine that was stripped of its governing question and told to run faster.

This article is an argument. It is aimed specifically at the person who believes theology is the least scientific thing in the room, the person who thinks the medieval university was a monument to ignorance that modernity had the good sense to dismantle. I want to make the case that the dismantling was the catastrophe. That the queen was not a tyrant. That her exile has not liberated the sciences but orphaned them. And that what passes for intellectual progress in the modern university is, in significant measure, the sound of very smart people running very fast in very tight circles, because the question that would have told them where to go was the first thing they threw out.

*

The Architecture of the Medieval Mind

Before making the argument, it is worth understanding what was actually being claimed when theology was called the queen of the sciences. The claim was not that theologians knew more than physicists or that prayer was a substitute for experiment. The claim was architectural. It was a claim about the structure of knowledge itself.

The medieval university was built on a specific premise: that all genuine inquiry is ultimately asking a version of the same question. Physics asks how matter behaves. Chemistry asks what matter is made of. Medicine asks how the body works. Law asks how human society should be ordered. Philosophy asks what is real and what is good. And theology asks why there is something rather than nothing, what the whole of it is oriented toward, and what it means for a human being to live well inside it.

These questions are not equal in the sense of being the same kind of question. They form a hierarchy. The lower questions depend on the higher ones for their ultimate justification. You cannot ask how matter behaves without a prior commitment to the idea that matter behaves in consistent, investigable ways, which is itself a theological proposition. The orderliness of the universe is not something physics discovers. It is something physics assumes. And the history of that assumption leads directly to a specific intellectual tradition rooted in a specific doctrine of creation: that the universe was made by a rational God who embedded rational order into it, and that human minds, made in the image of that God, are capable of reading that order.

Alfred North Whitehead, who was not a Christian apologist but one of the twentieth century’s most rigorous philosophers of science, made this point in a way that has never been adequately answered. He argued that modern science was not possible without the medieval theological conviction that nature was the product of a rational Creator. That conviction, he said, is what gave early scientists the faith that their experiments would produce consistent results, that the universe would not simply do something different tomorrow, that there were laws to discover rather than merely patterns to catalogue. Strip that conviction and you have not liberated science. You have removed the foundation on which the entire enterprise rests.

This is what the medieval hierarchy of knowledge was protecting. Not power. Not institutional privilege. The coherence of inquiry itself.

When theology sat at the top, every discipline was required to ask not just how but why. The physician was not only asking how to treat the body. He was asking what the body was for, what a human being is, what healing means in the context of a life that has a destination. The lawyer was not only asking what the statute said. He was asking whether the statute was just, which required a standard of justice that no statute could supply from within itself. The natural philosopher was not only asking what the evidence showed. He was asking what kind of universe was the sort of thing that could produce evidence, and what kind of mind was the sort of thing that could read it.

These are theological questions. They were not obstacles to inquiry. They were the questions that made inquiry meaningful.

*

What Happened When She Left

The expulsion of theology from the center of the university did not happen all at once. It happened in stages, and each stage was accompanied by a plausible-sounding justification.

First, theology was demoted from queen to peer. It became one department among others, subject to the same methodological standards as chemistry or economics, which meant it was immediately disadvantaged, because the methods appropriate to chemistry are not the methods appropriate to questions about ultimate meaning. You cannot run a double-blind trial on the existence of God. The methodological displacement was dressed up as fairness but functioned as elimination.

Then, as theology lost institutional authority, the organizing question it had asked lost institutional standing. The disciplines were no longer required to justify themselves to anything outside their own methods. Physics justified itself to physics. Economics justified itself to economics. Each field became increasingly self-referential, increasingly sealed off from the questions that would have connected it to human meaning and moral purpose.

What followed was exactly what you would predict. The disciplines proliferated. The sub-disciplines multiplied. The papers accumulated. But the generative thinker, the person who could stand above the disciplines and see across them, became rarer and more suspect. Interdisciplinary work was celebrated in theory and rewarded almost nowhere in practice, because the institution had no framework for evaluating ideas that could not be assessed within a single discipline’s methodological standards.

The result is what you described: derivative work and cumulative work. More data confirming what is already believed. Existing methods applied to adjacent problems. The generation of knowledge without the generation of wisdom. The production of answers to questions that no one has interrogated to determine whether they are the right questions.

This is not a failure of intelligence. The modern university contains some of the most intelligent people who have ever lived. It is a failure of orientation. The instruments are extraordinarily fine. The compass was thrown out with the theology.

Tesla and the Altitude Problem

Nikola Tesla demonstrated radio-controlled craft on the Hudson River in 1898. He stood in Madison Square Garden and steered a small boat by remote control in front of a live audience. They thought it was a trick. A trained monkey, some of them said. They had no framework for what they were watching.

He tried to sell the concept to the United States Navy as an autonomous torpedo. They were not interested.

What Tesla was actually doing was thinking about the nature of electromagnetic energy and what the principle of wireless transmission made possible. The drone was not his project. It fell out of his project the way fruit falls from a tree. He was not solving the drone problem. He was asking a question so large that the drone was an incidental answer to it. He thought commercial radio was a quaint application of what he had built, a parlor trick dressed up as communication, because his mind was running at an altitude where the interesting questions were about transmitting power across the planet without wires.

That altitude is what the governing question produces.

Subscribe now

Read more

There is a particular move that people who have been hurt learn to make, and they learn it early, usually before they have the words for it.

You decide a person is going to leave you, and so you leave first. You feel the warmth in a friendship start to cool, or you imagine you feel it, and rather than sit in the unbearable suspense of waiting to find out, you withdraw. You stop calling. You let the silences stretch. You find the small flaw and you make it the whole picture, because a friendship you ended on your own terms hurts less than a friendship that ended on theirs. You were not going to be the one standing there when the door closed. You closed it yourself, while you still could, and you told yourself it was strength.

Anyone who has done this knows it does not feel like cowardice in the moment. It feels like self-respect. It feels like seeing clearly. It feels like refusing to be a fool who keeps showing up for someone who is going to disappoint them eventually. The logic is airtight from the inside. The only thing wrong with it is that it sometimes ends relationships that were not actually going to end, and it does so on the strength of a prediction that was never tested.

I want to suggest something, and I want to do it gently, because it is the kind of thing that can sound like an accusation when it is meant as a recognition. A great deal of what gets called unbelief works exactly like this. It is not, at its root, a conclusion the mind arrived at after weighing the evidence. It is a guard the heart posted after deciding, in advance, how the story was going to go.

It is the oldest protective reflex there is, turned toward the largest possible relationship.

Reject God before he can reject you.


Let me say clearly what I am not saying, because the difference matters and I do not want to be misread.

I am not saying that every doubt is a wound in disguise. I am not saying that intellectual objections to God are fake, that the people who raise them are secretly just hurting, that if everyone went to enough therapy the questions would dissolve. That would be insulting, and it would be false. The problem of suffering is a real problem. The hiddenness of God is a real problem. The hard questions about the reliability of ancient texts are real questions, and anyone who waves them away has not taken them seriously. Some unbelief is genuinely, cleanly intellectual, arrived at by honest people doing honest thinking, and it deserves to be met on that ground rather than psychologized away.

What I am saying is narrower and, I think, harder to dismiss. It is that for many people, maybe most, the intellectual case came second. The guard went up first, and the arguments were recruited afterward to defend a position the heart had already taken. The objections are real, but they are doing a job that was assigned to them by something underneath. And you cannot evaluate the arguments cleanly while the thing underneath is still running, because the thing underneath is what decided, before any argument was heard, which conclusions would be allowed to feel true.

This is not a Christian invention designed to corner skeptics. It is one of the more honest things the Bible says about people, and it says it about everyone, believers very much included.


Consider the strangest verse in the New Testament on the subject of why people turn away.

You would expect the reason to be ignorance. People do not believe because they have not heard, have not seen the evidence, have not been given a good enough argument. That would be the flattering version, the one where unbelief is simply a gap in information waiting to be filled.

That is not what the text says. In John’s Gospel the diagnosis is this: people loved darkness rather than light. And then it specifies why, and the why is not what you would guess. Not because the light was weak. Not because the evidence was thin. Because of what the light would show.

Read carefully, darkness there does not mean wickedness. It means cover. It means the relief of not being seen. The verse is not calling anyone evil. It is making an observation about exposure, and about the entirely understandable human preference for staying unexposed. We do not avoid the light because we are villains. We avoid it because we are afraid of what it will reveal, and that fear is not irrational. Most of us are carrying things we would rather not have examined, by anyone, least of all by someone who could see all the way down.

C.S. Lewis, looking back on the years he spent as a committed atheist, named this with a precision that has stayed with me. He was not a lazy unbeliever. He was a professional intellectual, and he had reasons, and the reasons were real. But when he was honest about the deepest layer of his resistance, what he found there was not an argument. It was a recoil. In his own words, the thing he most wanted, in his atheism, was to be left alone. “I did not want to be interfered with.” He had glimpsed that if God were real, then God would have a claim on him, and the prospect of that claim was more threatening than the prospect of God’s nonexistence was comforting. The atheism was not, at bottom, a finding. It was a fortification.

That is the reflex. Not stupidity. Not rebellion in the cartoonish sense. Something far more sympathetic and far more human: the fear that if you let this particular Person all the way in, you would lose control of the one thing you have been holding together by sheer will, which is the management of who gets to see you.


The philosopher Norman Geisler put his finger on the same machinery from a different angle. Atheism, he observed, is rarely just the absence of belief in God. More often it is the presence of a belief about who holds final authority, and the answer it gives is: I do. Not God, not any external claim, but the self as the last court of appeal.

And here is the thing about that arrangement, the thing that explains why it can feel so urgent to defend. Authority is comforting when you trust the one who holds it. It is suffocating when you do not. If somewhere underneath you suspect that any authority over you will eventually be used against you, the way it was used against you before, then the prospect of a God with a rightful claim on your life is not good news. It is the return of a threat you escaped. Of course you would post a guard. Of course you would get your rejection in first. You are not defending a philosophical position. You are defending a perimeter.

The trouble is that the perimeter was drawn by your wounds, and it was drawn to keep out the people who hurt you, and it cannot tell the difference between them and anyone who happens to approach from the same direction.

Scripture is unsentimental about the human heart in a way that our culture is not.

The modern instruction is to follow your heart, to trust the gut, to treat your strongest feelings as a compass pointing reliably true. The Bible says something almost rude by comparison. It says the heart is deceitful above all things. Not evil, exactly. Not worthless. The Hebrew carries the sense of something twisted, knotted, divided against itself, capable of wanting two opposite things at once and lying to you about which one it is actually serving.

The pastor John MacArthur sharpened it into a line I have never been able to unhear. The heart, he said, is not a compass. It is a cauldron. A boiling mixture in which the longing for love and the dread of being known, the hunger for meaning and the terror of accountability, the desire to be good and the desire to answer to no one, are all churning together at once. And out of that cauldron the heart issues verdicts that feel like clear sight and are often just the loudest fear winning the moment.

When the cauldron is afraid, it does what frightened things do. It reaches for control. It pushes away whatever threatens to lift the lid. And the largest possible threat to a heart that has organized itself around not being seen is precisely a God who sees. So the heart renders its verdict early, dresses it in the language of reason, and calls the matter settled.

This is why “follow your heart” is such poor counsel at exactly this crossroads. The heart, here, is not a neutral observer reporting on the evidence. It is an interested party that decided the outcome in advance and then went looking for justifications.


I want to bring in a witness now, because I am aware that everything I have said so far could land as a clever way of telling people their doubts do not count. It is not. And the best proof I can offer is a man who spent his entire life proving the opposite of what I am arguing, and then changed his mind in public, at great cost, for the most uncomfortable possible reason: he followed his own rule too honestly to keep his conclusion.

His name was Antony Flew, and for half a century he was arguably the most formidable philosophical atheist alive. This is not Christian hype. His 1950 paper “Theology and Falsification” became one of the most widely reprinted philosophy essays of the twentieth century, and it was a precise, devastating argument that religious claims die “the death of a thousand qualifications,” that they get hedged until they mean nothing. He wrote book after book setting the agenda for unbelief. An entire generation of atheists learned their craft from him. If you wanted the case against God stated at its strongest, you went to Flew.

He had one governing principle, which he took from Plato’s Socrates and repeated his whole life: we must follow the argument wherever it leads. It was the rule he used to dismantle theism for fifty years. And there is a detail in his story that belongs to this series specifically. When he first delivered “Theology and Falsification,” he delivered it to the Oxford Socratic Club, and the man chairing that club, sitting across the table, was C.S. Lewis. The most famous atheist argument of the century was first read aloud in a room presided over by the century’s most famous defender of the faith, both of them bound by the same Socratic rule, both of them committed to going wherever the reasoning went.

In 2004, Flew announced that he no longer believed there was no God. By his own account it was not a single new argument that moved him and not a conversion experience and not fear of death. It was, he said, the slow accumulated weight of “my continuing assessment of the evidence of nature.” The same rule that had armed his atheism, applied without flinching for another two decades, eventually turned him around. He did not become a Christian, and I am not going to pretend he did. He moved to a kind of deism, a belief in a mind behind the order of things, and there were fair questions raised about the influence of others on an old man, which I will not paper over. But the core of the story is unembarrassed and it is this: the man whose life was the intellectual defense of unbelief took down his own guard, late and at real cost to his reputation, because he had promised to follow the argument and the argument had moved.

Notice what that demonstrates. Lowering the defense is not the abandonment of reason. For Flew it was the resumption of reason, after the discovery that even he had been, in some quarters of his own thinking, defending a perimeter rather than weighing the evidence. The guard had been doing work he had mistaken for thinking.

This is the thing the wounded skeptic most needs to hear, and it comes not from a pulpit but from the dean of atheist philosophy: following the argument all the way is not how you lose your integrity. It is how you keep it. Christianity, at its least defensive and most confident, is the tradition that says come, let us reason together. It does not need you to stop thinking. It needs you to keep thinking past the point where the fear told you to stop.

And here we arrive at the part that the cleverness cannot reach, the part that is not an argument at all.

The reason the guard cannot tell friend from threat is that it was built from a sample. You learned what authority does from the specific authorities you were handed. You learned what a father is from your father, or from his absence. You learned what love costs from the people who charged you for it. And from that sample, entirely reasonably, you extrapolated a God, and the God you extrapolated had the face of everyone who ever made you brace.

But a portrait assembled from your wounds is not a portrait of God. It is a portrait of your wounds. And the tragedy of the preemptive rejection is that it works perfectly against a God who was never coming, and leaves you defended against the only One who actually was.

Jesus told a story about this, and it is so familiar that we have sanded the shock off it, so let me try to put the shock back. A son decides his father is the kind of man you have to get away from. He takes his inheritance early, which in that culture was the functional equivalent of wishing his father dead, and he leaves. He burns through everything. He ends up in a state of degradation that his audience would have heard as the lowest a person could fall. And then, starving, he does the math, and the math is the math of preemptive rejection running in reverse. He composes a speech. He will go back not as a son but as a hired servant, because he has concluded, on the basis of who he assumes his father to be, that sonship is off the table and the best he can hope for is to work off the debt. I know you do not love me anymore. Maybe you will let me earn a corner of your regard.

That speech is the whole defense mechanism in miniature. It assumes the verdict. It braces for the rejection. It gets the disappointment in first by lowering its own expectations to the floor, so that whatever the father does cannot hurt as much.

And the father sees him while he is still a long way off, which means the father had been watching the road. And the father runs. A landlord of standing in that world did not run; running was undignified, the gait of a servant, a public surrender of status, and he does it anyway, down the road, in front of everyone, before the son can get a single word of the rehearsed speech out of his mouth. The robe before the apology. The ring before the explanation. The feast before the accounting. The son had built his entire return around a prediction of who his father was, and the prediction was wrong, and it had been wrong the whole time he was gone.

That is the God the defense was built against. The one already on the road. The guard had been posted, all these years, against a Father who was running the other direction.


So this is what I would leave with anyone who recognizes the reflex in themselves, and I would say it without any pressure at all, because the entire point is that this cannot be coerced and was never meant to be.

You may not have rejected God. You may have rejected a verdict you reached about God before the evidence was in, on the authority of people who were not him, in order to protect a part of yourself that had every reason to want protecting. That was not stupidity. It was not even, really, rebellion. It was the most understandable thing in the world. You got your rejection in first because being rejected by something that large, if it turned out to be like the smaller things that had already wounded you, was more than you could risk.

The guard did its job. It kept you safe through a season when safety was the most important thing.

But the season may be over, and the One outside the perimeter may not be who the perimeter was built to keep out. The line between good and evil, Solzhenitsyn wrote after surviving the worst that men can do to men, does not run between us and them. It runs straight through the middle of every human heart, including the ones holding this page. Which means none of us approaches this as the wronged party demanding an account from a God in the dock. We approach it as people whose own hearts are mixed, asking whether the Father on the road is real.

You do not have to decide today. You do not have to have the questions resolved, or the doubts silenced, or the mind made certain. The threshold here was never certainty. It was honesty, and a heart willing to consider that it might have been guarding the wrong door.

The guard can come down a little. Not all at once. Just enough to look, honestly, at whether the figure coming down the road has the face you assigned him, or another one entirely.

He has been watching the road the whole time. He is not offended that you barred it. Most people do.

He is just glad to see you turn around.


How a person actually lowers that guard, what it costs and what it does not cost, and what it feels like to be met rather than judged, is the next thing I want to walk through. But that is its own piece, and this one has gone far enough.

If you have found this series worth your time, consider subscribing. The work is reader-supported, and your subscription is what lets me keep writing it.

https://acrosenthal.substack.com/
acrosenthal.com/

A man sat in a ruined Egypt and wrote down the end of his world. He did not know he was writing a defense of the Bible. He thought he was writing an obituary for his country.

We do not know much about him except his name, Ipuwer, and the fact that he was a literate Egyptian, a scribe, a member of the small educated class that kept the accounts and the records of the most orderly civilization on earth. Order was the whole Egyptian idea of the universe. They had a word for it, ma’at, the cosmic rightness that the Nile kept and the pharaoh guaranteed: the river rises on schedule, the crops come, the gods are fed, the dead are buried properly, the foreigner stays outside the wall. That was the world Ipuwer was born into and trained to serve.

And then he watched it come apart, and he reached for his reed pen and recorded what he saw, line after line, in the voice of a man who cannot believe his own eyes. What he wrote survives. And what he wrote should stop you cold, because an Egyptian, describing his own country’s catastrophe in his own words, describes the ten plagues of Exodus.

Let me walk you through his account the way he wrote it, as the testimony of a witness, and then I will turn around and tell you the one enormous problem with treating him as one, because the problem is real and you will not trust me for the next five installments if I hide it here.

· · ·

Start where Ipuwer starts, with the water, because in Egypt everything starts with the water.

The Nile was not a river to the Egyptians. It was the artery of the living god, the thing that made Egypt Egypt, the reason a strip of green could exist in the middle of the largest desert on earth. To poison the Nile was not an inconvenience. It was to kill the country at its source. And here is what Ipuwer writes, near the very top of his lament, as if it is the first unthinkable thing: “Indeed, the river is blood, yet men drink of it. Men shrink from human beings and thirst after water.”

Read that twice. The river is blood. Men are so desperate they drink it anyway. Men recoil from one another, and thirst.

Now set beside it the first plague, in Exodus 7: all the waters of the river were turned to blood, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river. Same river. Same blood. Same impossible thirst standing on the bank of the largest source of fresh water in the region. The Egyptian and the Hebrew are describing the same morning.

That is where it begins, and from there Ipuwer’s Egypt falls the way Exodus’s Egypt falls, in a cascade.

He writes of fire: “Indeed, gates, columns, and walls are consumed by fire.” And Exodus 9 brings hail with fire running down along the ground, striking everything in the open field, the worst storm in the history of the land. Fire on the architecture of the most architectural civilization that had ever existed.

He writes of a strange failure of the light itself, that “the land is not light,” a darkness fallen over things. And Exodus 10 brings a darkness over all Egypt for three days, a darkness the text says could be felt, a blackness so total that no one rose from his place.

And then he writes the thing no scribe should ever have to write. He writes of death everywhere, of the rituals of order collapsing under the sheer volume of it. “He who places his brother in the ground is everywhere.” “Indeed, many dead are buried in the river.” “Indeed, groaning is throughout the land, mingled with lamentations.”

Hold that against Exodus 12, the night of the tenth plague: there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not one dead. The firstborn of the whole land, from the throne to the dungeon, dead in a single night, and a wail going up from every house at once.

A great cry. Groaning throughout the land, mingled with lamentations. The same sound, written down twice, once by the people it was inflicted upon and once by the people it delivered.

I told you in Part 1 that I would lay the facts on the table and leave the empty space for you to fill, and this is one of the largest empty spaces in the whole series. An Egyptian scribe, writing in his own voice about his own country, with no Bible in front of him and no reason on earth to flatter Israel’s God, describes a river turned to blood that men cannot drink, fire falling on the buildings, a darkness over the land, and a national scream of mass death, in roughly the order, and roughly the language, that the Hebrew text uses for the very same sequence.

This is the thing the skeptic says does not exist. You have heard it a hundred times: there is no Egyptian record of the plagues, no Egyptian record of the Exodus, the Egyptians would never have written down their own humiliation, the silence proves it never happened. And here, in a museum case in Leiden, in the Netherlands, is a battered roll of papyrus in the cursive hand of an Egyptian scribe, describing exactly that humiliation, line by line. [Bedrock. The document, its location, and its contents are not in dispute.] It was translated in 1909 by Sir Alan Gardiner, not a fringe enthusiast but the most eminent Egyptologist of his generation, the man who wrote the standard grammar of the Egyptian language. He titled it The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage. We call it the Ipuwer Papyrus.

So the record the skeptic swears is empty turns out to have a name on it. And now I have to tell you why the skeptic is not finished, because he has one move left, and it is a strong one.

· · ·

Here is the complication, stated as plainly as I can state it, because the dueling trowels in this series always both get to dig. [Disputed Ground, and the dispute is genuine.]

Subscribe now

Read more

Göbekli Tepe is older than writing. Older than the wheel, older than pottery, older than the first cities of Sumer by a clear five thousand years. Its great T-shaped pillars, some weighing more than ten tons, were quarried, carved with foxes and scorpions and vultures, and raised into rings by people we were told could not yet build anything, hunter-gatherers supposedly still a full agricultural revolution away from monumental architecture. It predates Stonehenge by six thousand years. It rewrites the order in which human civilization was supposed to have happened. By any honest measure it is one of the most important discoveries ever made.

And as of now, somewhere around ninety-five percent of it is still in the ground.

Sit with that number, because it is genuinely strange. Roughly one-twentieth of the site has been excavated. Ground-penetrating surveys have already located the buried rings, something like a dozen more enclosures down there, scores of additional pillars, mapped and waiting. We know where they are. And the official timeline for getting them out is, depending on which statement you read, up to a hundred and fifty years.

The reasons given are the reasons always given. Preservation. Limited funding. The wisdom of leaving some for future generations with better tools. And every one of those reasons is, in isolation, sensible, which is exactly what makes the whole thing so frictionless. After the lead archaeologist died in 2014, the work slowed sharply. A major commercial group became central to the site’s development. The emphasis shifted, visibly, toward tourism, a protective roof on steel columns, a road, a grand opening. Olive trees were planted across unexcavated ground. Working archaeologists objected to the pace and were told, in effect, that the dig would proceed on a timescale longer than any of their lifetimes. [Bedrock. This is on the public record. The dig-stop is documented, not alleged.]

Now, I am not going to tell you why this happened. I am going to do something more useful. I am going to lay the facts on the table and let you do with the empty space what you will.

Subscribe now

Read more

Everything in this painting is a clue. The scene is a courtroom, and a prosecutor is making his case. But look closely — the painting knows something he doesn’t, and it’s hidden in plain sight. Ten details give it away. See how many you can find before the end. The solve is at the bottom.

1. Where is the light falling — and what’s standing there? 2. Look at the prosecutor’s face. Is that the face of a man winning? 3. Two documents lie open on his desk. Why two? 4. One page is signed. Which one — and what would a signature mean here? 5. Count the candles. One on his desk, one by the stand. What’s different about them? 6. The people in the shadows behind him — which way are they looking? 7. His left hand. Is it gripping, or letting go? 8. He wears a prosecutor’s robe. What’s missing from it that a real officer of the court would wear? 9. The witness stand is the brightest thing in the room. But the seat is empty. Is it? 10. What hour do you think it is? Hold your answers. We’ll come back to them.

There is a particular kind of person who leaves church and never says why.

They don’t make a scene. They don’t write a letter. They just get quieter, Sunday by Sunday, until one week they aren’t there, and then they aren’t there the week after that, and eventually everyone stops asking. If you cornered them and got them to be honest, the story would almost always come down to the same thing. They had a question. They brought it to the people who were supposed to have answers. And the answer they got, in words or in the careful silence that followed, was: we don’t ask that here.

Maybe it was a question about suffering. Maybe about hell, or science, or a contradiction they’d noticed and couldn’t un-notice. Maybe it was just the slow accumulation of a hundred small ones nobody would sit with. And what they learned, in the moment they asked, was that the question itself was the problem. That a good believer wouldn’t have it. That doubt was a kind of disloyalty, and the spiritual thing to do was to push it back down and be ashamed it had surfaced.

I want to talk to that person. And I want to start by telling you about a man who did the exact opposite of pushing the question down. He picked it up, sharpened it, and went hunting.

· · ·

It is a Sunday morning in Chicago, around 1980, and a man is sleeping off a hangover when his wife asks him to come to church.

He does not want to go to church. He is, by his own cheerful description, an atheist — not a soft, shrug-and-move-on agnostic, but the committed kind, the kind who has decided the matter is closed and finds people who reopen it a little embarrassing. He has a Yale law degree and a job as the legal-affairs editor of the Chicago Tribune, which means he spends his working life around courtrooms, evidence, sworn testimony, and the particular skill of telling when a witness is lying. He is good at it. He has covered murders and trials and corruption, and he has a reporter’s instinct for the soft spot in a story, the place where you push and the whole thing caves.

And his wife, Leslie, has recently done something he considers a minor catastrophe. She has become a Christian. The marriage he signed up for did not include this, and he says so out loud — I didn’t sign up for this. Whatever has gotten into her, he is fairly sure it is a cult, and he has a plan. He will go to her church. He will bring his reporter’s notebook from the Tribune. And he will find the scandal, the financial fraud, the manipulation, the thing underneath, and he will expose it, and he will get his wife back.

That is the spirit in which Lee Strobel walked into a church. Not as a seeker. As a prosecutor looking for a crime.

The sermon that morning was titled, of all the unthreatening things, “Basic Christianity.” The pastor laid out the plainest possible version of the thing — what Christians actually claim, what grace is supposed to mean, how a person is said to cross over from outside to inside. And Strobel, almost thirty years old and hearing it cleanly for the first time, walked out having reached two conclusions that he held simultaneously and that did not fit together at all.

The first was: I don’t believe a word of it.

The second was: but if it were true, it would change everything.

Most people never let those two sentences sit in the same room. They are uncomfortable roommates. The honest move, the one almost nobody makes, is to refuse to resolve the tension prematurely — to not pretend you believe it, and to not wave away the if. Strobel, because his entire profession had trained him to chase a story he didn’t yet understand, did the rare thing. He decided to investigate. He would use the tools he actually had, the legal training and the journalism, and he would settle it. He fully expected the investigation to be short and the verdict to be acquittal — for God, that is. He expected to disprove the whole thing and hand his wife the file.

It took him nearly two years.

· · ·

I should say plainly who I am, because it matters to how you read the rest of this.

I am not a scholar, and I am not going to perform being one to win your trust. I’m a man who could not leave a hard question alone, who has spent an unreasonable number of hours reading the primary texts of the major religions because a question got its teeth into me and would not let go. So I have a certain sympathy for Strobel, and a certain suspicion of the version of faith that would have turned him away at the door. Because here is what strikes me about his story, the thing I cannot get past.

The church did not lose him by answering his questions. It nearly lost him before he asked any. What kept him in the building long enough to investigate was that, for once, nobody told him not to. He showed up hostile, armed, looking for fraud — and the response was not to manage him or to shame the hostility out of him. The response, in effect, was: go ahead. Look. Bring everything you’ve got.

That posture has a name, and it is older than the Chicago Tribune by about twenty-seven hundred years.

· · ·

There is a line in the book of Isaiah that we have sanded down into a greeting-card sentiment, and it is one of the most quietly aggressive things God says in the entire Hebrew Bible.

“Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord.

In English it sounds like an invitation to a friendly chat over coffee. It is not. The Hebrew word underneath “reason together” — yakach — is a courtroom word. It means to argue a case, to lay out evidence, to bring a dispute before the bench and adjudicate it. It is the language of litigation. What God is actually saying, in the idiom of the original, is closer to: Let us take this to court. Let us argue it out. Bring your case; I will bring mine.

Sit with how strange that is. The opening move of the God of the Bible, in a passage about a people who have wronged him, is not be quiet and comply. It is let’s argue it in front of the bench. He is not the witness reluctantly dragged to the stand. He is the one who convened the trial. He filed.

This is not a God who is nervous about cross-examination. This is a God who opens the courtroom, hands you a chair at the prosecution table, and says: make your case. The very instinct Strobel walked in with — the reporter’s instinct to interrogate, to demand evidence, to refuse to be told what to think — is not the enemy of this God. It is the instinct this God invited. He started the conversation in the language of the law because he was not afraid of where the law would lead.

And I want to be careful here, because the wounded reader I’m writing to has been handed a very different God, and I don’t want to slide past it. If you were taught that the questions themselves were sin, you were not taught that out of Isaiah. You were taught it by a frightened institution, and we’ll get to why institutions get frightened. But the God of the actual text does not flinch. He files first.

· · ·

The reason a great many people never learned this is that the part of the tradition that welcomed the hard question got buried under the part that feared it. So let me dig it back up, because the pedigree is long and it is not what you were told.

Run the line forward eight centuries, into the Gospels, and you find Jesus doing something to the central commandment of his own religion that should stop us cold.

A scholar asks him to name the greatest commandment, and Jesus reaches back to Deuteronomy, to the Shema, the line every faithful Jew prayed daily: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. Heart, soul, strength. That is the original. Every person listening knew it by heart.

And Jesus adds a word.

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”

Mind. The Greek is dianoia — the faculty of reasoning, analysis, the part of you that interrogates and weighs and refuses to be satisfied with a bad argument. He didn’t relocate it to a footnote. He folded it into the greatest commandment in the entire system, the one everything else hangs on. Loving God with the mind is not grudging permission to think, extended to the unusually intellectual believer as a special accommodation. It is commanded. The interrogating faculty is not tolerated. It is conscripted into worship.

Which means that the person who told you to switch off your mind at the door of the church was, whatever their intentions, inverting the actual instruction. They were asking you to disobey the greatest commandment in the name of keeping it.

And the tradition behaved accordingly, for most of its history. Thomas Aquinas, arguably the most rigorous Christian mind who ever lived, wrote his masterwork — the Summa Theologica — in a format that ought to be printed on the wall of every church that ever made someone feel stupid for asking. Aquinas does not begin each section by stating his conclusion and defending it. He begins by stating, as forcefully and fairly as he possibly can, the strongest objections to his own position. He gives the other side its best shot first, out of his own mouth, sharpened to a point, before he says a word in his own defense. He was not afraid of the objection. He believed the truth could survive it — and he believed that a truth you reach without surviving the objection isn’t worth much.

That is the same instinct as Strobel’s, running in the opposite direction. The skeptic interrogates the faith because he wants to know if it’s false. Aquinas interrogates his own faith, hardest of all, because he wants to know if it’s true. They are doing the same thing from two sides of the table. And the God of Isaiah convened the court for both of them.

The list goes on, and it embarrasses the stereotype. Copernicus, the priest who moved the earth. Galileo, who died a believer. Newton, who wrote more about Scripture than about gravity. The notion that faith and inquiry are natural enemies is not an ancient truth. It is a recent press release, and a short one. For most of the history of the West, the people doing the inquiring were the people of faith, and they did not experience the two as a contradiction. They experienced investigation as a form of attention, and attention as a form of love.

· · ·

So if the tradition is built like this — if God files the lawsuit, if the founder welds reason into the central command, if the greatest minds steelman their own opponents — then why do so many people carry the exact opposite wound? Why have so many of you been made to feel that your question was a betrayal?

I think there are three reasons, and naming them matters, because the wound heals differently once you see it wasn’t about God at all.

The first is that we confused certainty with faith. We started teaching people that faith means the absence of doubt, that a believer is someone for whom the questions have all gone quiet — and so the moment a real question surfaced, the person having it concluded they must be losing their faith, when in fact they were just having a thought. But faith in the Scriptures was never the absence of doubt. Abraham left without knowing where he was going. The Psalms are full of people shouting at God in genuine confusion. Faith is not the state of having no questions. It is trust that holds while the questions are still open. We sold people a counterfeit — faith as certainty — and then blamed them when the counterfeit cracked.

The second reason is colder, and it is the one Strobel’s reporter’s instinct would have sniffed out instantly. Institutions protect themselves. A question that might unsettle one person in a pew is, to the institution, a threat to the whole room. It could spread. It could cost. And so the institutional reflex — not God’s reflex, the institution’s — is to contain it, to treat the questioner as a problem to be managed rather than a person to be answered. That is not theology. That is self-preservation wearing theology’s coat. When you were made to feel that your doubt endangered something, you were sensing something real. It just wasn’t God you were endangering. It was the institution’s need to look settled.

The third reason is the saddest, because it’s the one with the most love in it and it still does damage. Sometimes a community has watched people ask the hard question and then leave, and they have drawn the false conclusion that the asking caused the leaving — that if they can just stop people from asking, they can stop people from going. So they discourage the question to protect the person, the way you’d take a knife from a child. But it gets the causation backwards. In almost every case, the leaving was already underway, and the question was the last honest act before the exit, not the cause of it. Suppressing the question doesn’t keep the person. It just ensures that when they go, they go convinced that God was on the side of the people who wouldn’t let them speak.

· · ·

Now, here is where an honest skeptic should stop me, and it’s the strongest objection in the room, so I’d rather hand it to you than hope you don’t notice it.

You could say: of course the convert claims he was a hardened atheist first. They always do. “I used to be just like you, and then I investigated, and the evidence overwhelmed me” — that’s not a testimony, it’s a sales technique. It makes the conversion sound like a verdict instead of a wish. How do I know Strobel was ever the skeptic he says he was?

It’s a fair shot, and I’m not going to wave it away, partly because it has actually been aimed at Strobel specifically. An atheist writer once accused him publicly of inventing or inflating his prior unbelief, of dressing up an ordinary religious drift as a dramatic forensic investigation to sell books. And I’ll be honest with you: Strobel is not a tidy mascot. He became a professional apologist; he has a product to move; a man who makes his living arguing for the resurrection is not a neutral witness to his own past, and you are right to hold that loosely. He answered the charge directly — pointed to the documented timeline, his wife’s conversion, the dates, the marriage that nearly ended over it, the years it took — and as far as the public record goes, even his critic didn’t really dispute the basic shape of it. But I’m not going to rest anything load-bearing on Lee Strobel’s interior life in 1980, because I can’t see it, and neither can you.

So let me put the weight somewhere a sales technique can’t hold it.

The claim at the center of this faith is not trust me, I changed. It is a claim about something that either happened in history or didn’t — and it is built, almost uniquely among religious claims, with its own off switch. It says a specific man was executed in public, certified dead by professional executioners whose entire job was making sure of it, sealed in a tomb, and was seen alive afterward by named groups of witnesses, most of whom then accepted torture and death rather than recant a story they could have simply admitted was a story.

Notice what that does. Produce the body and the whole thing collapses in an afternoon. That is not the architecture of a faith that fears investigation. A religion afraid of questions does not stake itself on a falsifiable historical event and then hand you the lever that would end it. It hides behind feelings and private experiences that can never be checked. This one did the opposite. It walked into the courtroom, put its central claim on the stand, and said: cross-examine it. The body has been available to be produced for two thousand years. It never has been.

You do not have to find that persuasive today. I’m asking you to notice only this: a thing that invites the cross-examination is behaving like a thing that is not afraid of the answer. Which is exactly what Isaiah said it would do. Come, let us reason together. The God who files the lawsuit is not bluffing about the evidence.

· · ·

So what happened to the prosecutor?

Strobel did the work. Nearly two years of it. He read the literature on both sides, he chased the historical arguments about the resurrection, he interrogated the reliability of the documents the way he’d interrogate a witness in a fraud case. And he later described the experience in an image I have not been able to shake, because it is the precise opposite of what he expected and the perfect picture of the God of Isaiah.

He said that every time he hit Christianity with an objection — meaning to knock it flat, to find the soft spot and watch the whole thing cave — it would bounce back up. He’d hit it with the problem of evil; it would go down, and come back up. He’d hit it with a historical objection; down, and back up. He kept swinging, and the thing kept standing, and at some point the dawning, unwelcome realization arrived: there are answers here. There is evidence here. This does not collapse the way I was certain it would.

That is not the report of a man whose questions were unwelcome. That is the report of a man who was finally allowed to ask everything, with full force, and found that the asking led somewhere he had not planned to go. The questions were not the wall keeping him out. The questions were the road in. He had been told, by the culture around him, that to investigate honestly was to walk away from God. He investigated honestly and walked toward him.

On November 8, 1981, alone in a room with a yellow legal pad — the same kind of pad he’d used to summarize evidence for the Tribune — he wrote out everything he had found, the case for and the case against, in two columns, the way a lawyer would. And he reached a verdict he had spent two years trying not to reach. He concluded, in his own words, that it would have required more faith to remain an atheist than to become a Christian. The skeptic had cross-examined God and lost the case he was prosecuting.

He didn’t do it in a glow of warm feeling. He did it the way you concede a legal argument — because the evidence, weighed honestly, would not let him do otherwise. Six years later he left journalism. But the part I want you to hold is not where he ended. It’s how he traveled. He got in by asking the hardest questions he had, as hard as he could ask them, with hostile intent — and nobody, not God and not finally even the church, told him to stop.

· · ·

So let me come back to the person I started with. The one who got quieter Sunday by Sunday and then was gone. The one who still flinches at certain words, whose body tightens walking past a church, who learned a long time ago that the question they were carrying was not welcome.

I want to say two things to you, and I want to separate them carefully, because they are different and they are both true.

The first is for your mind. Your questions were never the problem. They were not a defect in your faith or a symptom of a hard heart. By the actual architecture of the thing — Isaiah’s courtroom, the mind welded into the greatest commandment, Aquinas steelmanning his own opponents, a central claim built to be falsified — the questions are not the obstacle to faith. They are the instrument of it. The person who taught you otherwise was not handing you God’s posture. They were handing you a frightened institution’s posture, or a counterfeit certainty, or a well-meant mistake about what was driving people out the door. The God of the text is not the one who told you to be quiet. He’s the one who said bring it to court.

And the second thing is for the wound, and I’ll say it more slowly, because it’s the one that matters.

When they shamed you for asking — when the question got met with a cold look, or a Bible verse used as a door slammed in your face, or a kind voice telling you that real faith wouldn’t need to know — something in you was right to be angry. You were not being rebellious. You were responding correctly to a real injustice. They told you God was on the side of the silencing. He was not. The sharpest words the gentlest man in the Gospels ever spoke were not aimed at doubters. They were aimed at the religious professionals who shut the door of the kingdom in people’s faces and would not let them in. If someone shut that door on you, the founder of the faith was already angry about it, on your behalf, before you ever framed the complaint.

The God you think you walked away from — the one who couldn’t handle your questions, who needed you to perform a certainty you didn’t have, who treated your honest doubt as betrayal — was never the real one. He was a portrait painted by frightened people and hung in the room where you were hurt. The real one has been standing in the courtroom the whole time, the one who filed the case, saying the thing he has been saying since Isaiah: Come. Let us reason together. Bring everything. I am not afraid of it.

He would rather have your real question than your fake peace. That is the whole heartbeat of this God across both testaments — to obey is better than sacrifice, he says through Samuel, which is just an older way of saying he wants the true thing from you and not the performed thing. He is not after your compliance. He is after you — the actual, unedited, question-riddled you, the one you’ve been told to leave at the door. That self is the one he asked for. He always wanted the whole heart, and a whole heart has questions in it.

· · ·

You do not have to resolve anything today. That’s not what I’m asking, and it would be a lie dressed as an altar call if I did.

The question you’ve been carrying — the one that got you those cold looks, the one you eventually stopped voicing — you are allowed to pick it back up. You are allowed to ask it as hard as Strobel asked his, with as much suspicion and force as you’ve got, and to aim it not at the people who failed you but at God himself, directly, the way Isaiah says you can. If you are real, then answer this. That is not blasphemy. By the oldest language in the tradition, that is litigation, and the court was opened by the defendant.

There’s a further distinction worth making, but it’s its own piece, and this one has run long: there’s a difference between a question you ask because you want to find the answer and a question you ask because you’ve already decided and you’re using it to keep the answer out. A question can be a door or it can be a shield, and only you can know which yours is. I’ll take that one up next, because it’s the honest second half of all this, and it cuts toward the reader as much as away from them.

But for today, the one thing I’d ask you to carry out, even if you forget everything else: the God of the Bible is not nervous about your hardest question. He invited it. He filed first. The man who walked into that Chicago church with a reporter’s notebook, hunting for a fraud to expose, was not doing something hostile to God. He was doing, with hostile intent, the exact thing God had been asking people to do since the courtroom opened in Isaiah.

Bring everything. He can handle it.

The body has never been produced. And the court is still in session.

The Solve:

You were told this was a prosecutor making his case. It isn’t. The painting has been showing you the verdict the whole time — and the verdict is against the man asking the questions. (If you enjoyed the mystery within the cover picture please let me know in the comments and i will do more of them. it was fun, but definitely more work.)

1. The light falls on the witness stand. Not on the judge, not on the prosecutor — on the stand. The witness is present, and the witness is the light itself. He convened this court. That is Isaiah’s courtroom exactly: the One in the dock is the One who filed the case.

2. The prosecutor’s face is not winning. It’s the face of a man who has just heard the answer he came to refute and cannot. He is mid-sentence and already losing.

3 & 4. Two documents — the case for and the case against — and the one that’s signed is the verdict for the defense. He has already weighed both columns and reached a conclusion he did not want. Lee Strobel did this alone in a room with a yellow legal pad on the night of November 8, 1981. Two columns. He signed the wrong one for an atheist.

5. His candle is snuffed; the one by the stand still burns. His own light has gone out. The illumination in the room is coming from the side he was attacking.

6. The gallery is looking at him, not the stand. The whole room can see what’s happening to the prosecutor before he can. He’s the one on trial now.

7. His left hand rests open on the papers — not gripping. That’s not the posture of a man arguing. It’s the posture of a man conceding.

8. He wears the robe but no seal, no chain of office. He has no real authority here. He appointed himself to this case — the way a man might walk into a church with a reporter’s notebook, intending to expose a fraud he was certain he’d find.

9. The seat looks empty. It isn’t. You don’t paint the face of the One who answered Job out of the whirlwind. You paint the light where He’s standing and let the prosecutor’s expression tell you Someone is there.

10. It’s just past midnight. The hour of the verdict. The end of one day and the start of another — which is the only kind of hour a conversion ever happens in.

The man came to prosecute God. He cross-examined the evidence as hard as he could, swinging to knock the whole thing flat — and it kept standing back up. By the end he had signed, in his own hand, the conclusion he’d spent two years trying to avoid: that it would take more faith to walk away than to stay.

Come now, let us reason together, said the Lord. He was never afraid of the trial.

He’s the one who called it.

Leave a comment

Share

If you value unflinching, historically grounded analysis that mainstream outlets soften or ignore, consider upgrading. Paid subscribers get:

• Several new, full-length articles every week.

  Carefully researched pieces you won’t find elsewhere.

• Full access to the complete premium archive

  Archive of in-depth writing, research, and commentary — all in one place.

• Entry into the subscriber chat

  A private space for serious readers and thoughtful discussion.

A. C. Rosenthal

A.C. Rosenthal is a self-taught writer, researcher, and theologian working at the intersection of history, philosophy, and culture. He is the author of The Carpenter's Son and the Imam's Son, The God that they rejected Isn't Real.

Thanks for reading. This post is public, so feel free to share it. A. C. Rosenthal writes on comparative religion, Islamic theology, and the relationship between Christianity and modern Western culture. This work is entirely reader-supported. By choosing a paid subscription, you allow me to continue this long-form research to bring these vital stories to light. Thank you for helping this Lion roar for truth. His book The Two Muhammads is available now. Further analysis at:

acrosenthal.com/

https://thetwomuhammadscurriculum.thinkific.com/

A few days ago, under a piece of mine, an atheist I genuinely respect — he writes as The Honest Trap, and we have been circling each other’s arguments for a while now, with more mutual concession than either of us probably expected — drew a line I think is exactly right.

He said: “A position that cannot be falsified by any conceivable evidence is not a position. It is a fixture.”

I want to start by agreeing with him. Not strategically. Actually. A belief you hold in a way that no possible evidence could ever dislodge is not a belief you arrived at by looking. It’s a belief you arrived at by deciding, and then defended against the world. He is right that this is the difference between an honest mind and a closed one, and he is right that the test of a position worth holding is whether it has exposed itself to the possibility of being wrong.

Earlier in the same conversation he drew a second distinction, just as sharp. Trust, he said, is calibrated by evidence and revised by outcome — you trust a bridge, and if it collapses, the trust is revised. Faith, he said, is commitment regardless of outcome, and “regardless of outcome” is the grammatical signature of faith, not trust.

I think that distinction is mostly right too, and I’m not going to play word games with it. But I want to do something with both of his principles that I don’t think he’s expecting. I don’t want to argue against them. I want to apply them — to the reliability of the biblical text itself — and show that the Bible is not the fixture he assumes it must be. It is, by his own standard, one of the most thoroughly falsifiable documents the ancient world ever produced. It has been making checkable bets for three thousand years. And the record of what happened when people tried to collect on those bets is not what the skeptic expects.

This is the short version. I’m writing it as a direct reply to a thread, so I’m going to keep it to the spine and leave the full skeleton — the prophecy data, the internal cross-attestation, the granular textual-criticism comparisons — for a longer piece I’ll publish after this. There is, frankly, enough material here for a hundred essays. But the spine is enough to make the point.

· · ·

Let me start by clearing my own side of the table.

If you’ve spent any time around Christian apologetics, you’ve heard some numbers. And I have to tell you, before I tell you anything else, that several of the most popular ones are junk.

You’ve heard that we have ten manuscripts of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, and over five thousand of the New Testament, so why do you doubt the one and not the other? The five-thousand figure is real. The “ten copies of Caesar” figure is not. Once you count the later witnesses, Caesar survives in something closer to two hundred and fifty manuscripts. Homer’s Iliad, which the same apologists often put at 643, actually survives in around 1,800. Plato is not seven manuscripts; it’s a couple hundred. I’m not getting these corrections from a skeptic blog. I’m getting them from the Christian Research Institute, an apologetics organization, which has been trying for years to get its own side to stop using stale numbers.

And you’ve almost certainly heard the big one: that the early church fathers quoted the New Testament so exhaustively that if every manuscript on earth were destroyed, we could reconstruct the entire thing from their quotations — all but eleven verses.

That one is a myth. Not an exaggeration. A myth, with a paper trail. It traces back to an anecdote about an eighteenth-century amateur named Lord Dalrymple, recorded fifty years after the fact by a man who couldn’t remember whether the number was seven verses or eleven. When someone finally went and checked Dalrymple’s actual notes, he’d found matches for about 3,600 of the New Testament’s roughly 7,900 verses — forty-six percent, not “all but eleven.” Bruce Metzger, the greatest textual scholar of the twentieth century, and his student Bart Ehrman, who is now one of the faith’s most prominent critics, both say plainly that you could not reconstruct an accurate New Testament from patristic quotations, because the fathers quoted loosely, from memory, and constantly disagreed with each other.

I’m telling you the bad news about my own side first, and I’m doing it on purpose, for the reason Aquinas gave when he opened every argument by stating his opponent’s case as strongly as he could: a man who will not name the weak points in his own position has not earned your trust when he names its strengths. So here is me naming them. A good chunk of what gets repeated in church basements about Bible manuscripts is inflated, stale, or simply false.

Now. Having thrown out the junk — here is what’s left. And what’s left is stronger than the junk ever was, because it’s true.

· · ·

Start with the comparison done honestly, because even after you correct every inflated number, the New Testament still stands alone.

We trust Caesar’s account of the Gallic Wars. Historians build the chronology of Rome on it. The earliest manuscript we have was copied roughly nine hundred years after Caesar wrote. We trust Tacitus, whose Annals are a backbone of first-century Roman history; large portions survive in two manuscripts, the earliest copied some eight hundred years after he died. Homer, the best-attested pagan work of antiquity, has its earliest substantial copies about a thousand years downstream of composition.

The New Testament has fragments within a generation of the events, substantial manuscripts within about a century and a half, and complete copies within three hundred years — preserved across roughly 5,800 Greek manuscripts and tens of thousands more in other languages. No serious textual scholar disputes these orders of magnitude. The gap between writing and earliest copy, for the New Testament, is the smallest in the entire ancient world by a wide margin, and the volume of cross-checkable witnesses is the largest by an order of magnitude.

Here is the part that matters for The Honest Trap specifically, because it’s an argument about consistency, which is his own favorite tool.

If you accept the text of Caesar and Tacitus and Herodotus as substantially what they wrote — and essentially every historian does — then you are accepting them on far less documentary evidence than the New Testament offers, across far larger time gaps, with far fewer copies to cross-check. So the person who says “I accept Caesar but I reject the New Testament as a transmitted document“ is not applying a high standard. He’s applying two standards. He’s trusting the thin record and doubting the thick one, and the only thing that distinguishes them is the content — which is a reason to dislike the New Testament’s claims, but not a reason to doubt that we have, accurately, what its authors wrote.

I want to be precise, because precision is the whole game here. I am not saying the manuscript count proves Christianity is true. That would be a terrible argument, and he’d be right to demolish it. A well-attested text can be well-attested fiction. What the manuscript evidence establishes is narrower and unglamorous: we know what the authors wrote. The transmission is secure. Whatever you decide about whether it’s true, you’re deciding about the actual text, not a medieval corruption of it. That’s all this particular argument buys. But it buys that completely.

Now let me show you why the transmission is secure, because the mechanism is the most interesting part, and it’s where the contrast with every other holy book becomes visible.

The New Testament text was not preserved by an authority. It was preserved by chaos.

Within a few generations the documents had scattered across the whole Mediterranean — Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic — into the hands of communities that didn’t all like each other, couldn’t all reach each other, and had no central office issuing approved editions. Thousands of copies got made by thousands of hands in dozens of places with no coordination whatsoever. And that turns out to be the strongest possible guarantee of integrity, for a reason that’s almost counterintuitive: nobody could have changed it even if they’d wanted to. To alter the New Testament, you’d have had to simultaneously corrupt thousands of independent copies already dispersed across three continents, in multiple languages, held by rival factions, with no way to recall them. It’s not that no one tried to fudge a line here or there. It’s that the fudges are detectable — precisely because you can lay thousands of independent witnesses side by side and see exactly where one scribe’s hand slipped. The variants aren’t a scandal. They’re the audit trail. The very messiness that skeptics point to is the thing that makes the text checkable.

This is reliability by transparency. Reliability by redundancy. Reliability by the fact that the thing was never under anyone’s control.

Hold that next to how the Quran achieved its uniformity, because the contrast is not an insult — it’s just history, and Muslim tradition itself records it. About twenty years after Muhammad’s death, the caliph Uthman, faced with communities reciting in divergent ways, commissioned a single standardized text and ordered the variant copies burned. We’re not speculating about this; it’s in the Islamic sources, told as an act of pious good order. And the material record shows what it cost: the Sana’a palimpsest, one of the oldest Quranic manuscripts in existence, is a page where an older text was scraped off and written over — and the scraped-off lower layer preserves a version that differs from the standard one. It is the only substantial surviving witness to the textual tradition Uthman’s fire was meant to erase.

So you have two completely different roads to a stable text. The Quran reached uniformity early and cleanly — by authority, by standardization, by removing the competition. The New Testament reached uniformity slowly and messily — by never having an authority that could remove the competition, leaving us thousands of uncontrolled witnesses to cross-examine. One is uniformity you’re asked to trust because the variants were destroyed. The other is uniformity you can verify because the variants survived. For a man whose entire epistemology is “calibrated by evidence and revised by outcome,” I’d think the second kind is the only kind worth having.

* * *

But all of that is about words on a page. The Honest Trap asked for something harder, and fairer. He asked, in effect: does the book make claims about the world that the world can check? Because a text that only ever talks about the unfalsifiable — heaven, the soul, the age to come — is exactly the “fixture” he warned about. It risks nothing. It can’t be wrong.

So here is the part of the case I find most genuinely persuasive, and it’s not about manuscripts at all. It’s about dirt.

The Bible is relentlessly, almost recklessly specific. It names kings, cities, governors, building projects, water tunnels, political titles, the particular官 office a particular man held in a particular decade. And every one of those specifics is a falsifiable claim. Each one is the book sticking its neck out, betting that if you dig in the right place you’ll find the thing it described. A purely mythological text doesn’t do this. Myth is set “long ago, in a far country.” Scripture keeps saying this governor, in this city, in this year.

For a long time, the skeptics took those bets. And for a long time, it looked like they were winning.

Borrowed from: https://armstronginstitute .org/954-finding-the-hittites

The Bible mentions a people called the Hittites about fifty times. For most of the modern era, there was no independent evidence the Hittites had ever existed, and serious scholars listed them among the Bible’s legendary inventions — a tell that the text was fiction. Then in 1906, archaeologists in Turkey uncovered Hattusa, the capital of a vast, lost Hittite empire. The bet paid out. The text was right and the doubters were wrong.

King David was next. The minimalists argued for decades that David was a literary myth, a Jewish King Arthur, with no more historical reality than a legend. There was no evidence outside the Bible that he’d ever lived. Then in 1993, at Tel Dan in northern Israel, archaeologists pulled out a ninth-century-BC stone inscription — carved by an enemy of Israel — bearing the phrase “House of David.” Erected within about a century and a half of David’s life, by people who had no interest in flattering Judah. The bet paid out again.

Pontius Pilate: skeptics noted that this supposedly important Roman governor left no physical trace, and wondered aloud whether the Gospels had invented or inflated him. Then in 1961, in the theater at Caesarea, a limestone block turned up with his name and title carved into it. Paid out.

The Pool of Siloam, where John’s Gospel says Jesus healed a blind man, was dismissed as a theological symbol — a spiritual metaphor, not a real place. Then in 2004, a sewer repair in Jerusalem cut into ancient steps, and the pool was there, with coins from the time of Jesus confirming it was in use exactly when the Gospel said.

I could keep going for a long time, and in the longer piece I will. But notice the shape of it, because the shape is the whole argument. Over and over, the pattern is identical: the Bible makes a specific, checkable claim. Critics bet against it on the grounds that there’s no external evidence. The ground is dug. The claim is vindicated. Not once, in the history of biblical archaeology, has a verified excavation overturned a clearly-stated biblical claim — while again and again, the doubts themselves have been the thing that got falsified.

That is not the behavior of a fixture. A fixture risks nothing and so can never be proven wrong. This book has been putting falsifiable claims on the table for millennia, the critics have been swinging at them with everything they have, and the claims keep getting up off the mat. By The Honest Trap’s own definition — calibrated by evidence, revised by outcome — that is not faith operating “regardless of outcome.” That’s a track record. The outcome kept being tested, and the outcome kept coming back the same way.

· · ·

Now let me be honest about the limit of all this, because if I overclaim it I forfeit the thing I’m asking him to give me, which is fair-mindedness.

None of this proves the resurrection. None of it proves God. Archaeology can confirm that the Pool of Siloam was real; it cannot confirm that a man gave sight to a blind one there. The manuscripts can prove the eyewitnesses wrote what we read; they cannot prove the eyewitnesses were right. There is a real gap between “this book is a reliable historical document that keeps passing the tests we can run” and “therefore its central miracle happened,” and I’m not going to pretend the gap isn’t there. Anyone who tells you the dirt proves the divinity is selling something.

But that’s not nothing — it’s the opposite of nothing. What it does is move the conversation onto exactly the ground The Honest Trap says he wants it on. It takes the Bible out of the category of “unfalsifiable fixture you either have faith in or you don’t” and puts it into the category of “document with a checkable track record, calibrated by evidence, revised by outcome.” It makes the New Testament a thing you can trust in his precise sense of the word — provisionally, on the evidence, open to revision — rather than a thing you must take on faith in his precise sense of the word.

And it relocates the one claim that can’t be settled by a shovel onto the most exposed ground of all. Because the central claim of the whole enterprise was designed to be falsifiable in the most brutal way imaginable. Paul, writing within a few decades of the event, to people who could still go and check, staked the entire faith on a single historical fact and named the disconfirmation himself: if Christ has not been raised, he wrote, then our preaching is worthless and your faith is worthless. He didn’t hide behind the unfalsifiable. He pointed at a tomb and said: the body settles it. Produce the body, and the whole thing collapses in an afternoon. Two thousand years on, the one piece of evidence that would end Christianity instantly has never been produced — not because no one wanted to, but because the people best positioned to produce it, the authorities with every motive to end the movement in its cradle, apparently could not.

That is a faith that bet its existence on an outcome. Which is the one thing The Honest Trap said faith never does.

· · ·

So here is where I’ll leave it, for now.

My friend, you handed me a standard, and it’s a good one. A position immune to all possible evidence is a fixture, not a position. I agree. I’ll go further: a faith that risks nothing deserves nothing, and a great deal of what passes for religious confidence is exactly the closed, defended, evidence-proof fixture you describe, and you are right to have no patience for it.

But the book itself is not that. The text comes to us through the most transparent, cross-checkable, uncontrolled transmission of any document in the ancient world — uniformity you can verify rather than uniformity you’re ordered to trust. Its specific, worldly claims have been tested by hostile excavation for over a century and have a record of vindication that the doubts cannot match. And its central claim was published, on purpose, with the precise conditions of its own disproof attached.

You said trust is calibrated by evidence and revised by outcome. That’s the only kind of trust I’m asking you to consider — not a leap, not a fixture, not commitment regardless of the facts. Just this: a book that keeps making falsifiable bets, and keeps winning them, has earned the right to be examined on the one bet that’s still open.

This is the short version, written fast, for a comment thread. I owe you — and I owe the argument — the full one: the prophecy record, the internal cross-attestation, the granular comparison with the Buddhist canon and the Quranic transmission and the Greek historians, line by line. That’s coming, as its own essay. I’d rather take the time to do it right than dump it all here and do it badly.

But I wanted to answer the challenge where you made it. You said a real position has to be falsifiable. The Bible agrees with you. It’s been saying so, in stone and dust and manuscript, the whole time.

Come, let us reason together. I think that was always the invitation.

Leave a comment

Share

If you value unflinching, historically grounded analysis that mainstream outlets soften or ignore, consider upgrading. Paid subscribers get:

• Several new, full-length articles every week.

  Carefully researched pieces you won’t find elsewhere.

• Full access to the complete premium archive

  Archive of in-depth writing, research, and commentary — all in one place.

• Entry into the subscriber chat

  A private space for serious readers and thoughtful discussion.

A. C. Rosenthal

A.C. Rosenthal is a self-taught writer, researcher, and theologian working at the intersection of history, philosophy, and culture. He is the author of The Carpenter's Son and the Imam's Son, The God that they rejected Isn't Real.

Thanks for reading. This post is public, so feel free to share it. A. C. Rosenthal writes on comparative religion, Islamic theology, and the relationship between Christianity and modern Western culture. This work is entirely reader-supported. By choosing a paid subscription, you allow me to continue this long-form research to bring these vital stories to light. Thank you for helping this Lion roar for truth. A.C. Rosenthal is the author of The Two Muhammads: What History and Manuscripts Reveal About the Islamic Dilemma, The God They Rejected Isn’t Real: Exposing the False Gods of Modern Doubt, and The Carpenter’s Son and the Imam’s Son. Further analysis at:

acrosenthal.com/

https://thetwomuhammadscurriculum.thinkific.com/

Book of Kells. Folio 34r: Matthew; Chi Rho (chosen for its beauty not as a proof text)

Let me begin by telling you what I’m not going to do.

I’m not going to try to overwhelm you. I’ve read enough arguments for the reliability of the Bible to know that most of them work by burying you — stacking statistic on statistic until you’re too tired to object, then treating your exhaustion as agreement. That’s not persuasion. That’s attrition. And it has a way of producing people who say the right words while believing none of them, which serves no one.

So I want to do something slower and, I think, more honest. I want to take a standard a skeptic gave me — a good standard, one I actually agree with — and apply it to the biblical text fairly, all the way down, conceding everything that honesty requires me to concede, and see where we end up. Not to win. To find out what’s true. If the conclusion is solid, it should be able to survive me being scrupulously fair to the other side. If it can’t survive that, it doesn’t deserve to be held anyway.

The standard came from an atheist I’ve been talking with for a while now, a sharp one, who writes under the name . In the middle of a conversation he drew a line I’ve been thinking about ever since. He said: a position that cannot be falsified by any conceivable evidence is not a position — it is a fixture. And earlier he’d distinguished two things people sloppily blur together: trust, which is calibrated by evidence and revised when the outcome contradicts it, and faith, which he defined as commitment regardless of outcome.

I think he’s right about all of it. I want to say that clearly before I say anything else, because I’m not setting him up. A belief you’d hold no matter what the evidence showed isn’t a belief you reasoned your way into. It’s a fixture you decided to install and now defend. And he’s right that a great deal of religious confidence is exactly that — a fixture, bolted down, immune to the world. I have no interest in defending that kind of faith. If that’s what we were talking about, he’d win and he’d deserve to.

But I don’t think that’s what the Bible is. And I’d like to show you why, using his standard, not mine.

· · ·

First, let me clear my own side of the table, because there’s a lot of junk on it.

If you’ve spent any time around people defending the Bible, you’ve heard certain numbers. You’ve heard that we have ten manuscripts of Caesar’s Gallic Wars and over five thousand of the New Testament, so why trust one and doubt the other. You’ve heard that the early church fathers quoted the New Testament so completely that we could rebuild the whole thing from their letters minus eleven verses. You’ve heard Homer survives in a few hundred copies, the New Testament in thousands.

Some of that is true. A lot of it is inflated, stale, or simply false, and I’d rather tell you so myself than have you discover it later and conclude I was hiding it.

The “ten copies of Caesar” figure is wrong; once you count the later manuscripts it’s closer to two hundred and fifty. Homer’s Iliad doesn’t survive in a few hundred copies — it’s around eighteen hundred. And the “eleven verses” claim is not an exaggeration, it’s a myth with a paper trail: it traces back to an anecdote about an eighteenth-century amateur, recorded fifty years after the fact by a man who couldn’t remember whether the number was seven or eleven, and when someone finally checked the amateur’s actual notes, he’d accounted for less than half the New Testament. Bruce Metzger, the most respected textual scholar of the last century, and his student Bart Ehrman, now one of Christianity’s most prominent critics, both say plainly: you could not reconstruct an accurate New Testament from the church fathers, because they quoted loosely and contradicted each other constantly.

I’m telling you the bad news about my own side first, on purpose. There’s an old principle — Aquinas built his whole method on it — that you haven’t earned the right to state your case until you’ve stated your opponent’s as strongly as you can. So here’s me clearing the junk. A good deal of what gets repeated in defense of the Bible is the kind of thing The Honest Trap would, rightly, take apart in an afternoon.

Now. Having thrown out the bad arguments, here’s what’s left. And it’s quieter than the junk, and stronger, because it’s true.

· · ·

Start with the comparison done honestly — because even after you correct every number downward, the New Testament still stands somewhere no other ancient document stands.

We trust Caesar. Historians build the chronology of Rome partly on his account of the Gallic Wars, and the earliest copy we have was made about nine hundred years after he wrote. We trust Tacitus, whose histories are a backbone of the first century; large stretches survive in two manuscripts, the earliest copied some eight hundred years downstream. Homer, the best-preserved pagan author of antiquity, has his earliest substantial copies about a thousand years after composition. This is normal. This is what the ancient world looks like: a thin thread of late copies, and we accept it, because it’s the best anyone has and the thread holds.

The New Testament has fragments within a generation of the events, substantial copies within about a century and a half, and complete ones within three hundred years — across roughly five thousand eight hundred Greek manuscripts and tens of thousands more in other languages. No serious textual scholar disputes these orders of magnitude. The gap between writing and earliest copy is the smallest in the ancient world by a wide margin, and the number of cross-checkable witnesses is the largest by far.

Here’s the part I’d ask you to sit with, because it’s an argument about consistency, which is The Honest Trap’s own favorite tool, and I think if he turns it on himself honestly it points somewhere interesting.

If you accept the text of Caesar and Tacitus and Herodotus as substantially what they wrote — and essentially every historian does, without anxiety — then you’re accepting them on far less evidence than the New Testament offers: fewer copies, larger gaps, no way to cross-check. So the person who says “I accept Caesar but I doubt the New Testament as a transmitted document“ isn’t holding a high standard. He’s holding two standards, one for the text he’s comfortable with and a stricter one for the text he isn’t. And the only thing distinguishing them is the content — which is a perfectly good reason to dislike what the New Testament claims, but not a reason to doubt that we have, accurately, what its authors wrote.

I want to be careful here, because the careful version is the whole point. I am not saying the manuscript evidence proves Christianity is true. That would be a terrible argument and you’d be right to reject it. A well-preserved text can be a well-preserved fiction. The Iliad is beautifully attested and nobody thinks Athena stopped Achilles’ hand. All the manuscripts establish is something narrow and unglamorous: we know what the authors wrote. The transmission is secure. Whatever you ultimately decide about whether it’s true, you’re deciding about the actual text, not a medieval corruption of it.

That’s a small claim. It’s also, I’d suggest, one you can grant without giving up anything you’d be ashamed to give up. You don’t have to become anything to agree that we have what the authors wrote. You just have to be consistent about Caesar.

Now let me show you why the transmission is secure, because the mechanism is the most interesting part of the whole story, and it’s where the skeptic’s instinct and mine actually converge.

The New Testament text wasn’t preserved by an authority. It was preserved by the absence of one.

Within a few generations the documents had scattered across the whole Mediterranean — Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic — into the hands of communities that didn’t all agree, couldn’t all reach each other, and had no central office issuing approved editions. Thousands of copies, made by thousands of hands, in dozens of places, with no coordination whatsoever. And that turns out to be the strongest guarantee of integrity you could design, for a reason that’s almost the opposite of what you’d expect: nobody could have changed it even if they’d wanted to. To alter the New Testament you’d have had to simultaneously corrupt thousands of independent copies already dispersed across three continents in multiple languages held by rival factions, with no way to recall a single one.

It’s not that no scribe ever fumbled a line. They did, constantly — and that’s the point. The fumbles are detectable, precisely because you can lay thousands of independent witnesses side by side and see exactly where one hand slipped. There are something like four hundred thousand variants across all those manuscripts, and skeptics sometimes wave that number like a weapon — until you look at what they are. Around half are spelling. The vast majority of the rest are trivial: word order, a dropped article, the kind of thing that can’t even be rendered in English. Less than one percent are both meaningful and genuinely in doubt, and — this is Ehrman’s own assessment, the critic’s, not the apologist’s — no central Christian teaching hangs on any of them. The variants aren’t the scandal. They’re the audit trail. The very messiness that looks like a weakness is the thing that makes the text checkable. You can see the machine’s work because the machine was never hidden.

Hold that next to the one comparison I’ll draw, and I’ll draw it without any insult, because it’s simply history that Islamic tradition itself records with pride. About twenty years after Muhammad’s death, the caliph Uthman, facing communities reciting in divergent ways, commissioned one standardized text — and ordered the variant copies burned. We’re not speculating; the sources say so, and tell it as an act of good order. And the material record shows the cost: the Sana’a palimpsest, one of the oldest Qurans in existence, is a page where an earlier text was scraped away and written over, and the scraped-off under-layer preserves a version that differs from the standard one. It is nearly the only surviving witness to the tradition the fire was meant to erase.

So there are two roads to a stable text. One reaches uniformity early and cleanly, by authority, by standardizing and removing the alternatives. The other reaches it slowly and messily, by never having an authority that could remove the alternatives — leaving thousands of uncontrolled witnesses you can still cross-examine today. One is uniformity you’re asked to trust because the variants were destroyed. The other is uniformity you can verify because the variants survived. And for someone whose whole epistemology is “calibrated by evidence, revised by outcome,” I’d gently suggest the second kind is the only kind that actually answers to that standard. The mess isn’t the bug. The mess is the receipt.

· · ·

But all of that is still about words on a page. And here The Honest Trap asked the better question, the fair one, the one that separates a real position from a fixture. He asked, in effect: does this book make claims about the world that the world can check? Because a text that only ever speaks of the unfalsifiable — the soul, the age to come, the state of your heart — risks nothing. It can’t be wrong. It’s a fixture by construction.

So here is the part of the case I find most genuinely persuasive, and it has nothing to do with manuscripts. It has to do with dirt.

The Bible is relentlessly, almost recklessly specific. It names kings, cities, governors, building projects, water tunnels, the exact political title a particular official held in a particular decade. Every one of those is a falsifiable claim — the book sticking its neck out, betting that if you dig in the right place you’ll find the thing it described. Myth doesn’t do this. Myth is set “long ago, in a far country,” safely beyond checking. Scripture keeps saying this governor, in this city, in this year. It keeps writing checks the ground can either cash or bounce.

And for a long stretch of modern history, the skeptics took those bets — and it genuinely looked like they were winning.

The Bible mentions a people called the Hittites about fifty times. For most of the modern era there was no independent trace of them, and serious scholars listed the Hittites among the Bible’s legends — proof, they said, that the text invented its world. Then in 1906, archaeologists in Turkey uncovered Hattusa, the capital of a vast lost Hittite empire. The check cashed. The text was right; the doubt was wrong.

King David was next. For decades the argument ran that David was a literary myth, a Hebrew King Arthur, with no evidence outside the Bible that he’d ever drawn breath. Then in 1993, at Tel Dan, archaeologists pulled a ninth-century-BC stone from the ground — carved by an enemy of Israel, who had no motive to flatter anyone — bearing the words “House of David.” The check cashed again.

Pontius Pilate: a supposedly significant Roman governor who’d left, skeptics noted, no physical trace at all — perhaps the Gospels had inflated a minor figure into a major one. Then in 1961, in the theater at Caesarea, a limestone block surfaced with his name and title cut into it. Cashed.

The Pool of Siloam, where John says Jesus healed a blind man, was dismissed as a theological symbol — a spiritual metaphor, not a real place. Then in 2004 a sewer repair in Jerusalem cut into ancient steps, and there it was, with coins from the time of Jesus confirming it was in use exactly when the Gospel said.

I could keep going, and someday I will, at length. But I want to be honest about the shape of this, including the part apologists usually skip — because if I’m not honest about it, I forfeit the very fairness I’m asking you to extend to me.

Archaeology does not run all one direction. There are real, unresolved tensions. The dating of the destruction of Jericho doesn’t sit comfortably with the usual timeline for Joshua. There’s no clear archaeological footprint for an Exodus of millions or a forty-year wilderness migration. Honest scholars argue about these, and a sweeping claim that “the spade has confirmed every word” is exactly the kind of overreach The Honest Trap should pounce on, and I won’t make it. The claim I’ll actually defend is narrower and, I think, more interesting: the Bible exposes itself to falsification at an unusual density — it makes far more checkable, mundane, this-world claims than any comparable religious text — and on the claims that can be checked, its record of vindication is remarkable, and the famous bets against it have a long history of being the thing that got falsified.

That’s not the behavior of a fixture. A fixture risks nothing, so it can never be shown wrong. This book keeps putting falsifiable claims on the table, the critics keep swinging, and the claims keep getting up off the mat — not all of them settled, but enough, and in a direction. By The Honest Trap’s own definition, that isn’t faith operating “regardless of outcome.” That’s a track record. The outcome kept getting tested. And it kept, more often than not, coming back the same way.

Which brings us to the one claim that no shovel will ever settle, and the way it was built — because this is where the whole thing either earns your attention or doesn’t.

I’ll say the limit out loud first, so you never wonder whether I’m trying to slip something past you. None of what I’ve said proves the resurrection. Archaeology can confirm that the Pool of Siloam was real; it can’t confirm that a man gave sight to a blind one there. The manuscripts can prove the eyewitnesses wrote what we read; they can’t prove the eyewitnesses were right. There is a real and honest gap between “this is a reliable document set in real history” and “therefore its central miracle happened,” and anyone who tells you the dirt closes that gap is selling something. I’m not going to.

But notice what the manuscript work and the archaeology have actually done. They’ve moved this book out of the category of unfalsifiable fixture — the thing you either have faith in or you don’t — and into the category of document with a checkable, revisable track record. They’ve made it the kind of thing you can trust in The Honest Trap’s exact sense of the word: provisionally, on the evidence, open to revision. Not a leap. Not a fixture. A weighing.

And here is the strange thing about the central claim, the thing I find I can’t quite get around. It was published, on purpose, with the conditions of its own disproof attached.

Most religions locate their founding miracle somewhere unreachable — a private revelation in a cave, a vision with no witnesses, an event safely beyond the reach of anyone who might check. Christianity did the opposite, and did it loudly. Paul, writing to Corinth within about twenty-five years of the event — close enough that the people he names were still alive and findable — staked the entire faith on a single historical fact and then named its disconfirmation himself: if Christ has not been raised, he wrote, our preaching is worthless and so is your faith. He didn’t hedge. He listed the witnesses by name and by group — including, he says, more than five hundred at once, most still living — and effectively said: go ask them.

Think about what that is. It’s a falsification clause, written into the founding document, by the founder’s own movement. It is the single most exposed thing any religion has ever done. Because the disproof was almost grotesquely simple. The authorities had every motive in the world to end this movement in its cradle — Roman and Judean both — and they had one move available that would have ended it in an afternoon, permanently, with no argument required. Produce the body. Walk to the tomb, carry out the corpse, and the entire thing collapses on the spot. It is a claim with an off-switch, and the off-switch was sitting in a tomb a short walk from where the preaching started, in the very city where it happened, at the very moment the claim was being made.

It was never thrown.

And there are smaller tells inside the account that point the same way — the kind of detail that betrays which way the wind was actually blowing. When a first-century Jewish writer sat down to invent a triumphant resurrection story, the last thing on earth he would do is make the first witnesses women — whose testimony, in that culture, was not even admissible in a court. If you’re forging a legend to persuade a skeptical ancient audience, you have Jesus appear first to Peter, to a man, to someone whose word would count. Instead, every account fumbles into the same embarrassing detail: the first people to find the tomb empty, the first to see him, were women. That’s not how you build a lie. That’s how you report a thing that happened and were stuck with the awkward facts.

You do not have to find any of this persuasive today. That’s not the ask. I’m pointing at one thing only: a claim that hands you the tools of its own destruction, and names its own witnesses, and bets everything on an outcome that could have been overturned by a single body produced from a single tomb — that is not the behavior of a faith afraid of being tested. It is the behavior of something that expected to survive the test. Which is exactly what The Honest Trap said a real position, as opposed to a fixture, would do.

· · ·

So let me set this down where I found it, and leave it there.

A friend handed me a standard, and it was a good one. A position immune to all possible evidence is a fixture, not a position. I agree, completely, and I’ll go further than he did: a faith that risks nothing deserves nothing, and most of what passes for religious certainty is precisely the closed, bolted-down, evidence-proof fixture he has no patience for. He’s right to have none.

But the book itself is not that. Its text reaches us through the most transparent, cross-checkable, uncontrolled transmission of any document in the ancient world — uniformity you can verify rather than uniformity you were ordered to trust. Its specific, this-world claims have been tested by hostile excavation for over a century, and on the testable ones it has a record of vindication that the confident doubts could not match. And its central, untestable-by-shovel claim was nonetheless published with its own falsification clause attached, its witnesses named, its off-switch left in plain reach of everyone who wanted to throw it — and no one ever could.

I’m not asking you to believe the miracle today. I’m asking for something much smaller, the only thing the evidence actually supports on its own: that this is not a fixture. That it’s a document which keeps making falsifiable bets and keeps, more often than not, winning them — and which has therefore earned the right to be weighed, not dismissed. That’s the whole ask. It’s an inch. You can grant it standing exactly where you stand now, and lose nothing you’d be sorry to lose.

The rest isn’t something I can argue you into, and I wouldn’t want to, because a thing you’re argued into is a thing the next clever argument can pull back out. The door at the end of all this — the question of whether the body stayed in the tomb — is one a person finally has to walk up to alone, on their own time, when no one’s watching and nothing’s at stake but the truth. I’m not going to stand at it and push. I’m just going to point out, quietly, that for two thousand years it has been standing unlocked, and that the people best positioned to bar it shut never managed to.

Come, the old invitation goes, let us reason together.

I’ve always thought the remarkable thing about that line is the first word. Not believe. Not submit. Come. And then: reason. As though the evidence were never the enemy. As though it had been the welcome the whole time.

You’re allowed to take your time at the door. It isn’t going anywhere. It never has.

If you value unflinching, historically grounded analysis that mainstream outlets soften or ignore, consider upgrading. Paid subscribers get:

• Several new, full-length articles every week.

  Carefully researched pieces you won’t find elsewhere.

• Full access to the complete premium archive

  Archive of in-depth writing, research, and commentary — all in one place.

• Entry into the subscriber chat

  A private space for serious readers and thoughtful discussion.

A. C. Rosenthal

A.C. Rosenthal is a self-taught writer, researcher, and theologian working at the intersection of history, philosophy, and culture. He is the author of The Carpenter's Son and the Imam's Son, The God that they rejected Isn't Real.

Thanks for reading. This post is public, so feel free to share it. A. C. Rosenthal writes on comparative religion, Islamic theology, and the relationship between Christianity and modern Western culture. This work is entirely reader-supported. By choosing a paid subscription, you allow me to continue this long-form research to bring these vital stories to light. Thank you for helping this Lion roar for truth. A.C. Rosenthal is the author of The Two Muhammads: What History and Manuscripts Reveal About the Islamic Dilemma, The God They Rejected Isn’t Real: Exposing the False Gods of Modern Doubt, and The Carpenter’s Son and the Imam’s Son. Further analysis at:

acrosenthal.com/

https://thetwomuhammadscurriculum.thinkific.com/

In the 1990s, one of the most powerful scientists alive stood next to the President of the United States while the President announced to the world that they were, in his words, learning the language in which God created life.

The scientist beside him was Francis Collins. He ran the Human Genome Project, the effort that mapped all three billion letters of human DNA, arguably the single largest biological undertaking in history. He is, by any measure anyone wants to use, a serious man. Credentialed to the teeth, respected across the field, the kind of mind that does not arrive at conclusions by accident or sentiment.

And here is the part nobody mentioned that day. A couple of decades earlier, Francis Collins had been, in his own words, an “obnoxious atheist.” Not a soft agnostic, not a lapsed anything. A committed, confident unbeliever who had decided, somewhere in college, that science had closed the God question for good and that anyone still asking it was living in an earlier, more childish age of the species.

So how does a man like that end up standing next to a president talking about the language of God? That’s the story I want to tell you, because it does not go the way you think, and because if you are someone who has been keeping the God question at a careful arm’s length, it may be describing something that is already happening to you without your permission.

· · ·

Collins did not go looking. That’s the first thing to understand, and it’s the thing that makes the whole story matter.

He was in medical school, training to be a physician, and he kept running into a particular kind of patient. People who were dying, who had every reason to be bitter or terrified, and who instead faced the end with a steady, quiet confidence that he could not explain and could not dismiss. Their faith was doing something visible, something load-bearing, and it unsettled the tidy account in which all of that was supposed to be a leftover superstition.

And then one of them did the thing that broke it open. An older woman, terminally ill, after sharing what she believed, turned the question back on him. She asked, simply, “Doctor, what do you believe?”

And Collins, the scientist, the man whose entire professional identity was built on reasoning carefully from evidence, realized in that moment that he had no answer. He had arrived at the most important conclusion a human being can reach, that there is no God, and he had arrived there, by his own admission, without ever once examining the evidence. He had assumed it. A man who would never accept a scientific claim without data had accepted the largest claim of all on nothing but the mood of his era.

That, he said, is what launched him. Not a desire to believe. The opposite. He set out to examine the evidence fully expecting it to confirm his atheism and let him put the dying woman’s question to rest. He went looking for ammunition. He found something else.

· · ·

Now I want to slow down here, because we have reached the strange thing, the thing this whole essay is actually about, and it’s easy to miss if I move too fast.

Notice the shape of what just happened to Collins. He did not wake up one morning and decide to seek God. Something reached into his comfortable, settled, closed position and disturbed it. The patients he didn’t choose to be moved by. The question he didn’t ask for. The unrest that followed him out of that hospital room and would not leave him alone. Every step of it arrived from outside his own intention. He was, in the most literal sense, provoked. Pursued.

Here is the claim I want to put on the table, and I want to put it plainly because it inverts almost everything our culture assumes about faith. We think of the seeker as the one doing the reaching. The hungry soul, stretching upward toward a silent heaven, hoping to find something. And the religious answer, the one most people have never actually heard, is that the reaching is itself the evidence of something reaching first. That the hunger is not you grasping for God. It is the fingerprints of God already grasping for you.

Jesus said it in a single sentence that sounds strange until you’ve lived the thing it describes. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them.” Draws. The word in the original is not a gentle invitation. It’s a word used elsewhere for hauling in a net heavy with fish, dragging something toward a shore it would never have reached under its own power. It describes a pull. A tug you feel before you understand it. The unrest that won’t quit. The question that keeps surfacing no matter how many times you push it back under.

If you have felt that, the religious tradition has a counterintuitive thing to say to you about it. That sense of being bothered by God, of being unable to fully close a door you would honestly prefer to close, is not anxiety, and it is not weakness, and it is not you failing to be a good skeptic. It may be the single most important thing that has ever happened to you. It may be that you are being drawn, and that the drawing started long before you noticed it.

· · ·

Let me show you the same thing from a completely different angle, two thousand years earlier, because there’s a detail in an old text that I think is one of the most quietly radical lines in all of Scripture, and almost everyone reads right past it.

In the book of Acts, a traveling preacher named Paul arrives in a Roman city and goes down to the river, where a group of women have gathered to pray. One of them is a woman named Lydia. And Lydia is not a stereotype of the desperate convert. She is a businesswoman, a dealer in purple cloth, which in that economy was a luxury trade, the mark of someone successful and self-possessed. She is already a worshiper of God, already thoughtful, already searching in her own measured way. She is, in other words, a competent, intelligent adult who has her life handled.

Paul speaks. Lydia listens. And then the text says something that, if you slow down, is genuinely startling. It does not say Lydia made a decision. It does not say she was persuaded, or that she reasoned her way to a conclusion. It says, and I’m quoting it almost exactly, “the Lord opened her heart to respond.”

The Lord opened her heart. The decisive move in the story is not made by Lydia. It’s made for her, in her, before she does her own part. She still listens, still considers, still responds, her agency is completely intact. But the thing underneath the response, the lowering of the shield, the shift from defending to receiving, that came from somewhere else. She did not pry her own heart open. It was opened.

And here is what I find almost unbearably tender about that line. Lydia hadn’t believed yet when her heart opened. The opening came first. Before the conclusion, before the commitment, before she was sure of anything, the defending simply stopped. That’s the beginning. Not certainty. The end of the war you’ve been waging to keep the question out.

A lot of people who have been hurt by religion, or who have built a careful intellectual fortress against it, assume the barrier is the arguments. It usually isn’t. The arguments are the wall, but the willingness to even consider being wrong, to lower the shield for one honest minute, that’s the gate, and most people experience the moment that gate opens as something that happens to them rather than something they manufacture. If you have ever felt your own resistance inexplicably soften, felt yourself becoming willing to look when you had been so committed to not looking, pay attention to that. That softening is not nothing. By the oldest account we have, that softening is the work already underway.

· · ·

Which brings me back to Collins, and to the frozen waterfall.

The pastor he went to, looking for evidence, handed him a slim book by an Oxford professor named C.S. Lewis, called Mere Christianity. And Collins, the genome scientist, the man who would map the entire human blueprint, opened it expecting to find the soft sentimental stuff he could dismantle in an afternoon. Instead, he later wrote, within the first three pages he realized that his arguments against faith were the arguments of a schoolboy. The wall he had spent his adult life behind turned out, on inspection, to be made of assumptions he had never actually tested.

But the logic alone didn’t finish it. The finish came on a mountainside. Collins was hiking in the Cascades on a fall afternoon, no longer fighting hard, the intellectual resistance mostly spent, and he came around a bend and found himself facing a frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, fallen still in the cold into three distinct streams of ice. Three parts, one waterfall. And in that moment, looking at it, he felt his resistance leave him. Not break. Leave. The way a fever finally breaks and the thing that had gripped you simply lets go.

That is the anatomy of a reluctant conversion, and it is worth naming the stages because so many people are somewhere inside them right now without a map. First, the refusal of easy answers, the integrity that won’t believe just because believing is convenient. Second, the slow accumulation of things that don’t fit the dismissal, the evidence that keeps arriving uninvited, the arguments that don’t collapse the way you were sure they would. Third, the dawning and uncomfortable suspicion that the wall you built to keep God out is also the wall keeping you in, and that maintaining it is starting to cost more than honestly looking would. And fourth, the moment the resistance leaves, which almost never feels like a leap and almost always feels, in the words of people who’ve been through it, like finally stopping a fight you were exhausted from having.

· · ·

Now here is the part where I have to bring in the witness, because Collins is not the only formidable mind this happened to, and if I left it at one man you could call it a fluke.

The Oxford professor who wrote the book that ambushed Collins had been ambushed himself, decades earlier, in almost exactly the same way. C.S. Lewis was a hardened atheist and a brilliant one, a man who wanted there to be no God and had arranged his whole philosophy accordingly. And he described his own surrender in language no one would invent if they were trying to sell you a comfortable religion. He called himself the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. He wrote of being dragged into the kingdom kicking and struggling, of God as a relentless pursuer closing off his escapes one by one, of finally giving in not in a glow of joy but in something closer to exhausted defeat.

Two of the sharpest minds of the modern age. A literary scholar and a geneticist. Neither of them went looking. Both of them resisted. Both of them describe the same thing: not a leap they bravely took, but a pursuit they finally stopped running from. Lewis was caught first, and the book he wrote out of being caught became the net that caught Collins. The hunter, you might say, uses what he has already taken to take the next one.

· · ·

Here is the objection, and it’s the strongest one, so I’ll hand it to you myself rather than let it sit there unspoken.

You could say this is all very convenient. That I’ve cherry-picked two famous converts and ignored the larger number of equally smart people who examined the same evidence and walked away unmoved. And you’d be pointing at something real. Plenty of brilliant people have looked and not believed. Collins himself remains a controversial figure, atheists have questioned whether his “obnoxious atheism” was ever as solid as he claims, and some Christians dislike his embrace of evolution. I’m not going to pretend the man is a tidy mascot. He isn’t.

But notice what the objection does and does not touch. It does not touch the experience itself, the thing I’m actually describing, which is the sense of being drawn against your own preference. I’m not claiming everyone who is pursued is caught. The texts themselves don’t claim that, Jesus’s own listeners walked away from him in the very chapter where he talks about being drawn. What I’m claiming is narrower and harder to dismiss: that the people who do get caught overwhelmingly report that it began as something done to them, not something they achieved. The initiative was not theirs. And if you are sitting there right now annoyed that you can’t stop thinking about a question you’d genuinely prefer to be done with, that annoyance is not evidence against what I’m saying. It is precisely the thing I’m saying. You don’t have to find that persuasive. You only have to notice whether it’s happening.

· · ·

So let me speak directly to a few different people, because I suspect more than one of you is in this room.

If you have been seeking for years, exhausted by it, tired of being suspended between yes and no, hear this: the sheer length of your search is not your failure. It’s your integrity. You refused the cheap answer in both directions, the comfortable faith that won’t think and the comfortable doubt that won’t look. That refusal is honorable. And the thing you’ve been seeking, by its own account, has been seeking you the entire time, present in the seeking itself, not waiting at some finish line for you to finally measure up.

If you feel cornered, if something is moving in you that you did not invite and cannot evict, if the arguments that used to satisfy have quietly stopped satisfying, don’t panic and don’t explain it away. You are not losing your grip. You may be experiencing exactly what Lewis experienced and Collins experienced, the steady closing of the distance, the pursuit that doesn’t relent. It is not a breakdown. It may be the most important thing that has ever happened to you.

And if you know, deep down, that the real reason you keep the question at arm’s length is not that you’re unconvinced but that you’re afraid of what being convinced would cost, a relationship, a reputation, an identity built on not believing, then you deserve an honest answer, and the honest answer is: yes. It might cost you something. Lewis lost friends. He also said he gained everything else. The transaction is not free. But the One doing the drawing is not trying to take from you. He is trying to reach you, and what gets lost in the reaching is rarely what you feared losing.

· · ·

Here is where I’ll leave it.

The history of faith is not, as it’s so often sold, a history of simple people who couldn’t cope and so reached for a comforting story. Look at who actually populates it. A purple-cloth merchant with her life in order, whose heart was opened before she’d decided anything. An Oxford rationalist dragged in kicking. A genome scientist who went hunting for ammunition against God and came back from a mountain with his resistance gone. These are not people who leapt. These are people who were found.

And the unsettling, hopeful possibility underneath all of it is this. The restlessness you’ve been treating as a problem to manage may not be coming from you at all. The question that won’t go quiet, the door you can’t quite close, the strange softening you feel in moments you didn’t plan, all of it may be the evidence that something has already begun. That you are not, in fact, the hunter in this story.

You did not come this far by accident. Something brought you here. And the oldest claim in the world is that the something has a name, and that it has been moving toward you, patiently, the entire time you believed you were the one doing the searching.

You don’t have to be sure. You don’t even have to be willing yet. You only have to stop pretending that what is already happening to you is nothing.

Leave a comment

Share

If you value unflinching, historically grounded analysis that mainstream outlets soften or ignore, consider upgrading. Paid subscribers get:

• Several new, full-length articles every week.

  Carefully researched pieces you won’t find elsewhere.

• Full access to the complete premium archive

  Archive of in-depth writing, research, and commentary — all in one place.

• Entry into the subscriber chat

  A private space for serious readers and thoughtful discussion.

A. C. Rosenthal

A.C. Rosenthal is a self-taught writer, researcher, and theologian working at the intersection of history, philosophy, and culture. He is the author of The Carpenter's Son and the Imam's Son, The God that they rejected Isn't Real.

Thanks for reading. This post is public, so feel free to share it. A. C. Rosenthal writes on comparative religion, Islamic theology, and the relationship between Christianity and modern Western culture. This work is entirely reader-supported. By choosing a paid subscription, you allow me to continue this long-form research to bring these vital stories to light. Thank you for helping this Lion roar for truth. His book The Two Muhammads is available now. Further analysis at:

acrosenthal.com/

https://thetwomuhammadscurriculum.thinkific.com/

*THE GOD THEY REJECTED ISN’T REAL* series 24-75

The most famous objection to belief is aimed at a definition no serious believer has ever held. Here’s the one they actually hold, and why it’s harder to dismiss.

Richard Dawkins has a definition of faith he has repeated, in various forms, for decades. Faith, he says, is belief without evidence, and worse, belief that persists in the teeth of evidence. A virus of the mind. The great cop-out, the excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. There is an older, folksier version of the same idea, the line usually credited to Mark Twain: faith is believing what you know ain’t so.

I want to start by doing something you might not expect. I want to agree.

Because if that is what faith is, then every intellectually honest person in the world is right to refuse it, and I will hand them the torch to burn it down. Belief without evidence is not a virtue. Belief against the evidence is not courage, it’s malpractice. If walking into a church means walking out of your own reason, leaving your mind in the coat-check like an umbrella you’ll collect on the way out, then the only self-respecting thing a thinking person can do is stay home. Dawkins is not wrong to despise that thing. I despise it too.

Here is the problem, and it’s a big one, and once you see it you can’t unsee it. The definition he’s attacking is not the one the people he’s attacking actually use. He has built a magnificent siege engine and aimed it at a castle nobody lives in.

· · ·

Let me show you the real definition, and I’m going to do it without a single Bible verse first, because I want you to see that you already believe in this kind of faith. You practice it constantly. You practiced it this morning.

Think about how you decide to trust a person.

You have a friend. A real one, the kind you’d call at three in the morning. Now, can you prove, with the certainty of a mathematical proof, that this person will not betray you tomorrow? You cannot. There is no equation. You do not have certainty. What you have is evidence. Years of it. You’ve watched how they treat people when there’s nothing to gain. You’ve seen them keep a promise that cost them something. You’ve noticed that what they say and what they do line up, over and over, across time and pressure. You have the testimony of other people who know them. And on the basis of all that evidence, evidence that falls short of mathematical proof but is overwhelming all the same, you do something. You extend trust. You act on what you partially know, in the direction of what you cannot fully verify.

That act has a name. The name is faith.

It is not the suspension of reason. It is one of the most reasonable things a human being ever does. It is what every one of us does every time we board a plane we did not build, flown by a pilot we did not vet, or let a surgeon we met yesterday put us to sleep and open our chest. We are not being irrational in those moments. We are acting on good evidence that stops short of certainty, because certainty is not on offer for almost anything that matters, and waiting for it would mean never trusting anyone, never marrying, never flying, never being operated on, never living at all.

John Lennox, who is a professor of mathematics at Oxford and has spent decades on exactly this question, compressed the whole thing into one sentence that I have not been able to improve on. Faith, he says, is not a leap into the dark. It is a step into the light, based on evidence.

Sit with the difference between those two pictures, because the whole argument lives in the gap between them. A leap into the dark is what Dawkins is describing, eyes shut, no information, hurling yourself off a ledge and hoping. A step into the light is the opposite motion entirely. The light is already on. You can see, partially, imperfectly, but really, where your foot is going to land. And you step, on the strength of what you can already see, toward what you cannot yet see fully. One is the abandonment of evidence. The other is a response to it.

· · ·

Now I’ll bring in the text, because here is where it gets interesting. The skeptic assumes the Bible is on Dawkins’s side, that Scripture is going to define faith as the blindfold. It defines it as almost exactly the reverse.

The closest thing the New Testament has to a formal definition of faith is a single line in the book of Hebrews. The modern translations render it: faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. But the old King James reaches for a word that the modern versions soften, and the old word is the one that matters. It calls faith the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Evidence. The Bible’s own definition of faith uses the word evidence. Faith is not presented as the absence of evidence. It is presented as a kind of evidence in itself, an inner conviction that corresponds to an outer reality that hasn’t come fully into view yet. That is not the blindfold. That is the opposite of the blindfold.

And watch what the writer does next, because it’s the tell. Having defined faith, he doesn’t produce a gallery of people who believed things for no reason. He produces a gallery of people who acted. Abraham, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, the prophets, a long roll call, and every single one of them is praised not for switching off their mind but for doing something, for moving, for acting on the best evidence they had in the direction of a God who had, in their experience, a track record of keeping his word. They are not commended as people who suspended reason. They are commended as people who trusted a reliable party and acted on it before the final results were in. Which is precisely what you did with your three-in-the-morning friend.

So the biblical definition is not “I know nothing and I believe anyway.” It is “I know enough to take the next step, and the One I’m trusting has a record of being trustworthy.” That is a categorically different claim from the one Dawkins demolishes, and the difference is not a technicality. It is the entire ballgame.

· · ·

That’s not even the part that got me, though. The part that got me is the answer to the obvious next question, and it’s an answer that quietly dismantles how most people think faith is supposed to work.

If faith is a response to evidence, then where does it come from? How does a person who doesn’t have it get it?

The instinctive answer, the one baked into our whole culture, is that faith is an act of will. You decide to believe. You screw your eyes shut, clench your jaw, and crank up the willpower until belief somehow appears. And if you can’t manage it, you must just not be trying hard enough. That picture is everywhere, and it is responsible for an enormous amount of private misery, people lying awake straining to manufacture a conviction by force and hating themselves when it won’t come.

The Apostle Paul, tracing exactly this question in his letter to the Romans, gives an answer that has nothing to do with willpower. Faith, he writes, comes from hearing, and hearing through the word about Christ. Faith comes through content. Through encounter. Through exposure to the actual claims about the actual person. It does not get generated in a vacuum by sheer force of trying. It gets generated the way trust in your friend got generated, by contact with the evidence, by spending time near the thing itself until you’ve seen enough to take the step.

Do you understand what that does for the person who’s stuck? It means the instruction is not “try harder to believe.” Trying harder to believe is like trying harder to fall asleep, the effort is self-defeating, the strain is the very thing keeping it away. The instruction is completely different, and it’s something a person can actually do. Get near the source. Stop trying to squeeze belief out of your own will and go put yourself in front of the evidence. Read the Gospels, not as a believer and not as a debunker, but as an investigator with one honest question: what is this person actually like, and did this actually happen? The step into the light comes after exposure to the light. You don’t generate the illumination by wanting it. You walk toward where it’s already coming from.

· · ·

Here’s the objection, the strongest one, so I’ll hand it to you myself rather than let it ambush you later.

You could say I’ve pulled a quiet switch. That “trusting a friend” and “trusting that a man rose from the dead” are not the same category of act at all, that one is an ordinary inference from ordinary experience and the other is a wild leap dressed up in the borrowed clothes of the ordinary one. The friend is standing in front of you. The resurrection is a two-thousand-year-old claim about a category of event you’ve never witnessed. Calling them both “faith” smuggles the credibility of the small everyday act onto the back of the enormous historical one.

That’s a fair shot, and I’m not going to wave it away, because it’s pointing at something true: the two acts differ in scale, and the bigger the claim, the heavier the evidence it has to carry. So let me not pretend the friendship analogy does all the work. Let me put the actual weight where it belongs. The central claim of this faith is not a feeling or a philosophy. It is a historical assertion, the kind that has the texture of evidence rather than sentiment: that a specific man was executed in public, certified dead by professional executioners, sealed in a tomb, and was seen alive afterward by named witnesses, groups of them, most of whom then accepted torture and death rather than recant a thing they could simply have admitted was a story. That claim is not a leap into the dark for the same reason the friendship isn’t, it rests on testimony and evidence, and it carries its own built-in test. Produce the body and the entire structure collapses in an afternoon. It has been open to that disproof for two thousand years. The body has never been produced. You are not required to find that conclusive today. I am only asking you to notice that it is the kind of claim that could be checked, that has an evidentiary shape, which is exactly what Dawkins says faith never has. The leap-in-the-dark definition cannot survive contact with the thing it claims to describe.

· · ·

So here is where this leaves the person who has been standing at the edge, certain that belief would require them to betray their own intelligence.

You have been told that the step is a leap into the dark, and you have, to your great credit, refused to take it, because you are not the kind of person who leaps into the dark, and you should not be. But you were lied to about what the step is. It was never a leap, and it was never into the dark. The room has been filling with light for longer than you’ve admitted. You have more evidence than you’ve been acting on. You have the moral intuition that keeps insisting some things are really wrong, not just unfashionable, which is a strange thing to have if we’re only chemicals. You have the hunger for meaning that the purely material account keeps failing to fill, no matter how many times you’re told it should. You have, probably, the testimony of someone you actually respect whose life visibly changed and who is not a fool. And you likely have more knowledge of the Gospel record itself than you give yourself credit for.

That is not nothing. That is light. Partial, maybe. Imperfect, sure. But enough to see the next step, which is all light ever has to be.

Lewis took the step kicking and struggling, dragged into it against his own mood, the most reluctant convert in England. Lennox took it with the calm of a mathematician who had checked the working. People have taken it from grief and from anger and from exhaustion and from sheer baffled curiosity, from every starting point on the map. None of them leapt into the dark. Every one of them stepped into a room that was already lit, on the strength of what they could already see.

You cannot wait for certainty first. That’s the one thing this won’t give you, and it’s the thing you’ve been holding out for. Certainty does not come before the step. It tends to come through it, the way understanding came to the fishermen who left their boats before they understood, the way it comes in every real relationship, where you trust first and the confirmation arrives later, earned, on the far side of the trust. The disciples did not get a guarantee and then follow. They followed, and the understanding caught up with them on the road.

The light is already on. The door is already open. It is not a leap, and it never was.

It is a step. And it is yours to take.

Leave a comment

Share

If you value unflinching, historically grounded analysis that mainstream outlets soften or ignore, consider upgrading. Paid subscribers get:

• Several new, full-length articles every week.

  Carefully researched pieces you won’t find elsewhere.

• Full access to the complete premium archive

  Archive of in-depth writing, research, and commentary — all in one place.

• Entry into the subscriber chat

  A private space for serious readers and thoughtful discussion.

A. C. Rosenthal

A.C. Rosenthal is a self-taught writer, researcher, and theologian working at the intersection of history, philosophy, and culture. He is the author of The Carpenter's Son and the Imam's Son, The God that they rejected Isn't Real.

Thanks for reading. This post is public, so feel free to share it. A. C. Rosenthal writes on comparative religion, Islamic theology, and the relationship between Christianity and modern Western culture. This work is entirely reader-supported. By choosing a paid subscription, you allow me to continue this long-form research to bring these vital stories to light. Thank you for helping this Lion roar for truth. His book The Two Muhammads is available now. Further analysis at:

acrosenthal.com/

https://thetwomuhammadscurriculum.thinkific.com/

I know a man in his forties who cannot pray.

Not won’t. Cannot. He told me that the moment he closes his eyes and tries to speak to someone he cannot see, some old machinery starts up in him, and he braces, the way you brace when you hear a particular set of footsteps coming down the hallway and you are trying to read, from the weight and the speed of them, what kind of night this is going to be. He grew up in a house like that. The love in it was real, but the weather was not steady. Warm and generous at breakfast, gone by dinner, and the most useful thing a small boy could learn there was how to read a room before he was old enough to read a book.

The man who held that power over him has been dead for years. And he still cannot pray, because the instant he kneels he is six years old again, scanning, bracing, certain that the warmth is real but temporary and that he is always one wrong move from losing it.

He thinks he has a problem with God. I don’t think he does. I think he has a problem with a portrait of God that was painted long before he could hold the brush, by a hand that was never God’s. And I think a great many people who have walked away from faith are walking away from a painting like his, and have never once been told that the painting and the original might be two different faces.

· · ·

I am not a theologian, and I’m not going to play one to win you over. I’m a guy who has spent an unreasonable number of hours reading the actual primary texts of the world’s major religions, partly out of hunger and partly because I physically cannot leave a hard question alone once it has its teeth in me. And the longer I spend among people who have left God behind, the more I keep running into something that sounds like an insult until you sit with it, and then it starts to sound like the kindest thing anyone could say to them.

Most people who reject God have never actually encountered the God they think they rejected. C.S. Lewis admitted this about himself. Before his conversion, the God he was busy resisting was harsh, cold, and irrational, and he later realized he had been swinging at a projection of his own fear, not a Person. The philosopher Richard Swinburne put it more bluntly: a great many people who call themselves atheists have rejected a god that no serious Christian theologian has ever actually believed in. Nancy Pearcey says the modern skeptic usually does not disbelieve in God so much as disbelieve in his own picture of God.

Sit with that, because it has a strange mercy folded inside it. If the thing you rejected was a distortion, then your rejection was not a failure of nerve or a moral collapse. It may have been an act of integrity. You looked at something ugly that was wearing God’s name, and you had the honesty to say no. The trouble is only this: you may have tried the wrong defendant. And the right one was never called.

Let me show you how the wrong one ends up in the chair, because the mechanism is more exact than people realize, and once you see it you cannot stop seeing it.

· · ·

Think about how a caricature artist works. The ones at the fair, fifteen dollars, ninety seconds, a crowd watching over your shoulder.

They do not invent your face out of nothing. That is the entire craft, and it is why the drawing is both unmistakably you and slightly horrifying. They find the one feature that dominates, the strong jaw, the big nose, the gap in the teeth, and they stretch it until it swallows the page. They take something that is truly there and pull it past its real proportion until that single feature becomes the whole face, and afterward you cannot look at yourself without seeing the exaggeration first.

That is why a caricature is so much more dangerous than a lie. A lie invents, so you can refute it. A caricature exaggerates something true, so you cannot, because it has your nose. It is built on a foundation you recognize, and the recognition is exactly what makes the distortion stick.

Every false god works this way. Not one of them is invented from scratch. Each one seizes a feature that really does belong to the picture, authority, justice, holiness, the hard reality that some prayers are met with silence, and stretches that one true thing until it crowds the rest of the face out of the frame. What is left feels accurate, because it is made of real material. It just has the proportions of a funhouse mirror. The skeptic who says I cannot believe in a petty, vindictive, score-keeping sky-tyrant is not wrong to refuse that thing. I refuse it too. So, for what it is worth, does the Bible, which spends the prophets raging against false images of God and which, in Exodus, has God reject the golden calf even though the people had stamped His own name on it.

· · ·

Now here is the part I want to handle gently, because by now I am not talking about an abstraction. I am talking about real wounds carried by real people, and some of you reading this are carrying one right now.

A caricature of God always exaggerates the thing that hurt us. That is not a weakness. It is just how a human heart works. If your father was unpredictable, the god you flinch from is unstable. If the Christians you knew were harsh, the god you resist is a judge with a clipboard. If religion was used as a weapon against you, the god you avoid is a tyrant, because a tyrant is the only kind of god you were ever shown. The feeling is not lying to you. The feeling is an accurate report. It is just reporting on the wrong subject. It is describing the parent, the pastor, the institution, and putting God’s name in the caption.

Walk through the ones I see most, because they build.

There is the god of the unpredictable parent. That’s the man I started with. You learned to read the room, and a skill that once kept you safe does not retire when you grow up. It follows you to your knees and hands you a god whose moods you are forever tracking, whose approval you can feel but never bank, warm at breakfast and silent by dinner. You approach him braced. That is not the God of the Scriptures. It is a nervous system doing exactly what it was trained to do, by someone else, years ago.

There is the god of the scorekeeper church. If the faith you were handed led with rules before it ever led with love, if the loudest message that reached you was about compliance and failure and the standing possibility of falling short, then you absorbed a god standing over your life with a ledger, never quite satisfied, because the bar was perfection and perfection was never on the menu. People raised under that god live with a low, permanent hum of dread they were taught to call faith. And I want to say this plainly, because it is the hinge of everything: the founder of the faith I hold had open contempt for the machinery that builds that god. He called the men who ran it whitewashed tombs, clean on the outside and full of death within, and he said it to their faces, in public, in front of the very people they had been managing through fear. The sharpest words in the Gospels are not aimed at doubters. They are aimed at the religious professionals who built the scorekeeper and charged admission.

· · ·

And then he told a story to take that god apart, and it is still the most efficient demolition of the scorekeeper I have found in the literature of any faith I have read.

You know the bones of it even if you have never been to church. A son asks for his inheritance early, which in that time and place was a hair’s breadth from telling his father he wished him dead. He takes the money, leaves, and torches all of it on precisely the things his father would have grieved. He ends up feeding pigs, which to the first audience was the absolute floor. And he rehearses a speech on the road home. He will ask to come back not as a son but as a hired hand, because he has run the numbers on what he is now worth and decided that a servant’s wage is more than he can claim.

He never finishes the speech. The father has been watching the road, which tells you he had been watching it for a long time, and he sees the boy while he is still far off and does the one thing a wealthy, dignified man of that world would never do. He runs. Running was for servants and children, never for the patriarch. It was humiliating. He does it anyway, robe bunched in his fists, sprinting toward a son who reeks of pigs and has not gotten a word of his apology out. He is shouting for the robe and the ring and the feast before the confession can even begin. The boy had the whole economy worked out, the careful repayment of his way back to a sliver of his old place, and the father simply will not participate in the math. There is no ledger. There was never a ledger. The ledger was the son’s invention. The father won’t even glance at it.

The scorekeeper god is not God. He is the golden calf with a ledger in his hand.

If you were handed the scorekeeper and you left, you were right to leave. I mean that with no reservation at all. The thing you rejected deserved rejecting. It just was not God. It was what frightened institutions build when they would rather control people than free them.

· · ·

But there is a third portrait, and it is the one I most wanted you to stay for, because it was not drawn by cruelty or by control. It was drawn by silence, and it is the hardest of the three.

This is the god who did not answer. The prayer offered in real faith, not for a week but for years, that came back empty. The thing you were on your knees begging God to stop while it happened anyway. The child who did not get better. The marriage that ended regardless. The door you knocked on until your knuckles split, that never opened.

I want to handle this one differently, because it is different. The person carrying it is usually not angry and not in rebellion. They are heartbroken, and they are honest, and they drew the only reasonable conclusion from the evidence they were actually handed. The silence was real. I am not going to insult them by pretending it was not. And if anyone’s instinct, meeting a grieving person, is to lead with a tidy argument about why God hides, they have misread the room so completely they should not be in it. The wound does not want a syllogism. It wants someone willing to sit in the dark beside it for a while before a single word of explanation is offered. That, too, is in the book I am drawing from. A bruised reed He will not break.

And yet, gently, it is still a portrait. Still a conclusion drawn from part of the evidence and not the whole of it. The silence was real, and the silence being real does not settle whether the silence was the final word, or whether a God who was quiet in one specific stretch of darkness is fully and forever described by that one quiet.

· · ·

Here is where an honest skeptic should stop me, and it is the strongest objection in the room, so I would rather hand it to you than hope you miss it. You could say I am just running the caricature in reverse. Stretching the warm features now, the running father, the tender God, the near-to-the-brokenhearted lines, and quietly cropping out the wrath and the judgment and the silence. Painting a comfortable God the same way the wounded painted a frightening one. Same trick, nicer colors.

That is a fair shot, and I will not answer it with a feeling, because feelings are exactly what is in dispute. So I will rest the weight somewhere a feeling cannot hold it. The faith I am describing makes one claim that is built to be tested, the rare religious claim that comes with its own off switch. It says a specific man was executed in public, certified dead by professionals whose whole job was making sure of it, sealed in a tomb, and was walking around three days later in front of named witnesses, most of whom went on to accept torture and death rather than take it back. Produce the body and the entire structure falls. That is not the architecture of a comforting story. Comforting stories do not hand you the lever that ends them. This one does, it set that lever on the table two thousand years ago, and the body has never been produced. You do not have to find that persuasive today. I am asking you to notice only that it is the kind of thing that could in principle be false, which is more than the caricature you walked away from ever offered you.

· · ·

So here is the reframe, the one thing I would ask you to carry out even if you forget all the rest.

The god you stopped believing in and the God who is, may simply be two different people, and the second one was never put on the stand. You examined the impersonator, found him guilty on real evidence, and closed the case, while the One the impersonator was imitating sat outside the courtroom the entire time, healing the brokenhearted, uncalled and busy with the Father’s business. And notice the shape of the test the case was decided on. Perform on demand, or you do not exist. Dance, or I walk. That test is rigged before it starts, because the only god who could pass it is a god small enough to be controlled, a vending god who dispenses on command. The real one will not surrender His sovereignty to audition for it, and Scripture says so in His own voice. When the same demand was put to Jesus in the wilderness, throw yourself down and make God catch you, he answered it in five words. Do not put the Lord your God to the test. The vending-machine test does not measure whether God is there. It only measures whether He can be made to heel. He cannot. That is not a flaw in the evidence. It is the nature of the One the evidence is about.

And the thing the wounds make almost impossible to see is what God is actually doing, and how His fingerprints show up in the everyday. He must be sought in order to be seen. Read the accounts of the people who searched, and just watch where He goes. Not toward the polished and the theologically tidy. Toward the leper no one would touch. Toward the woman who had burned through five husbands and came to the well alone at noon to dodge the stares. Toward the man everyone had written off, the woman caught in the act and ringed by men holding rocks, the criminal dying on the next cross over with minutes left to live. These are not the people with clean portraits of God. These are the people whose pictures had been painted in the darkest paint available, by the cruelest blend of circumstance and exclusion, and they are the exact ones He walked toward on purpose. The God of relationship met the brokenhearted on one side of the cross, not the hard-hearted on the other.

There is a line in the Psalms that does not say God is near to the people who kept the rules, or near to the ones who never doubted at the wrong moment, or near to the ones whose faith came through the silence unscratched. It says He is near to the brokenhearted, and He saves the crushed in spirit. That is not a God built for the put-together people in the bright Sunday lobby. That is a God who moves toward the very person most likely to have given up on Him. Toward the man who cannot pray because of the footsteps in the hallway. The portrait that man carries says god is unwelcome, unsafe, one wrong move from losing the warmth for good. The real Heavenly Father was already running down the road toward him before he could get the first word of his speech out. And here is the quiet thing underneath the whole choice, the part almost no one stops to count. To say no thanks to the gift is to ask for justice instead of mercy. It is to request, in pride, only what you have actually earned. And if you stop and tally what any of us has truly earned, justice is the one verdict none of us can afford. The gift is not the soft option. It is the only one that ends with you still standing.

· · ·

So this is what I would say to the man I started with, and to anyone who found themselves somewhere in him along the way.

The god you could not believe in, the one assembled out of the unpredictable parent and the scorekeeper church and the long years of unanswered silence, may truly not have been worth believing in. I will go further than that. He almost certainly was not. The caricature may be a flawless caricature. It may capture, exactly, every terrible thing you were actually shown. An image built faithfully on your lived experience.

But a portrait painted by your wounds is not a portrait of God. It is a portrait of your wounds. And the only way to find out how far the true face sits from the drawing you were handed is to call on the One you never actually questioned, and look at Him directly, maybe for the first time in your life. How does the God of Scripture describe Himself?

He has been outside the whole time. Near to the brokenhearted. Exactly as advertised. How a person actually begins that second look, the one where the right face finally comes into the light, is the next thing I want to walk through. But that is its own piece, and this one has gone long enough. Leave the door open just a crack. The truth is so much sweeter, and so much better, than the cartoon drawn by human hands. The people who have seen the real thing are the ones who sang worship into the dark of the arena while the lions came. Because the God of the Bible is the only God worthy of the name. And I love Him more than my own life.You Are Allowed to Come Before You’re Sure

On the strange courage of seeking a God you’re not certain is there, and the door that was never actually locked.

There is a sentence a lot of people are carrying around without ever having said it out loud, and it goes something like this: I can’t go to God yet, because I haven’t finished doubting.

Sit with that for a second, because it’s stranger than it sounds. It means you’ve decided there’s a waiting room. That somewhere between you and God there’s a desk, and at the desk is a form, and the form has to be completed before you’re allowed through. Questions resolved: check. Objections answered: check. Certainty achieved: check. And until every box is ticked, you wait in the lobby, because it would be embarrassing, or dishonest, or presumptuous to walk in while you’re still unsure.

I want to tell you where that form came from, because it did not come from God, and the people who handed it to you mostly didn’t know they were handing you anything at all. And then I want to tell you the thing that took me an embarrassingly long time to see myself, which is that the waiting room has no walls, the desk is empty, and the door at the far end has been standing open the entire time you’ve been sitting there rehearsing your answers.

· · ·

Let me start with a man you’ve heard of, because he spent about thirty years in that waiting room and left one of the most honest records anyone ever has of what it’s like inside.

In the late 1920s, a professor at Oxford was losing an argument with himself. He was a medievalist, a formidable mind, a confirmed atheist by temperament and by conviction, and he had built a careful and comfortable account of the universe that had no God in it and needed none. He liked it that way. It asked nothing of him. And then, slowly, over a period he later dated to roughly 1929 through 1931, something in that account started to come apart in his hands, not because he wanted it to, but because he kept following his own thinking to places he had not meant to go.

He did not go gladly. This is the part worth slowing down on. He described himself, looking back, as “the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.” Dejected. He was dragged, by his own description, kicking and struggling, into a belief he had spent his adult life avoiding. He wrote about being cornered, about feeling the steady, unwelcome approach of a conclusion he could not honestly refuse and did not want to accept.

That man was C.S. Lewis, and he went on to become possibly the most quoted Christian writer of the last hundred years. And the thing I want you to notice is not how he ended up. It’s how he traveled. He did not arrive at God on a wave of glad certainty. He backed into the kingdom looking over his shoulder, complaining the whole way, wishing it weren’t so.

Here is why that matters to you. If you have ever felt that your reluctance disqualifies you, that the fact that part of you doesn’t even want this to be true is proof you’re not a real seeker, Lewis is standing in front of you with his hands up saying: that’s exactly how it went for me, and it counted. The reluctance was not the opposite of seeking. The reluctance was the texture of his seeking. He sought honestly, which meant he sought against his own preferences, and that turned out to be the most serious kind of seeking there is.

· · ·

So let me say the thing this whole piece is built to say, and then spend the rest of it earning it.

Your seeking is not weakness. It is courage.

I know how that sounds. We have been trained, by a culture that flattened faith into a personality type, to read spiritual searching as the behavior of people who can’t cope. The believer is the one who needed a crutch. The seeker is the believer-in-training, the soft-headed person halfway to the crutch, too sentimental for the cold clean honesty of unbelief. That’s the script. And the script has it precisely backward.

Think about what it actually takes to seek. The committed believer has the comfort of arrival. The committed skeptic has the comfort of closure, the matter settled, the file stamped and shut, no more disturbing maybes. Both of them are, in a sense, resting. The seeker is the only one in the picture who has refused both comforts. The seeker has looked at the convenient atheism that never has to deal with God and the convenient religion that never has to deal with hard questions, and has declined both because neither one is honest enough. That’s not the easy path between two hard ones. That’s the hard path between two easy ones.

The seeker is the person standing in the open, pulled forward by a hunger they can’t fully name and pushed back by everything they’ve learned to associate with religion, and choosing, day after day, not to resolve the tension by lying in either direction. That is not the absence of courage. That is what courage looks like when the battlefield is your own mind.

And here is the part almost nobody says to a seeker, the part that I think would change everything if it landed: that hunger you can’t name, the one that won’t let you settle for the tidy materialist account where everything is atoms and accident and there’s nothing underneath, that restlessness is not a defect in your reasoning. It is a signal. It is the most alive thing about you. People who have stopped seeking are not braver or smarter than you. They are just quieter. Something in them has gone still that in you is still moving, and the movement is not a weakness to be cured. It is a sign of life.

Now, the form. The one that says you can’t come until you’re done doubting. I promised I’d tell you where it came from, and the answer is that it came from a version of faith that confused the destination with the entry fee.

There is a kind of religion, and many of you grew up inside it, that leads with the finished product. It puts the resolved, the certain, the theologically tidy person up front as the model, and it quietly communicates that this is the price of admission. You come in with your doubts already handled, your objections already answered, your questions already filed away in the drawer where good believers keep them. Faith for people who have it figured out. And if you don’t have it figured out, the message lands, gently or not, that you’re not ready, that you’d be faking it, that the honest thing is to stay outside until you’ve done the homework.

That version of faith got something exactly upside down, and I can show you where, because the founder of the thing addressed this directly and his terms could not be more different.

Listen to how Jesus phrases the invitation. “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.” Read the grammar of it, because the grammar is the whole argument. It does not say come when you are ready. It does not say come when you have resolved everything. It does not say come when you deserve it, or when you’ve cleaned up, or when the questions have gone quiet. It says come. Present tense, imperative mood, addressed specifically to the people who are carrying something heavy right now, in the unresolved middle of it. The weariness is not the thing that disqualifies you from the invitation. The weariness is the thing the invitation is for.

And then, even more pointed, there is the image of the door. “Here I am. I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in.” If anyone. Not if the righteous. Not if the certain. Not if the theologically prepared. If anyone. The single widest word available, chosen on purpose. And notice the staging of the scene, because it quietly demolishes the waiting-room story. In the picture Jesus paints, who is on which side of the door? He is the one outside, knocking. You are the one inside, deciding whether to open. The whole architecture of the lobby, you waiting to be admitted, gets inverted in a single sentence. You were never the one waiting to be let in. He was the one waiting to be let in.

· · ·

So if the form is a forgery, what’s actually being asked? Because something is being asked. I’m not going to pretend the door opens onto nothing, or that seeking is a mood you can sit in forever with no direction. There is a real condition. It’s just not the one you were handed.

It’s in a line from Jeremiah, written to people in exile, dislocated, defeated, far from home, surrounded by a culture that worshipped other gods, people with every reason to have given up. And the promise made to them is startlingly specific. “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.”

Look hard at what the condition is, and especially at what it is not. It is not “you will find me when you have resolved your theological objections.” Not “when you have attended the right classes” or “when you can articulate a coherent doctrine of the atonement” or “when the doubting has stopped.” The condition is the whole heart turned toward the search. That’s it. And the promise attached to it is almost reckless in its confidence: not “you might find me,” not “you’ll find me if you’re lucky or worthy,” but “you will seek me and find me.” The search is guaranteed to succeed. The only requirement is that it be real.

And here’s where people trip, so let me be careful. “With all your heart” does not mean without doubt. I want to put that as plainly as I can, because the misreading of it has kept people in the lobby for decades. The whole-hearted seeking the Bible describes is shot through with anguish and confusion and complaint. The book of Psalms, the prayer book at the center of the whole tradition, is full of people seeking God while furious at him, while bewildered, while crying out that he’s absent. “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” is not a sentence from outside the faith. It’s a sentence from the middle of it, preserved in the Scripture, prayed by the most faithful, quoted later by Jesus himself from the cross.

So “all your heart” is not the absence of doubt. It’s the absence of pretense. It means you stop performing a certainty you don’t have and stop hiding a doubt you do. It means you bring the actual thing, the real self, questions and wounds and skepticism and longing all bundled together, and you point that whole unedited mess in the direction of the search. That is what the promise responds to. Not a clean heart. A whole one. An honest one.

· · ·

That’s not even the part that got me, though. The part that got me is what the verbs are doing.

When Jesus teaches people how to approach God, he reaches for three words, and they are all active, all motion. “Ask, and it will be given to you. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and the door will be opened to you.” Ask. Seek. Knock. Not wait. Not qualify. Not wait until you’re sure. Three verbs of a person already in motion, already reaching, already moving toward something they can’t yet see.

And then the promise that follows them is the most expansive sentence in the passage: “everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.” Everyone who asks. Not every Christian. Not everyone who has finished doubting. Everyone who asks. The asking is the qualification. The seeking is the credential. The knocking is the entire price of the door being opened.

Do you see what that does to the waiting-room story? It means that if you are seeking, even reluctantly, even angrily, even with a heart so full of questions you can barely hear yourself think, you are not in the lobby waiting to become eligible. You are already doing the one thing the promise requires. The thing you’ve been treating as evidence you’re not ready, the searching, the asking, the restless knocking on a door you’re not sure anyone’s behind, is not the prerequisite for the promise. It is the fulfillment of it. You crossed the line the moment you started looking.

· · ·

Here’s the objection, and it’s a real one, the strongest one in the room, so I’m going to hand it to you myself rather than hope you don’t think of it.

What about the people who sought and didn’t find? Because they exist. People who prayed the honest prayer, “if you’re real, show me,” into what felt like a dead and total silence, for years, and got nothing back they could point to. If the promise is “you will seek me and find me,” and someone sought and did not find, then either they didn’t seek hard enough, which is a cruel thing to say to a person who was on their knees, or the promise doesn’t hold, in which case why am I quoting it to you.

I’m not going to dissolve that with a clever move, because it doesn’t deserve one, and because part of the answer is genuinely outside what I can see from here. But I can say two true things about it. The first is that “find” and “feel” are not the same word, and the waiting-room version of faith taught us to confuse them. A great deal of the silence people describe is the silence of an expected feeling that didn’t arrive on schedule, an emotional confirmation, a warmth, a certainty, and its absence got read as God’s absence. The Jeremiah promise says you will find him. It does not say you will feel a specific thing by a specific Tuesday. Lewis, again, is useful here: when he finally found, what he found was not a glow. It was a conclusion he couldn’t escape and a Person he couldn’t dismiss, arrived at dejectedly, against his mood, with no fireworks at all.

And the second true thing is harder, and I’ll just say it straight. This particular faith does not rest its case on whether the seeking feels good. It rests it on a claim about something that either happened in history or didn’t: that a specific man was executed, certified dead, sealed in a tomb, and was seen alive afterward by people who then accepted torture and death rather than take it back. That claim comes with its own off switch. Produce the body and the whole thing collapses. It’s been available to be falsified for two thousand years and the body has never been produced. I’m not asking you to find that persuasive today. I’m pointing out that it means your seeking is aimed at something that could in principle be checked, which is more than the silence on either side of the question ever offered you. The search is not a mood. It has an object. And the object is the kind of thing that leaves fingerprints.

· · ·

So what does the seeker actually do, standing here, not certain, not finished, but no longer believing the lobby is real?

Three things, and they’re small on purpose, because the lie you were told was that you had to do twenty things and have them all resolved, and the truth is you have to do one.

The first is to keep the questions active. Hear me carefully on this, because it’s the one that matters most. The enemy of seeking is not doubt. Doubt is just seeking with the lights low. The enemy of seeking is the decision to stop asking, the quiet moment where you conclude the question isn’t worth the trouble and you let it go still. As long as the question is alive in you, as long as you are still asking and seeking and knocking, you are still in the story, and the promise still has its hand on you. Resignation is the only real danger here. Uncertainty is not. You can be uncertain for years and still be exactly where the promise can reach you. You cannot be reached if you’ve decided to stop reaching back.

The second is to bring the questions to the source. We take our questions about God everywhere except to God. We take them to books and podcasts and debate clips and the comment section, all of which can help and none of which is the thing itself. At some point the seeker has to do the slightly absurd-feeling thing, the thing that costs the most pride, and address the search to the One being searched for. “If you are real, show me.” It feels ridiculous to pray to someone you’re not sure is there. Do it anyway. It is the most honest sentence a seeker can say, and according to the God of Jeremiah, it is a sentence with a promise attached.

And the third is to stop confusing caution with wisdom. Caution is good. Caution is appropriate. You should not believe things lightly, and the fact that you’ve been careful is to your credit. But there is a point where caution stops being wisdom and quietly becomes avoidance wearing wisdom’s clothes. Permanent caution is not the careful posture of a serious mind. It’s a decision to never decide, dressed up as humility. The seeker who keeps seeking is being wise. The seeker who has secretly concluded that seeking is too risky and has stopped, while still calling themselves a seeker, is in a different situation entirely, and the first kindness anyone can do them is to name it.

One step. Not twenty. The step might be picking up one of the Gospels and reading it cold, not as a believer or a skeptic but as an investigator, with one question: what is this God actually like, underneath everything I was told he was like? The step might be that ridiculous, honest, four-word prayer into the dark. The step might be one conversation with one person who’s been walking this longer than you. That’s all the threshold asks. One honest step in the direction of the search.

· · ·

So let me come back to the man I started with, the reluctant one, and to you, standing wherever you’re standing.

I told you the waiting room has no walls and the door is open, and I’ve tried to show you why. The form was a forgery. The condition was never certainty; it was honesty. The seeking you thought disqualified you is the very thing the promise was made to. And the door you’ve been waiting to be admitted through has a Person standing on the far side of it, knocking, which means the question was never whether you’d be let in. The question was only whether you’d open.

Here is the truest thing I know how to say to a seeker, and I’ll say it as plainly as it was once said to me. You are closer to God than you think. Not because you’ve come so far. You may feel you’ve come nowhere at all. You’re closer than you think because he never left. The whole time you were in the lobby filling out the form, certain you weren’t allowed in yet, he was not at the far end of some corridor waiting for your paperwork. He was beside you in the waiting room. He was the restlessness that wouldn’t let you settle. He was the hunger you couldn’t name. He was the reason you kept asking the question instead of letting it go quiet like everyone told you to.

This is not the end of your doubt. I’m not promising you that. It is, maybe, the end of your despair, which is a different and better thing. This is not the arrival of faith, not today, not all the way. It’s the clearing of the obstacle, the one obstacle that was never real, the velvet rope across a doorway that was standing open the whole time.

It is not a conclusion. It is a beginning.

If any part of you is stirring right now, any flicker of longing, any whisper of maybe, you do not have to believe all the way today. You only have to stay open. You only have to not stop asking. The God who has never once rejected you is still at the door, and he is still knocking, and the next move, the only move that was ever yours to make, is simply to reach for the handle.

You already have a heart. It is already asking something.

Don’t stop.

Leave a comment

Share

If you value unflinching, historically grounded analysis that mainstream outlets soften or ignore, consider upgrading. Paid subscribers get:

• Several new, full-length articles every week.

  Carefully researched pieces you won’t find elsewhere.

• Full access to the complete premium archive

  Archive of in-depth writing, research, and commentary — all in one place.

• Entry into the subscriber chat

  A private space for serious readers and thoughtful discussion.

Thanks for reading. This post is public, so feel free to share it. A. C. Rosenthal writes on comparative religion, Islamic theology, and the relationship between Christianity and modern Western culture. This work is entirely reader-supported. By choosing a paid subscription, you allow me to continue this long-form research to bring these vital stories to light. Thank you for helping this Lion roar for truth. His book The Two Muhammads is available now. Further analysis at:

A. C. Rosenthal

A.C. Rosenthal is a self-taught writer, researcher, and theologian working at the intersection of history, philosophy, and culture. He is the author of The Carpenter's Son and the Imam's Son, The God that they rejected Isn't Real.

acrosenthal.com/

https://thetwomuhammadscurriculum.thinkific.com/

The God He Rejected Isn’t Random

A response to the revised “Certainty Trap”

There is a kind of crow that will sit on a fence and watch you set a trap. It cannot read. It has never taken a logic class. But drop a pattern in front of it, a line of seeds with one too-clever gap, a shape that does not occur by accident, and the bird will not be fooled. It sees the arrangement and it infers the arranger. It behaves, every time, as though design is the obvious reading of order, because to a creature that has not trained itself out of its own eyes, it is.

Hold that bird in your mind. We are going to need it.

I read Oscar A.P.’s essay when it first ran, and I have now read it through more than one revision, and I will say at the outset that the revisions are the work of an honest man. That is rarer than it should be. Most writers, when a critic finds a soft spot, reach for a patch that hides it. Oscar did the opposite. He went looking for the places where his own framework might be exempting itself, and he marked them in the open.

He has done something most of the people on his own side of the aisle never attempt: he has turned the scalpel around. He has taken the skeptical tradition, the one that built its reputation cutting open everyone else, and laid it on its own table. That is integrity and the mark of character that i respect.

His core observation is correct, and it is important. The problem was never the god. It was the certainty. Remove the theology and the hunger that theology fed does not go away, it goes looking. He calls this the Vacancy Mechanism, and the name is good because the thing is real. A structure that held a people’s meaning collapses, and the space it leaves does not stay empty. Something moves in. It wears different clothes, Reason, the Revolution, the Party, Science with a capital S, but it asks for the same devotion, keeps the same heretics, holds the same trials. He is right that the cathedral gets rebuilt without the God, and that the new tenants are often worse landlords than the old one. Something must fill the God shaped hole each of us carries. The hole is part of the original design, Intended to be filled by the one who waits to be searched for.

And in his revisions he has added the sharpest tools in the kit. He noticed that when a movement built to oppose an orthodoxy ends up looking exactly like one, the lazy charge is hypocrisy, the members simply failed to live up to their principles. Oscar refuses the lazy charge. The resemblance, he argues, is not a moral lapse but a structural inheritance: to oppose an orthodoxy at scale, you must build the very instruments an orthodoxy runs on, the authoritative texts, the interpreters, the boundary that marks who is in. The opposition does not lapse into the construction. The opposition, conducted at scale, is the construction. That is a genuinely excellent insight, and it is true well beyond the New Atheists he aims it at. Every reformer who became the thing he marched against, is in that sentence.

He has also done something braver. He has turned the knife on the white coats. He now grants that the institutions of science, the journals, the funding bodies, the panels that pronounce the consensus, are not immune to the very capture he traces everywhere else, that an official scientific authority “issued in a register that forecloses the asking of the question” is identical in structure to the old command to defer to the Church. He is right, and most men on his side would never concede that these patches on the narrative are lacework too. Hold onto that admission. We are going to need it also.

I have watched all of this from the other side of the same window. In my own work I have argued that humanism attempts to keep Christian morality while quietly evicting the God who grounds it, that the modern secular man is living in a house he did not build, warming himself at a fire he did not light, and congratulating himself on having burned the blueprints. Oscar has mapped the architecture of that house with a respectable amount of rigor. When he writes that the secular movements of the last century rebuilt the church with structural fidelity, he is not exaggerating. He has counted the pews.

So let me be clear before I push: this is a serious man doing serious work, and his honesty is not in question. He has earned his name. That is exactly why he deserves to be pushed. So, with the utmost respect:

Here is where I think he still stops one room short of the truth.

Oscar diagnoses the disease perfectly and then prescribes a more disciplined strain of it. His cure for the certainty trap is falsifiability, hold every conviction provisionally, demand that any belief be open to revision, learn to carry what he calls “the burthen of uncertainty.” That is a fine tool. But notice what kind of tool it is. It governs how you hold a belief. It says nothing about what is true. And the vacancy he so carefully describes is not a hole in your method. It is a hole in your world. People do not throw themselves into revolutions because they lacked a good epistemology. They threw themselves in because they needed meaning, belonging, a moral floor to stand on, and an answer to death, guilt, purpose, belonging, and a method, however rigorous, has never once fed a hungry man.

This is the old two-story problem that Nancy Pearcey spent a career exposing. The modern mind splits truth into a lower floor of public facts, science, evidence, the things everyone must accept, and an upper floor of private values, meaning, morality, God, the things you may believe if it helps you sleep. Oscar lives on the lower floor. His whole essay is an attempt to fix a leak coming from upstairs, using only the tools the lower floor permits. It cannot be done. The vacancy is an upper-story vacancy. It is a demand for total truth, truth about why you are here and whether your life means anything, and you cannot fill an upper-story hole with a lower-story wrench. That is why the counterfeits keep rushing in. He has correctly observed that the room will not stay empty, and then handed the reader a method that guarantees it never gets honestly furnished.

Now to the heart of it. And I want to put it the way a tradesman would, because I have spent more of my life on job sites than in libraries, and the job site has a way of cutting through.

In his latest revision Oscar does something remarkable. He turns the falsifiability criterion upon itself. The rule that all beliefs be held provisionally is itself, he now says, held provisionally, open to defeat on the same terms as everything else, exempt from nothing, including its own command. It is a beautiful piece of reasoning. I mean that without irony. He has built a criterion that audits even itself. Are there absolutely no absolutes?

And here is what I see when I read it, with all the respect a man can carry: it is a magnificent wall of words, and he is standing behind it so he never has to step onto the bridge.

Let me say plainly what I mean. A man who trusts a bridge walks across it. He does not spend his life adding girders to a scaffold that proves the bridge could hold weight, while never once setting foot on the planks. The longer that scaffold grows, the more elaborate the proof that the structure is in principle trustworthy, the more plainly it tells you the builder does not actually trust it. If he did, he would place a load on it. Oscar has now built the most sophisticated account I have ever read of how a bounded mind ought to hold a belief, recursive, self-auditing, exempting nothing. He has audited the method down to its foundation. And in all of it he has never once put his actual weight on the one belief the whole structure rests upon.

Because here is the floorboard he has never pried up. Oscar’s deepest assumption, the one under the whole house, is that when the religious answer is removed, what remains is chance. Blind process. A universe of physics and probability with no one home. He has now, in this very draft, taught us to ask of any conviction: has it been tested, or is it merely held with borrowed confidence past the edge where evidence can follow? So let us ask it of his floor. “No one is home” is not a finding. No instrument returned it. It is a metaphysical conviction carried past the horizon and then handed the authority of a tested result, the precise error he has, in his own words, forbidden. He has applied his discipline to the Vacancy Mechanism, to the institutions of science, to the criterion itself. To everything. Everything but the floor he is standing on. And now that he has swept every other room, that one closed door is the only closed door left in the building. The Honest Trap-door that he is standing on. If it is not Designed, then what is it?

So let us do what he will not, and step onto the bridge. A good explanation does not just account for what we already know. It tells you what you should expect to find, and then you go and look. That is the test he rightly demands of everyone else.

Take the cleanest case, and notice that it is his case, made on the ground he just conceded. For a generation, the official consensus looked at the genome, saw that only a sliver coded for proteins, and pronounced the rest “junk”, the litter of an unguided history with no author to mind the housekeeping. That was not a fringe guess. It was the credentialed, institutional position, and it flowed straight from the premise that no one designed the thing. That was the best predictive power that random chance could offer. The best explination of the evidence. That was the test. Outting the weight on the bridge… But wait. The design reading said the opposite: look again, that is not litter, that is wiring. We looked. The “junk” turned out to be dense with regulatory machinery, switches and timing controls governing when and where genes fire. Now hold that against Oscar’s own new standard for a captured consensus: a prediction that failed and was slow to be retracted, a position that could name no observation that would have moved it, a dissent answered with condescension rather than evidence. By his own test, “junk DNA” is the textbook case. So I will ask him the question a tradesman asks when one method keeps coming up short on the job site: how many times does the blind-chance premise have to lose, back to back, before you stop calling the result an accident, and start asking whether it is the next captured consensus due to fall?

And it is worth naming plainly what the chance account is actually asking us to swallow. Strung end to end, it requires a chain of one-time miracles, each stranger than the last. Something came from absolutely nothing. Order came from chaos. Life came from non-life. A person came from the non-personal. Reason came from the non-rational. Morality came from mere matter. And because I do not have enough faith to be an atheist, I will throw in two more for good measure: intricate, diversified complexity out of pure noise, and the magical fairy-dust of “time,” sprinkled generously over every conundrum until all of them dissolve. Call any one of these a miracle and you have already left the lower floor. Call all eight an accident and you have asked for more faith than any pew ever demanded. What does the Vacancy Mechanism make of this?

Here is the part that I suspect will sting, and I offer it as a brother and not a scold. We Christians are accused of being the ones who will not test our beliefs. The accusation has it backwards. Our central claim was built to be falsified. Paul staked the whole of it on a single observable fact and said so out loud: if Christ has not been raised, the faith is empty and we are to be pitied above all men. He named the exact finding that would have destroyed Christianity, produce the body, and he named it in writing, to a hostile audience, within living memory of the event. That is a man stepping onto his own bridge in full view, inviting the world to watch it break. We test our faith by putting our weight on it. for 2,000+ years. We stake our lives/souls/eternity on a claim that could fail. So the question almost asks itself: why can the one who claims atheism not do the same? Why the endless blueprints proving the floor is sound, and never the simple act of standing on it? Try shaking the Lego box and see if random chance can create? All the ingredients are there, and the odds are better then in prebiotic soup. And do not reach for the usual escape, that evolution is not random because selection does the sorting. Selection sorts replicators. Before the first cell, there is nothing to select, no reproduction, no inheritance, no ratchet, only chemistry and time. At the origin of life, chance is the only mechanism on the table, and chance is precisely what the numbers forbid: the right molecules, in the right sequence, all-left-handed, bonding in water that wants to pull them apart, carrying information before anything existed to use it. Shake that box as long as you like, heap on the magical fairy dist of time, but what does the Vacancy Mechanism say?

So here is my one real challenge to a man I genuinely admire. You have followed the certainty trap further than almost anyone on your side will go. You revised your own work to close every exemption you could find, the method, the institutions, the criterion itself. You have proven you will sweep every room. Now open the last door. Pry up the floorboard. Hold chance as provisionally as you now hold everything above it, and then do the thing the whole discipline was for: put your weight on it. Run it through the very test you wrote into this draft. And if it buckles the moment you load it, then have the courage to follow the evidence where it actually points, even though it points exactly where you did not intend to go.

Because if the bridge will not hold, then do not be outsmarted by a crow.

The bird looks at order and reads design, because it has no worldview to protect. On this one question it is the better empiricist. The modern sceptic looks at the same order and has trained himself — disciplined himself, falsified himself — into calling it an accident. A man should be able to read the evidence at least as well as a bird. That is not a leap of faith. It is the refusal to leap away from the evidence to protect a conclusion you walked in carrying.

But I do not want to leave it at a scoreboard, because winning an argument was never the point, and it would be a poor place to end.

Here is the part Oscar has not reached yet. The certainty he is so right to fear — the kind that builds tribunals and quarantines heretics — is the signature of the false god, the idol every counterfeit erects in the empty room. The real one does not work that way. He does not arrive demanding that you suppress your doubts to keep your seat. He is not threatened by your questions; He is the one who hung the kind of universe that invites them — order legible enough that even a crow can read it, depth enough that an honest mind can spend a life and not exhaust it. The God of the vacancy-fillers is a landlord. The real God came to the door Himself, not to audit your certainty but to meet you in the middle of your uncertainty — and He did it by stepping onto the bridge first, into a real tomb, on a real morning, with the whole question hanging on whether He would walk back out. That is the one move no ideology, no Cult of Reason, no Party, has ever once made.

The God he rejected isn’t real. I have written a whole book on that. But there is a second half he hasn’t reached, and I will put it as plainly as the rest: the God he hasn’t met isn’t random — and He isn’t cruel, and He isn’t far away.

I’d read Oscar’s next essay either way. He has already shown he will revise toward the truth when he sees it. So I have real hope for the one where he stops drawing the blueprints and steps onto the bridge — and I think he will be surprised by who is standing on the far side of it, waiting, not with a verdict, but with a hand.

A. C. Rosenthal writes at acrosenthal.substack.com.

The Honest Trap

The Certainty Trap

This essay is one of three companion pieces forming the CT-CV-EM cluster. The others, The Captured Vantage and The Empty Man Does Not Exist, examine the same structural feature at the institutional-configuration and individual-cognition levels respectively: the institutional configuration that follows when the certainty demand described here is operatio…

Read more

23 days ago · The Honest Trap

If you value unflinching, historically grounded analysis that mainstream outlets soften or ignore, consider upgrading. Paid subscribers get:

• Several new, full-length articles every week.

  Carefully researched pieces you won’t find elsewhere.

• Full access to the complete premium archive

  Archive of in-depth writing, research, and commentar, all in one place.

• Entry into the subscriber chat

  A private space for serious readers and thoughtful discussion.

This work is entirely reader-supported. By choosing a paid subscription, you allow me to continue this long-form research to bring these vital stories to light. Thank you for helping this Lion roar for truth.

A. C. Rosenthal

A.C. Rosenthal is a self-taught writer, researcher, and theologian working at the intersection of history, philosophy, and culture. He is the author of The Carpenter's Son and the Imam's Son, The God that they rejected Isn't Real.

acrosenthal.com/

https://thetwomuhammadscurriculum.thinkific.com/

There is a class of people in the Western world who are mocked in prime time and celebrated nowhere. Who are caricatured in film, dismissed in academia, and systematically excluded from the public square while every other identity group receives the language of protection and dignity. Whose sacred texts are assigned in universities as examples of oppression. Whose moral convictions are reclassified as hatred by the very legal frameworks their civilization built. Whose children are taught in state schools that the faith of their parents is the primary obstacle to human progress.

And who, when they object to any of this, are told they are the oppressors.

I am describing Christians. And I am going to make a case that the secular progressive culture, which has trained itself to extend automatic empathy to every persecuted minority, has a profound and largely unexamined blind spot when it comes to the most consistently persecuted group in the modern world.

Not because Christians are perfect. They are not. Not because the church has no history to answer for. It does. But because the framework the culture uses to identify and protect persecuted groups is being applied with a consistency that stops precisely at the boundary of Christian identity, and that selective application is itself evidence of something the apostle Paul described with clinical precision two thousand years ago in a letter to Rome.

He was describing the people who suppress the truth. The people whose rebellion is not an intellectual conclusion but a moral choice. The people who know, and turn away from what they know, and cannot tolerate the existence of those who remind them of what they turned away from.

The portrait he painted is on the wall of the present moment. You do not need to be a Christian to see it. You only need to be honest.

*

What Paul Actually Said About Rebellion

Romans 1 is one of the most analytically precise documents in the history of Western thought. It is not primarily a condemnation. It is a diagnosis. Paul is not raging at sinners. He is tracing a mechanism, the specific sequence by which a civilization moves from the knowledge of God to the suppression of that knowledge, and documenting the outputs that sequence produces.

The sequence is worth following carefully because it maps onto the present cultural moment with an accuracy that should unsettle anyone paying attention.

It begins not with ignorance but with knowledge. “What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

This is the foundational claim. The rebellion does not begin with honest doubt. It begins with suppression. The text is explicit: they suppress the truth by their wickedness. This is not the description of someone who examined the evidence and reached a different conclusion. It is the description of someone who encountered the evidence and chose to push it down. The Greek word translated suppress is katechonton, which carries the sense of holding something down by force, restraining something that is trying to rise. This is not intellectual conclusion. It is active, sustained, effortful resistance to what is already known.

The second step is ingratitude. “Although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him.” The failure to give thanks is not a minor omission. In the biblical framework, gratitude is the primary human response to the recognition that you are a creature who received existence, capacity, beauty, and meaning as gifts rather than generating them yourself. The refusal of gratitude is the first declaration of independence from the giver. It is the child who takes everything the parent provides and refuses to acknowledge it came from anywhere, because acknowledgment would create obligation, and obligation would constrain the absolute freedom that the rebellion requires.

The third step is intellectual deterioration. “Their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.” This is not an insult. It is an analytical observation about what happens to the mind that has suppressed its primary orientation. A compass that has been forced away from north does not become a better compass. It becomes a worse one. The mind that has been systematically turned away from the source of its own rationality does not become more rational. It produces, with increasing sophistication, increasingly sophisticated foolishness. The intelligence is still there. The orientation is gone. And a powerful, directionless mind is precisely what Paul means by the fool who claims to be wise.

The fourth step is substitution. “They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.” Paul’s first readers would have recognized the literal idols of their culture in this language. His readers today should recognize something more contemporary. The immortal God has been exchanged not for stone statues but for the ideologies, the causes, the identity categories, the political movements that receive in the secular progressive culture exactly the devotion, the sacrifice, the unchallengeable authority, and the demand for absolute loyalty that the culture is simultaneously insisting no religious claim deserves. The altar has not been dismantled. It has been redecorated.

*

The Three Surrenders Paul Describes

What follows the substitution in Romans 1 is one of the most sobering passages in all of Scripture, and it is sobering precisely because it is not a threat. It is a description of a process.

Three times Paul uses the phrase “God gave them over.” This is not God actively punishing. It is God releasing. It is the parent who has warned, and pleaded, and stood at the door, and finally steps back and allows the child to have what the child demanded. The giving-over is not the wrath. The giving-over is the withdrawal of the restraint that was protecting the rebel from the full consequences of the rebellion.

The first surrender is to sexual impurity. “God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.”

Paul is not saying that sexual sin causes unbelief. He is saying that the suppression of God produces, as one of its predictable outputs, the untethering of sexuality from its created meaning. When the body is no longer understood as the image of God, as a gift carrying moral weight and pointing toward transcendent meaning, it becomes raw material. The degrading of the body that Paul describes is not merely a moral failure. It is a logical consequence of the prior decision to exchange the truth about God for a lie. Bodies mean what the culture says they mean when God has been exchanged for the created thing.

The second surrender is to shameful lusts, and Paul becomes specific in a way that the current cultural moment cannot process neutrally. He names the exchange of natural for unnatural sexual relations as evidence not of a different moral preference but of the third and fourth steps in the sequence. He is not singling out homosexuality as the worst sin. He is identifying it as a visible marker of the broader suppression, the point at which the exchange of truth for lie has worked its way into the most fundamental ordering of embodied human life. The progressive reader who wants to dispute this is welcome to dispute it, but he should know he is disputing a diagnostic claim about the sequence, not a claim about the relative severity of individual sins.

The third surrender is to the depraved mind. “God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.”

Read that list again. Not as a condemnation. As a portrait. The God-hater. The slanderer. The arrogant and boastful. The inventor of new ways of doing evil. The one without fidelity, without love, without mercy. Paul is not describing a cartoon villain. He is describing the specific personality type that the suppression of God produces in a person who has traveled far enough down the sequence. And the portrait is recognizable in the present cultural moment with a specificity that should give the honest reader pause.

The final line of Romans 1 is the one that completes the diagnosis and makes it most relevant to the present moment: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

They approve. They celebrate. They organize award ceremonies and documentary premieres and social media campaigns not merely to tolerate the rebellion but to honor it, to reward it, to demand that everyone within reach approve of it too. The approving of others is the final stage of the sequence. It is the point at which the individual suppression becomes cultural enforcement. The rebel is no longer satisfied with his own rebellion. He requires yours.

*

These numbers are not current, but they were. and they were yearly averages in these riegions.

The Class Nobody Protects

Here is where the scriptural portrait meets the present cultural moment in the most direct possible way.

The Western world has spent the last sixty years developing, with considerable institutional sophistication, a framework for identifying persecuted groups and extending them protection. The framework is real. Parts of it represent genuine moral progress. The extension of legal protection to people who were genuinely vulnerable, genuinely targeted, genuinely treated as less than human is not nothing. It is the fruit of a civilization that believed, on specifically Christian grounds, that every human being bears the image of God and is therefore owed dignity.

But the framework is applied with a consistency that stops at the boundary of Christian identity. And that selective application is the most visible evidence of the final stage of the sequence Paul described.

Consider what the portrait looks like from the outside.

Three hundred and eighty-eight million Christians worldwide currently face high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith. One in seven Christians globally. One in five in Africa. The 2026 World Watch List combined persecution score across its fifty listed countries reached an all-time high. Fifteen countries now register at extreme persecution levels, up from thirteen the year before. Four thousand eight hundred and forty-nine Christians were killed for their faith in the most recent reporting period. The numbers are moving in one direction.

Here is what that looks like on the ground.

In Nigeria, Boko Haram and affiliated groups have killed more than thirty thousand Christians since 2009 and displaced millions more. That is the pattern. Here is the acceleration: of the 4,849 Christians killed for their faith worldwide in the most recent reporting period alone, 3,490 died in Nigeria. Seventy-two percent of the global annual total. In a single year. Nigeria has scored the maximum violence rating for eight consecutive years running. The villages burned. The churches demolished. The pastors executed. The girls taken. This receives a fraction of the cultural attention devoted to a Christian record label dropping an artist for violating a morality clause.

In North Korea, for the twenty-fourth consecutive year the most dangerous place on earth to follow Jesus, Christians are worked to death in labor camps for the crime of possessing a Bible. Entire families receive the same sentence as the believer who was caught. The number living in secret is estimated at four hundred thousand. The coverage in the progressive cultural press is negligible.

In Somalia it is illegal to convert from Islam to Christianity. Al-Shabaab openly executes anyone suspected of being a Christian. Of the members of one documented underground church, only two remain. The rest have been martyred.

In Pakistan, the blasphemy laws are used almost exclusively against the Christian minority. In Egypt, Coptic churches are bombed on feast days. In Syria, on June 22, 2025, a suicide bomber walked into the Mar Elias Greek Orthodox Church in Damascus during evening prayers and detonated. More than two dozen worshippers were killed. Before the civil war Syria had 1.5 million Christians. Fewer than 300,000 remain. In China, state-sanctioned demolition of church buildings and imprisonment of pastors is documented and ongoing. In India, three senior Baptist pastors and their driver were ambushed and killed on May 13, 2026, returning home from a peace-focused church gathering.

These are not ancient history. They are happening now. They are happening to the group that the progressive cultural framework has decided it is acceptable, even praiseworthy, to mock.

The documentary about the dark side of the Christian music industry received warm coverage in every major entertainment publication. The genocide of the Yazidis, whose persecution is directly connected to the same ideology that is persecuting Christians across the Middle East and Africa, was a news cycle. The systematic destruction of the ancient Christian communities of Iraq and Syria was a news cycle. The documentary about a pregnant singer dropped from a Nashville label is a festival premiere.

This is not a failure of attention. It is a choice. And the choice reveals what Paul described in the last line of Romans 1. The rebel is not merely tolerating the persecution of the class that reminds him of what he suppressed. He is approving of it. He is finding it entertaining.

*

Struck Down But Not Destroyed

Paul wrote about this from prison.

That is worth holding onto. The man who wrote the most precise diagnosis of the rebellion against God in the history of Western literature wrote it from inside the system that was persecuting the people he was writing to. He was not writing from a position of cultural power or institutional safety. He was writing from chains, to a community that was meeting in houses, that was denied legal protection, that could be arrested and executed for their gatherings, that was already familiar with what it felt like to be the class nobody protected.

And he wrote to them not with the language of victimhood but with something that the present cultural moment has almost no framework for: the language of people who know exactly what is happening to them, know exactly why, and are not destroyed by it because they understand that the persecution is evidence, not of their weakness, but of the rebel’s knowledge.

You do not persecute what you do not fear. You do not mock what has no power over you. You do not organize sustained cultural campaigns against something that carries no weight. The energy directed at Christians, the continuous, institutionally supported, culturally prestigious effort to reclassify Christian values as hatred and Christian conviction as oppression, is itself the testimony that Paul predicted.

They know. And they cannot stop knowing. And the Christians who remind them of what they know are the people they cannot leave alone.

2 Peter 2 describes the false teachers who will arise within this cultural moment with a precision that is almost unbearable to read against the present landscape. “They promise freedom while they themselves are slaves of depravity, for people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.” The progressive cultural establishment that has promised liberation from Christian constraint has delivered, as its most consistent output, people who are more enslaved than the generation that preceded them. Enslaved to the self that has no anchor. Enslaved to the desire that has no telos. Enslaved to the identity that requires continuous external validation because it has no source of internal stability. The freedom that was promised has not arrived. What has arrived is the condition of the person who cut the rope and discovered that the rope was not the constraint. It was the connection.

And the springs without water that Peter describes, the teachers who promise what they cannot deliver, who appeal to the lustful desires of the flesh to entice those who are just escaping from error, those are visible in the present landscape with a clarity that requires no interpretation.

*

Why the Secular Reader Should Care

I want to speak now directly to the person who does not share my faith, who reads these passages as the mythology of a tribal religion, who has absorbed the progressive cultural framework as his own without having chosen it consciously, who has trained himself to extend automatic empathy to persecuted minorities and who has simply never been asked to apply that empathy consistently.

You do not have to believe what Christians believe to recognize that they are the safest target in the Western world. You do not have to accept the theological claims to observe that the communities being systematically destroyed by the ideology you are being asked to accommodate are the communities that share the values you have been trained to dismiss. You do not have to read Romans to notice that the framework you trust to identify persecution is being applied in a way that exempts the most consistently persecuted group in the modern world from its protection.

The empathy you have cultivated, and it is real, and parts of it represent something genuinely good in the culture, does not belong only to the groups the cultural establishment has approved for empathy. It belongs to the Coptic family whose church was bombed on Christmas morning. It belongs to the Nigerian pastor whose congregation was burned. It belongs to the North Korean prisoner whose Bible was the crime. It belongs to the Western Christian who is told that her moral convictions are hatred and who has no institutional protection against that accusation and no cultural voice capable of defending her without being dismissed.

The values that taught you to care about the persecuted are Christian values. The civilization that built the framework you are using to extend empathy to the vulnerable was built on Christian foundations. The legal protections that allow you to mock Christianity publicly without fear of prosecution were produced by a tradition that insisted, on theological grounds, that even the conscience of the dissenter was sacred and could not be compelled.

The puppy that you have been trained to kick is the one that bought your freedom to kick it.

And the honest application of the empathy the culture has taught you, turned without exception toward every persecuted group including this one, would require you to stand between the Christians and the culture that is doing to them what it has trained you to prevent being done to everyone else.

Not because Christians are perfect. Not because the church has no history to answer for. But because the class that is mocked in prime time, excluded from the public square, and systematically persecuted on every continent on earth while the culture that was built on its foundations celebrates the persecution, that class has earned the protection of anyone who actually believes in what that protection was built to provide.

*

The Mechanism Paul Named That Nobody Taught You

There is a feature of Paul’s diagnosis in Romans 1 that modern readers almost always miss because the culture has trained them to read it as a condemnation of individuals and it is actually something more systemic and more sobering than that.

Paul is describing a mechanism. A sequence. A process with identifiable steps and predictable outputs that operates at the civilizational level as reliably as it operates at the individual one. He is not saying that each person who suppresses the knowledge of God goes through all five steps in a single lifetime. He is saying that when a culture moves through this sequence, the outputs at each stage are what they are, and the outputs accumulate.

The first output is futility. “Their thinking became futile.” The Greek word is emataiothesan, which carries the sense of becoming empty, hollow, directed at nothing. Not stupid. Not incapable. Empty of the orientation that gives thought its direction. A culture whose thinking has become futile does not produce less activity. It produces more. It produces an extraordinary proliferation of thought, analysis, commentary, research, and argument, all of it increasingly circular, increasingly self-referential, increasingly detached from the questions that would give it meaning. The modern university is the most sophisticated monument to futile thinking in human history. More papers than any previous civilization. More credentials. More specialists. Less wisdom. Less synthesis. Less ability to answer the question of what any of it is for.

The second output is darkening. “Their foolish hearts were darkened.” The heart in biblical anthropology is not the seat of emotion. It is the seat of orientation, the faculty by which the whole person is directed toward or away from truth. A darkened heart is not a sad heart. It is a disoriented one. It is the person who has the intelligence to see and the will to look away, repeatedly, until looking away becomes the default, until the direction of the gaze is so thoroughly established that what was once suppressed with effort is now suppressed automatically, without noticing. The culture that has been darkening for three generations does not know it is dark. It has been in the dark long enough that the dark feels like the natural condition.

The third output is the claim of wisdom. “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.” This is the specific intellectual signature of the sequence. The culture that has traveled this far does not become uncertain or humble about its conclusions. It becomes more confident. The suppression requires confidence. The darkness requires a narrative that explains why the darkness is actually light. And so the culture produces, with increasing elaboration and institutional prestige, the claim that it has finally seen clearly what all previous generations were too primitive or too oppressed to understand. That history was building toward this moment of understanding. That the people who still hold the old orientation are not simply wrong but are obstacles to human progress, are dangers to the vulnerable, are, in the precise language of the current cultural moment, on the wrong side of history.

The fourth output is the exchange. “They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images.” And here is the feature of this output that the culture cannot examine from within its own framework: the exchange does not reduce the devotion. It redirects it. The person who has exchanged the immortal God for the created thing does not become less religious. He becomes more so. He becomes more devoted, more zealous, more certain, more intolerant of dissent, more willing to sacrifice for the cause, than he ever was inside the tradition he left. The secular progressive cultural moment is the most intensely religious moment in Western history since the Reformation, in the precise sense that it demands confession of faith, punishes heresy, rewards orthodoxy, and treats its sacred texts as unchallengeable. The altar has been rebuilt. The god has changed. The devotion has intensified.

And the fifth output is the approving. Which is where the present cultural moment sits most clearly.

*

The Scoffer and the Spring Without Water

2 Peter 2 and 3 describe two figures that walk through the present cultural landscape with such familiarity that they should be recognizable on sight.

The first is the false teacher. “They promise freedom while they themselves are slaves of depravity.” Peter is not describing a hypocrite in the ordinary sense of someone who fails to live up to his own standards. He is describing someone who has made the promise of freedom the primary product of his teaching while being constitutively incapable of delivering it, because the freedom being promised requires the liberation of the self from every external constraint, and the self liberated from every external constraint is not free. It is enslaved to whatever desire is currently loudest.

“Springs without water and mists driven by a storm.” This is the image for the teacher who creates the expectation of refreshment without being able to deliver it. The spring that has no water does not help the traveler by existing. It makes him worse off. He arrived believing he had found what he needed. He leaves more dehydrated than before, having spent his energy reaching a source that could not satisfy. The culture that has promised liberation from Christian constraint has produced, as its most consistent output, exactly this: people who arrived at the spring expecting refreshment and are leaving more desperate than they came, chasing the next promise of the next liberation from the next constraint, because the previous one did not deliver and the one before that did not deliver and the pattern is not yet legible because acknowledging it would require acknowledging what was exchanged.

The second figure is the scoffer. “In the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say: where is this coming he promised? Everything goes on as it always has.”

The scoff is the intellectual posture of the person who has decided, in advance, that the claim cannot be true, and who therefore interprets the patience of God as evidence of his absence. The continuing of things as they always have is read as refutation rather than as what Peter says it is: the patience of the one who does not want any to perish, giving the rebel more time than the rebel deserves.

And the deliberate forgetting. Peter does not say they are unaware of the flood. He says they deliberately forget it. The suppression is still active. The mechanism is still running. The forgetting requires effort because the memory keeps surfacing. The scoffer is not at rest. He is working. He is working to maintain the position that requires the continuous suppression of the evidence that contradicts it.

This is the portrait of the present cultural moment that the present cultural moment cannot draw of itself. It does not have the outside reference point. It cannot see the sequence from inside the sequence. It can only be shown it by someone who has access to a document written before the sequence began, by a man who watched it run in the first century and described its outputs with the precision of someone who understood the mechanism because he understood the God against whom it was running.

*

The Protection That Nobody Is Extending

Here is the practical implication that I want the honest secular reader to sit with.

The framework for protecting persecuted minorities that the progressive cultural establishment has built is real. Parts of it represent genuine moral progress. The instinct to stand between the powerful and the vulnerable, to extend protection to the class that cannot protect itself, to name the abuse that the comfortable are not seeing because they are not the ones experiencing it, that instinct is not nothing. In its best expressions it is the application, stripped of its theological grounding but still recognizable in its shape, of the Christian conviction that the weak, the excluded, and the persecuted have a particular claim on the conscience of those who have power.

Now apply it consistently.

Apply it to the Coptic family in Egypt whose church was bombed on Easter morning. Apply it to the Pakistani Christian girl imprisoned for blasphemy. Apply it to the Nigerian village where the congregation was burned inside the church. Apply it to the North Korean prisoner whose Bible was the crime. Apply it to the Syrian Christian family whose ancient community, continuous since the first century, has been destroyed within a single generation.

Apply it to the Western Christian who is told in her workplace that her moral convictions are a form of violence. Who is told in her child’s school that the faith she is trying to transmit is the primary obstacle to the child’s flourishing. Who is told by the entertainment culture that she is the villain of the story and who has no institutional voice capable of defending her without being dismissed.

Apply the framework without the exception that the cultural establishment has built into it. Apply it to the class that the culture has decided is safe to mock, because it will not retaliate, because its theology forbids the retaliation it could organize, because the people inside it have absorbed the teaching of a man who said put your sword away when he could have called twelve legions of angels.

The Christian community is the safest target in the Western world precisely because of what it believes. It does not riot when its scriptures are mocked. It does not issue fatwas when its prophet is caricatured. It does not organize violence when its sacred spaces are desecrated. It absorbs the attack and continues. It has been doing this since the first century and it is still doing it now and the culture that was built on the foundation it provides has decided that this patience is an invitation to escalate.

The empathy the culture has cultivated, and it is real, belongs here. The protection the culture has built, and parts of it are good, belongs here. The instinct to stand between the abuser and the class that cannot protect itself, which is the best instinct in the progressive cultural tradition, belongs here.

The puppy that pays your bills and bought your freedom to kick it has been getting kicked for a very long time. And the honest application of the values the culture claims to hold would require someone to stand in front of it and say: not this one. Not this class. Not here.

*

What the Rebellion Reveals

Paul ends the sequence in Romans 1 with the observation that the rebels know. They know God’s righteous decree. They know. And they continue. And they approve of others who continue.

The 2 Peter 3 scoffers are described with the same precision. “They deliberately forget.” Not they honestly conclude. They deliberately forget. The deliberate forgetting is the ongoing act of suppression, the continuous, effortful holding-down of what rises to the surface every time a Christian speaks, every time a church bell rings, every time a moral standard is applied that reminds them of the standard they chose to exchange for the lie.

This is why the attacks on Christianity are not proportionate to the intellectual threat. If Christians were simply wrong about God, the culturally appropriate response would be patient correction, the same patient correction that is extended to any other group operating inside what the progressive framework considers an honest error. But the attacks are not patient. They are not corrective. They are sustained, organized, institutionally supported, and emotionally intense in a way that does not match the behavior of people who have simply concluded that the Christians are mistaken.

They match the behavior of people who have not concluded anything. Who are still in the middle of the suppression. Who need the Christian to be wrong because the Christian’s existence is a continuous reminder of what was exchanged. Who need the church to be the villain because the alternative is to sit with what the church represents and what that representation costs.

The garlic is above the door. The chains are felt. The energy is real.

And the Christians who have been struck down by it, who have been mocked and excluded and told that their values are hatred and their convictions are violence, who have watched their civilization being dismantled piece by piece and told to be grateful for the progress, those Christians are living inside the same letter Paul wrote from his chains.

“We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed.”

He was not writing about a class that had won. He was writing about a class that knew something the persecutors did not. That the suppression is not the end of the story. That the rebellion, however organized, however culturally prestigious, however institutionally powerful, is running against something that has absorbed every previous attempt to extinguish it and is still here.

The scoffers ask: where is the coming he promised? Everything continues as it always has.

Peter’s answer is the one the documentary makers will not put on screen. That the patience they are interpreting as weakness is not weakness. That the God who is not scrambling to defend himself against the conspiring nations is not absent. That the same word that formed the world from water can reserve it for fire.

They mock what they fear. They suppress what they know. They approve of the persecution of the class that carries the reminder of what they are suppressing.

And the Christians who are being persecuted by it are the most important people in the room, because they are the ones whose continued existence is proof that the suppression has not worked, and whose values are the only thing standing between the civilization that protects the persecuted and the anarchy that has always waited on the other side of the wall they built.

Kick the puppy if you must. But know what you are kicking. And know what you will miss when it is gone.

*

The scoffers have always been with us. The suppressors have always been with us. The people who know and turn away, who claim wisdom while becoming fools, who exchange the glory of the immortal God for the created thing and then demand that everyone around them celebrate the exchange, they have always been with us. Paul was writing to a community that knew them personally. Peter was warning a community that was going to encounter them immediately.

What is different now is the institutional power behind the suppression. What is different is that the suppression has captured the universities, the entertainment industry, the media, the legal framework, and the language of human rights itself, and is using all of it to reclassify the people who carry the reminder as the oppressors, and the oppression as progress.

What is not different is the outcome. The sequence runs where it runs. The outputs are what they are. And the Christians who are being struck down by it are still, as they have always been, not destroyed.

A.C. Rosenthal is the author of The Two Muhammads: What History and Manuscripts Reveal About the Islamic Dilemma, The God They Rejected Isn’t Real: Exposing the False Gods of Modern Doubt, and The Carpenter’s Son and the Imam’s Son.

What Is Left When the Wall Comes Down

Let me end with the thing that the documentary makers and the slanderers and the God-haters and the inventors of new ways of doing evil, all of them named by Paul with a precision that should make them uncomfortable, have not fully calculated.

The values that protect them are the values they are attacking.

The freedom of conscience that allows them to mock Christianity publicly without prosecution is a Christian value. The protection of the dissenter. The insistence that the state cannot compel the conscience. The legal tradition that puts the individual’s belief beyond the reach of the sovereign’s coercion. These are not Enlightenment inventions. The Enlightenment borrowed them from the tradition it was in the process of replacing, after the tradition had already done the work of embedding them in the legal and institutional architecture of Western civilization.

The dignity of the individual that makes their complaints against Christian institutions meaningful, that gives their stories of being wronged moral weight, that grounds the claim that their pain matters and deserves to be heard, is a Christian value. The secular humanist tradition did not originate it. It inherited it. It cut the flower from the root and is now using the flower to beat the plant.

The protection of the vulnerable that makes their documentary about a dropped artist a moral claim rather than merely a commercial dispute is a Christian value. The insistence that the weak have a claim on the conscience of the powerful. That the individual matters regardless of his usefulness to the collective. That there is a standard above the preference of the strongest that the strongest are bound to honor. These are not universal human intuitions. They are the specific outputs of a specific theology applied over centuries to the specific architecture of Western civilization.

When the wall comes down, and it comes down one documentary at a time, one reclassification at a time, one institutional exclusion at a time, what is on the other side is not the liberated humanist utopia that the promise of freedom described. What is on the other side is what has always been on the other side of the wall, before the wall was built and in every place where it has been torn down. The strong doing what they can. The weak suffering what they must. The absence of a standard above the preference of the powerful to which the powerful can be held.

The Christians who are being persecuted and mocked and excluded and told they are the oppressors are not simply a religious community defending its own interests. They are the people whose continued existence and whose continued insistence on the values that built the wall are the primary obstacle between the civilization that protects the persecuted and the anarchy that has always been waiting on the other side.

You do not have to believe what they believe to understand what they are holding.

But you should probably stop kicking them while they hold it.

*

* * *

If you value unflinching, historically grounded analysis that mainstream outlets soften or ignore, consider upgrading. Paid subscribers get:

• Several new, full-length articles every week.

  Carefully researched pieces you won’t find elsewhere.

• Full access to the complete premium archive

  Archive of in-depth writing, research, and commentary — all in one place.

• Entry into the subscriber chat

  A private space for serious readers and thoughtful discussion.

This work is entirely reader-supported. By choosing a paid subscription, you allow me to continue this long-form research to bring these vital stories to light. Thank you for helping this Lion roar for truth.

A. C. Rosenthal

A.C. Rosenthal is a self-taught writer, researcher, and theologian working at the intersection of history, philosophy, and culture. He is the author of The Carpenter's Son and the Imam's Son, The God that they rejected Isn't Real.

acrosenthal.com/

I have heard the claim more times than I can count. Religion is the biggest source of evil in the world. It is aimed, usually, at Christianity. It sounds devastating at a dinner party. It collapses the moment someone asks for the receipts.

So let’s look at the numbers. Actually look at them.

Ridley Scott, director of Prometheus, made the claim in a 2012 Esquire interview. He is not alone. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens built careers on a version of it. Kirk Durston, drawing on the research of Rudolph Rummel, former professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, 2007 winner of the International Association of Genocide Scholars’ Award, and a man frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, actually went and checked. Rummel spent his career studying democide: government-sponsored mass killing, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder. His findings are peer-reviewed and exhaustive. They are also inconvenient.

Here is what gets credited to Christianity. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, the full greatest-hits package. Rummel’s estimates:

Crusades: 1,000,000 Spanish Inquisition: 350,000 Witch Hunts: 100,000 Total: 1,450,000

Over approximately one thousand years.

Before we move to the other side of the ledger, a deflection arrives right about here. Someone mentions Hitler. The Nazis were Christian, the argument goes. Add the Holocaust to the Christian column.

This is false. Not a close call.

Nazism never presented itself as a Christian enterprise. Hitler despised Christianity. His own writings describe it as “meek” and “flabby.” He wanted to destroy it “root and branch” and openly complained about Germany being stuck with what he called “feeble-minded” Christianity. He preferred, in his own words, “strong-arm” systems. His writings and speeches contain so many passages dripping with contempt for Christianity that arguing he was a Christian is roughly equivalent to arguing George Washington fought for the British. The evidence runs entirely the other direction. His private comments, recorded by those closest to him, make clear he found militant, conquest-oriented religion far more congenial to his purposes than anything the Sermon on the Mount had to offer.

The Holocaust does not belong in the Christian column.

But let’s be honest about the Christianity side of the ledger while we are here. The question worth asking is not whether people committed atrocities while claiming to be Christian. They did. The question is whether those atrocities represent authentic Christianity or a perversion of it.

Ask any atheist what Jesus of Nazareth’s two great commands were and they are unlikely to know. Love God with everything you have. Love your neighbor as yourself. And by neighbor, Jesus made explicitly clear he meant every human being on the planet, including your enemies. So how does killing 1,450,000 people fit with loving your neighbor as yourself?

There are quack doctors in the world. That does not make all of medical science quackery. A person who carries out a Crusade while violating Christ’s explicit command to love their neighbor is not demonstrating the teachings of Jesus. They are demonstrating what human nature does when it is handed institutional power and left without accountability to the actual teachings it claims to follow.

Jesus said it plainly: “You will know them by their fruit.” He also said that on Judgment Day, many would say Lord, Lord, did we not do great things in your name? And his answer would be: “I never knew you.”

A root cannot deny its fruit.

Look at the founding dates on these shields. Then look at the founding purposes. The Knights Hospitaller: founded exclusively as a medical order, caring for the poor, sick, and injured. The Order of Saint Lazarus: founded as a leper hospital. The Order of Alcántara: a hospitaller foundation before it took on a defensive role. The Teutonic Order: a field hospital first, a military force second. The military function was grafted onto the care function, not the other way around. These institutions were built to answer a question: who needs to be protected and healed? The Islamic ribat was built to answer a different question: where does the frontier of Islam end, and how do we push it further? Both traditions fused religion with warfare. They started from opposite ends.

Now here is what gets credited to atheistic states in the twentieth century alone. Not religion. Not Christianity. States that made atheism a core value, promoted it through their education systems, enforced it in daily life, and worked actively to eradicate religious belief entirely.

People’s Republic of China (1949-1987): 76,702,000 U.S.S.R. (1917-1987): 61,911,000 Total: 142,081,000

In seventy years.

Christianity killed 1,450,000 over more than a thousand years. Atheistic states killed a hundred times as many in less than one percent of that time. To equal what godless regimes produced in the twentieth century alone, Christian wars would have had to run without stopping for approximately 98,000 years. And most of those atheist deaths were not battlefield casualties. China starved more of its own citizens to death in a single year of peacetime than Christian wars killed across a millennium.

The Khmer Rouge, operating in a considerably smaller country, killed thirty-one percent of their own population. Cambodia. Thirty-one percent.

Even granting every number in the Christian column at full value, you cannot reach ten percent of what godless regimes produced. The Inquisition resulted in fewer than 5,000 deaths over approximately 300 years. The Salem witch trials lasted four months and killed nineteen people, none of them sentenced by the church, which had no such power. The full Christian atrocities column, tallied generously over a thousand years, does not come within shouting distance of what atheistic states accomplished in a single century.

Some atheists attempt to shift the blame to Communism rather than atheism. It is worth asking what specific feature of the Communism practiced by these states permitted such unprecedented slaughter. The Hutterites are a communal society. They are exceptionally peaceful. The philosophical difference between them and Maoist China is not economic structure. It is that the Hutterites believe in God. The Communist countries less zealous about eradicating religious belief, Cuba and Nicaragua for example, had considerably lower mass murder tallies. The pattern holds. The more aggressively atheism was promoted and enforced, the greater the atrocities.

Here is what makes the atheism side of this argument genuinely chilling, and it is not simply the body count. It is the reason the body count is possible at all. One of the things God provides, if God exists, is an objective moral standard that transcends human civilization, history, and whoever currently holds power. Remove God and morality becomes whatever the society in power decides it to be. A guardrail that civilization carries in its own hands, attached to nothing outside itself. As the society drifts, the guardrail drifts with it. There is nothing to stop the drift. There is no final accounting. There is no right or wrong beyond what the powerful decree.

That is not a philosophy lecture. That is a description of what happened in China and the Soviet Union and Cambodia. The guardrail moved. One hundred and forty-two million people went over the edge.

There is a third column that honest accounting requires. It has been conspicuously absent and its absence has been nagging at me.

Islam. From the wars of conquest launched in the seventh century through the ongoing persecution of Christians across the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia today, the body count conducted in the name of Allah is staggering. Historians and demographers who have attempted to quantify deaths from Islamic conquest, jihad, and religiously justified warfare from the seventh century to the present produce estimates ranging from 80,000,000 to 300,000,000 depending on methodology. The lower end of that range is still catastrophic. The higher end rivals the atheist column entirely.

At its peak in 1683, the Ottoman Empire stretched from the gates of Vienna to the Persian Gulf, from Morocco to the Caucasus. This is what 1,000 years of religiously mandated expansion looks like on a map. It did not stop because the ideology changed. It stopped because it ran into walls it could not break.

The above Image shows the locations for the crusade battles and the image below shows the locations for Jihad battles. The motivations were not the same. The Crusades were extremely costly and were not launched to make money or enrich via colonialism. They bankrupt the people who went on them. Jihad was the economy of Islam, slaves, booty and colonial expansion.

Some will object that Islam is a political ideology as much as a religious one, and they are not wrong. Islam makes no clean distinction between the political and the theological. It never has. But that does not move the numbers. Whether the motivation in any given campaign was piety or power or both, the justification given was God’s name. The men doing the killing said so themselves. Honest accounting means we count it. And when we count it, the claim that religion is the greatest source of evil in human history becomes not just wrong but almost comically wrong.

The Crusades: defensive, lasted 300 years, ended 800 years ago. Islamic jihad: offensive, lasted 1,400 years, active today. The slide asks “Moral Equivalence?” That is the right question. The answer is no.

Not believing in God is not a neutral act with no consequences. Barak Lurie, himself a former atheist, puts it plainly: it is like not believing in the police, the judiciary, medicine, or fire stations. You do not have to believe in them. But living in a world without them has consequences.

Matthew Parris is an atheist. He wrote the following in The Times in 2008 after returning from Africa:

“Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa. Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write... Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.”

An atheist. Writing that Christianity is irreplaceable. Because he went and looked.

Statistics Canada data, summarized in a Maclean’s article titled “Do Atheists Care Less,” found that the average annual donations of churchgoers were more than three times that of the rest of the population, and that churchgoers volunteered twice as many hours in their communities. An atheist charity launched specifically to showcase atheist generosity raised $18,760 from 447 members in its first four months. Roughly what eighteen churchgoers give in a year.

Judge the tree by its fruit.

Who fought against and ultimately destroyed the institution of slavery? Christians and Jews. Who stood against eugenics, the forced sterilization of those the state deemed inferior? Christians and Jews. Who pushed back against China’s one-child policy when the rest of the world looked away? Christians and Jews. The people most routinely credited with history’s worst atrocities, have also produced history’s most consistent record of resistance to institutionalized evil. Those who cling to the ideologies that produced these atrocities, have the nasty habit of projecting the bad fruit of their ideologies, upon those who make them look bad by comparison. That is not a coincidence. Judge the tree by its fruit, and see what happens when a civilization is anchored to a God who declares every human being made in His image. Not gulags or killing fields (Atheist/Communist). Not concentration camps (Atheist/Socialist). Not slave markets (Islam).

This Islamic slave trading has never stopped, except where Christians have managed to stamp it out. Ten times as many Africans were sold EAST out of Africa, to the Islamic markets. The same direction they travel today.

The track record of history does not show that religion is the greatest source of evil. It shows the opposite. Authentic Christianity, centered on loving God and loving every human being on the planet as yourself, restrains evil and produces measurable good. Atheistic states, freed from any transcendent moral accountability, produced the largest mass murder events in recorded human history in a fraction of the time.

This is not an argument that individual atheists are bad people. Many atheists live decent, generous, admirable lives. What they are living on, whether they acknowledge it or not, is the moral capital of a civilization built by people who believed every human being was made in the image of God. That capital does not replenish itself. It was deposited by centuries of Christian influence into the foundations of Western law, charity, medicine, education, and the very concept of human dignity. Remove the foundation slowly enough and most people never notice it going.

Until it is gone.

And when it is gone, the society that replaced it with nothing does not stay empty for long. Nature abhors a vacuum. A confident, totalizing ideology that has never stopped expanding since the seventh century, and that carries its own complete answer to every question of law, governance, family, war, and God, will not wait to be invited.

We are not preparing our children to answer that. We are not even preparing them to recognize it.

Next time someone announces at a dinner party that religion is the source of all evil, ask them if they have looked at the numbers. Ask them what Jesus actually taught. Ask them which philosophers were running the gulags. Ask them what fills the space when the last Christian remnants wear off a culture.

Then wait.

The God haters don’t have numbers. They have an emotional position dressed in the language of reason. Or they have simply never been asked to question what they were taught. In which case they are doing exactly what they accuse believers of doing.

Taking it on faith.

Before I close, I want to leave the critics something useful. Not a concession. A standard.

This is what Christianity actually teaches. Not the Crusades. Not the Inquisition. Not whatever a televangelist said in 1987. This. Every word of it is straight from the text. If you think a Christian is failing to live up to it, you are welcome to use it. Read it once and see if you can find a more demanding or more generous moral code anywhere on earth. This is not the pathetic passive absence of harm. This is ACTIVE, Love in action.

“Be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Eph. 4:32). “Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you” (Luke 6:27-28). “Give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again” (Luke 6:30). “As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31). “Bear ye one another’s burdens” (Gal. 6:2). “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice” (Eph. 4:31). “If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink” (Rom. 12:20). “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:21). “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy” (Matt. 5:7). “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt. 5:9). “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction” (James 1:27). “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; for the rights of all who are destitute” (Prov. 31:8). “The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself” (Lev. 19:34). “What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God” (Mic. 6:8). “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things” (Phil. 4:8). “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

Hold every Christian you meet to that standard. Please. That is exactly what Jesus told us to do. And the more you read it, the more you may find yourself wondering where your own creed keeps its version. Compare it to the creed of other belief systems. Islam has nothing like it.

Share

If you value unflinching, historically grounded analysis that mainstream outlets soften or ignore, consider upgrading. Paid subscribers get:

• Several new, full-length articles every week.

  Carefully researched pieces you won’t find elsewhere.

• Full access to the complete premium archive

  Archive of in-depth writing, research, and commentary — all in one place.

• Entry into the subscriber chat

  A private space for serious readers and thoughtful discussion.

A. C. Rosenthal

A.C. Rosenthal is a self-taught writer, researcher, and theologian working at the intersection of history, philosophy, and culture. He is the author of The Carpenter's Son and the Imam's Son, The God that they rejected Isn't Real.

Leave a comment

acrosenthal.com

https://thetwomuhammadscurriculum.thinkific.com/

He Was Never On Their Side

There is a specific kind of wound that only religion can inflict.

Not the wound of tragedy, which arrives without explanation and has to be absorbed without anyone to hold responsible. Not the wound of ordinary human failure, the friend who let you down, the marriage that ended, the parent who was absent in the specific ways that left the specific gaps. Those wounds are real and they go deep and they take years.

The religious wound is different in kind because it arrives with God’s name attached to it. Because the person inflicting it is doing so with apparent divine authorization, citing scripture, invoking standards, deploying the vocabulary of holiness and judgment and accountability in ways that make the harm feel like something other than harm. Like correction. Like love. Like what God requires of people who take their faith seriously.

This is the wound that keeps people out of churches for decades. That makes the word Christian produce a flinch rather than a recognition. That turns the concept of spiritual authority into something to be avoided rather than sought. That causes people to associate God himself with the specific pain of the specific person who used his name to cause it.

And the most damaging thing about it, the thing that makes it so hard to recover from, is the lie embedded at its center.

The lie is that God was behind it. That the authority figure who loaded you with burdens, who used the language of holiness to control you, who shut the door of the kingdom in your face and called it faithfulness, was representing the God they claimed to represent.

This post is designed to unmask that lie. Because the Jesus of the Gospels does not leave any room for it. He addressed it directly, at length, with a specificity and an anger that is unlike anything else in the four accounts of his life.

And he was not on their side. He was never on their side.

Jesus is famous for gentleness. The image most people carry of him is constructed from the passages that emphasize it, and those passages are real and they are load-bearing and they tell you something true about who he is.

Blessed are the meek. Come to me, all who are weary and burdened. Neither do I condemn you. Let the little children come. The father running down the road. The shepherd leaving the ninety-nine to find the one. The woman searching the whole house for a single coin. The images Jesus chose to describe God’s disposition toward human beings are almost uniformly images of pursuit, of welcome, of a love that does not wait for the conditions to be right before moving toward the person who needs it.

That picture is accurate. But it is incomplete.

Matthew 23 shows a different face. And the difference is not incidental. It is not a momentary departure from character. It is a revelation of something essential about who Jesus is and what he regards as the most serious possible offense against the people he came for.

Matthew 23 is the longest, most sustained, most specific confrontation Jesus delivers in any of the four Gospels. It is not a parable about a distant situation. It is a direct address to specific people in a specific context, and it is delivered at full intensity without softening and without qualification. Seven times in this chapter Jesus says the same thing. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites. Seven times. Each woe a different indictment. Each indictment more specific than the last.

The word woe in the Greek carries more weight than the English translation usually suggests. It is not primarily a threat. It is closer to a lament, a declaration of the severity of the situation, the announcement that something has gone deeply and consequentially wrong. When Jesus says woe he is not primarily issuing a punishment. He is naming a reality. He is saying: look at what has been done here. Look at what this is.

Seven times he names it. Because it is worth being named carefully.

Subscribe now

Read more

Three Asymmetries That Change Everything

It is a particular kind of exhaustion that settles into a person who has been away from God for a long time.

Not the dramatic exhaustion of active rebellion. Not the hot anger of someone who left the faith in a burst of intellectual crisis or moral outrage. The quieter kind. The exhaustion of someone who drifted, gradually, incrementally, until the distance became normal and the normal became permanent and somewhere along the way the question of God stopped feeling urgent and started feeling like something that belonged to a different version of themselves. A younger version. A more hopeful one.

These people are not usually angry at God. Anger requires engagement. They are simply gone. Living their lives at a functional distance from the question, not hostile, not seeking, not particularly troubled by the arrangement. The faith of their childhood or their earlier years sits somewhere in the background like a piece of furniture they stopped noticing, present but not load-bearing, there but not doing anything.

This post is for them. And its central claim is going to sound, on first reading, too simple to be serious.

You are closer to God than you think. Not because you have traveled so far back. Because He never moved.

The book this series is drawn from ends with what it calls its core discovery. It is structured as three asymmetries, and the structure is deliberate. An asymmetry is not a contradiction. It is a relationship between two things that are moving in different directions at different speeds toward different destinations. And the three asymmetries at the heart of the Christian account of God and humanity are the most consequential facts in the universe if they are true, and the most extravagant fiction if they are not.

Here they are, stated plainly.

You may have rejected God. He has not rejected you.

You may have walked away. He has followed.

You may have misunderstood Him. He has understood you.

Read those three sentences slowly and notice what they are doing. In every case the human movement is toward distance. Rejection. Walking away. Misunderstanding. The human being in these sentences is moving in one direction and that direction is away. Away from God, away from the relationship, away from the question. Every movement is centrifugal, outward, toward the far country.

And in every case the divine response is toward nearness. Non-rejection. Following. Understanding. Every divine movement is centripetal, inward, toward the person who is moving away.

This is not a sentimental claim about God being nice. It is a specific theological claim about the structure of a relationship that does not operate by the rules human relationships operate by. In human relationships, sustained rejection produces corresponding rejection. Walking away produces being walked away from. Misunderstanding that goes on long enough produces the giving up of the attempt to understand. Human love, even at its most devoted, has a limit somewhere. It has to. It is finite.

The asymmetry the Christian Gospel claims is that the love of God in Christ does not have that limit. Not as a nice thought. As a documented fact grounded in two of the most theologically dense passages in the Bible, passages written eight centuries apart by people who had no contact with each other and who arrived at the same place from completely different directions.

That convergence is worth paying attention to.

Subscribe now

Read more

Honest doubt is not the enemy of faith. It is often how faith begins.

There is a particular kind of shame that attaches itself to religious doubt, and it is different in character from every other kind of shame most people carry.

Ordinary shame is the response to something you did. You acted badly, you know it, and the shame is at least proportionate to something real. It has a referent. It points at an actual failure. The shame of doubt is different in kind because it attaches not to something you did but to something you cannot do. You cannot make yourself believe. You cannot manufacture certainty on demand. You cannot resolve the questions by deciding to stop having them. And so the shame sits on something that is not a moral failure at all, on the honest operation of an honest mind encountering genuine difficulty, and it feels like the worst kind of failure precisely because there is no obvious way to fix it.

The person who carries this shame has usually absorbed it from somewhere specific. From a community where certainty was the visible currency of spiritual health and doubt was the thing you kept quiet about. From a tradition where the testimony you were supposed to give at the right moment followed a recognizable script, and deviating from the script was evidence of something wrong with you rather than evidence of something real in you. From years of watching people around you appear to believe without difficulty while you sat with questions that nobody else seemed to have, or at least nobody else seemed willing to name out loud.

What most of those people did not know, and what the tradition at its best has always known, is that the shame is backwards. The doubt is not the problem. In many cases, the doubt is the most honest and most spiritually alive thing happening in the room.

The Western church, broadly speaking, has a complicated relationship with doubt that has produced enormous damage over several centuries.

The damage runs in a specific direction. The tradition took a collection of documents full of honest, wrestling, sometimes anguished engagement with God and built around them an institutional culture that rewarded the performance of resolution and penalized the public expression of difficulty. The Psalms contain some of the most raw and unfiltered expressions of spiritual anguish in any literature. Psalm 88 ends without resolution, in the dark, with no comfort arriving before the final verse. Job spends thirty-five chapters arguing with God and refusing the tidy explanations his friends offer on God’s behalf, and God at the end of the book does not vindicate the friends. He vindicates Job. The man who argued. The man who refused to perform a peace he did not feel.

That tradition of honest engagement is in the documents. It did not always make it into the institutions built around the documents. What the institutions often produced instead was a culture where the public performance of faith and the private experience of faith were allowed to diverge significantly, where people sat in pews carrying questions they believed were disqualifying, where the gap between what you were supposed to feel and what you actually felt was a source of private shame rather than a normal feature of honest spiritual life.

The result is generations of people who left not because the questions answered themselves in the negative but because the community they were in had no room for the questions at all. Who decided that if this was what faith required, the performance of a certainty they did not possess, then they were not capable of it and perhaps not made for it. Who carry to this day the specific shame of feeling like faith was a gift distributed to everyone else at a ceremony they somehow missed.

That shame is a lie. It was built by institutions that confused the performance of certainty with the thing itself. And the documents those institutions claimed to be built on say something entirely different.

Subscribe now

Read more

You were right to reject him. But rejecting a false god does not settle the question of the real one.

There is a specific god that a specific generation of Western people walked away from, and the walking away was, in most cases, entirely reasonable.

He was harsh in ways that felt arbitrary. He was obsessed with rule-keeping in ways that seemed to have nothing to do with human flourishing. He was distant when you needed presence and present when you wanted privacy. He was the god who let children die of cancer while answering prayers about parking spaces. He was the god whose representatives on earth spent their institutional energy protecting abusers and persecuting questioners. He was the god who apparently created the universe fourteen billion years ago and populated it with a hundred billion galaxies but was primarily concerned with what two consenting adults did in a bedroom in Ohio. He was the god of the guilt trip and the altar call and the adult Sunday school class where the questions that actually mattered were quietly discouraged in favor of the questions that had safe answers.

Most people who left did not leave because they stopped caring about truth. They left because the god they were being offered did not seem true. He seemed like a projection. A composite assembled from institutional anxiety, cultural assumption, personal wound, and the long accretion of bad religion doing what bad religion always does, which is to take something infinite and reduce it to something manageable and then defend the reduction with the same ferocity it would defend the real thing.

You were right to reject that god. That is not a small concession. It is the thesis of everything that follows.

But here is what that rejection does not settle: the question of the real one.

The rejected god has a specific profile, and it is worth drawing it carefully because the argument depends on being precise about what was actually thrown out.

He is not a straw man invented by critics of religion. He is a real phenomenon with a real history. He shows up in real churches, real families, real Sunday school curricula, real altar calls that produce real psychological damage in real people who grew up inside the system and eventually could not stay. He is the god of performative certainty, the one whose followers are required to have answers before they have questions, to produce faith on demand and display it at the appropriate moments, to treat doubt as a spiritual malfunction requiring correction rather than a sign of an honest mind engaging honest difficulty.

He is the god whose love is consistently described in terms that sound structurally identical to emotional manipulation. He loves you, but if you reject him the consequences are eternal. He wants a relationship with you, but the relationship is defined entirely on his terms with no capacity for renegotiation. He is good, by definition, regardless of the evidence, and questioning that goodness is itself evidence of your spiritual deficiency rather than a legitimate response to a world that contains the things it contains.

He is the god of the prosperity gospel, who measures faithfulness in financial return and explains suffering as the predictable result of insufficient belief. He is the god of the culture warrior, whose primary concerns track suspiciously closely with the political priorities of whichever demographic controls the relevant institution. He is the god who was against heliocentrism, and then wasn’t. Who was for slavery, and then wasn’t. Who has consistently been most exercised about whatever the dominant culture has been most exercised about, and who has revised his positions on those things with a regularity that suggests he may be following rather than leading.

That god deserves to be rejected. He has been rejected, by millions of people who were paying attention, and the rejection is one of the more intellectually honest things that happened to Western culture in the twentieth century.

The problem is not the rejection. The problem is the assumption that the rejected god and the real one are the same.

Subscribe now

Read more

This Video is the first in a series of videos that demonstrates the power of God to transform any community. Yes even yours’. God is the same Yesterday Today and Forever. The reason that you and i are in a world where sin and suffering is permitted is because choice is required for Love to be real. That freedom to reject God, comes with the risk of saying “no” to Love and “yes” to selfishness. That potential to misuse freedom is the price of an environment where love is possible. But it means that when Love is chosen that it is real. Not forced. Not the result of computerized programing but freely chosen. This matters because God is the God of love and relationships. Because God loves you and wants a relationship with you. As you can see in the first story within this video, God can redeem any situation and work it out for the good of those who Love God and serve His purposes. Nothing is too difficult for God.

God hides Himself in the peripheral, so that He is heard but not understood, unless you deliberately tune in. So that He is seen but not perceived unless you turn your face towards Him. This preserves the standard required for us humans to CHOOSE God freely. This is the environment that Love can exist within. For without choice it is not Love.

Matthew 13:15

“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
¹⁵ For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’

If God stuck His face, bigger then the universe, through the clouds, who could deny Him? Who would dare to? If God removed choice from the equation it would reduce the equation to HOW we would choose to love Him and no longer IF we would choose to love Him. And the richness of the love is what makes the relationship so so sweet.

Matthew 13:16-23 [Jesus continues]

^16” But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. ¹⁷ For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

¹⁸ “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: ¹⁹ When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. ²⁰ The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. ²¹ But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. ²² The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. ²³ But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

The soil refers to the state of your heart. Can it receive the seeds/words of truth, or is it too hard and un-receptive? Do not miss out, step in to your God given Purpose and enjoy the richness and joy of a God-enriched life. Your potential in God is greater then anything anyone could build for themselves. Think of the headstone of Ozymandias.

Percy Bysshe Shelley “Ozymandias” 1792 – 1822

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

So, I wont say more on this here in this post because the purpose of this post is the video. But if you would like to hear more about the God I am talking about please DM me or comment in the space below. Follow and subscribe.

God Bless.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Do not give dogs what is sacred. Do not throw your pearls to pigs.

Every civilization that has ever lasted understood one thing our culture is working very hard to forget.

Not every thing is equal. Not every thing deserves the same level of care. Some things are ordinary. You use them, you set them down, you move on. They are replaceable, interchangeable, subject to the logic of convenience and preference. And some things are sacred. You handle them with care. You protect them. You do not drag them into the common because the common is not where they belong, and the act of dragging them there does not liberate them. It destroys them. And when they are destroyed, you discover, too late, that the destruction cost more than you understood when you were cheering for it.

This is not a complicated idea. It is, in fact, one of the oldest ideas in the human record, so old and so widely distributed across cultures and centuries that its recurrence has attracted serious scholarly attention. The anthropologist Émile Durkheim, who was not a religious man, identified the distinction between the sacred and the profane as the most fundamental organizing principle of human social life, prior to theology, prior to law, prior to any specific cultural content. Every society, he observed, draws the line somewhere. Every society designates certain things, certain places, certain relationships, certain acts as set apart, as belonging to a different order than the ordinary flow of use and exchange. And every society that has lost the capacity to draw that line, or has been talked out of drawing it, has paid a specific and predictable price.

We are paying it now. We are in the middle of paying it. And the people most loudly insisting that the price is worth it are, in almost every case, not the ones being asked to pay.

Part One: The Category Nobody Wants to Defend

The Hebrew word for holy is qodesh. It means set apart. Not morally perfect, not ethereally spiritual, not removed from ordinary human concern. Set apart. Designated for a different use. Belonging to a different order.

The logic of holiness in the Old Testament is essentially the logic of the sacred made explicit: there are things that belong to God’s order and things that belong to the common order, and the catastrophe is always the collapse of the boundary between them. Profanation, in the biblical vocabulary, is precisely the act of treating the set-apart thing as though it were merely common. Taking the temple vessels and drinking wine from them at a party. Using the consecrated bread for ordinary purposes. It is not that the bread or the cup is intrinsically different from other bread or other cups. It is that the designation has made them different, and disregarding the designation is not neutrality. It is a specific act with specific consequences.

Roger Scruton, the philosopher, argued that the sacred is not primarily a theological category but an anthropological one. Human beings are meaning-seeking creatures. They do not merely exist in the world. They organize the world into zones of significance, they mark certain things as mattering more than other things, and this marking is not an optional add-on to human social life. It is constitutive of it. A world in which nothing is sacred is not a liberated world. It is a world in which the structures that make meaning possible have been dissolved, and what replaces them is not freedom but a particular kind of despair, one that cannot name its own cause because the language required to name it has been discredited along with everything else.

Philip Rieff, writing in The Triumph of the Therapeutic in 1966, identified what he called the therapeutic culture with prophetic precision. He described a civilization in the process of replacing its sacred order, the system of interdictions and obligations that gave social life its shape, with a therapeutic order organized entirely around the management of individual feeling. In the therapeutic order, the question is never what is sacred and must be protected. It is always what feels right and should be enabled. The shift is not merely ethical. It is ontological. It changes what kind of world you are living in.

Rieff was writing in 1966. He was describing what he could already see beginning. What he could not fully describe, because it had not yet fully arrived, was what happens to the second and third generation raised inside the therapeutic order. What happens to people who grew up in a world where nothing was set apart, where every interdiction was treated as a suppression of authentic selfhood, where the concept of a thing belonging to a different order than ordinary use was taught to them as the primary form of oppression.

We know now. The data is available. The faces are in the clinical files.

Part Two: What Happened to the Marriage Bed

Take the most intimate and the most instructive example.

In every civilization that produced enduring family structures, the marriage bed was sacred. Not in the sense that people were naive about what happened there. In the sense that what happened there belonged to a specific covenantal order, was bounded by specific promises made before witnesses, was understood as participation in something that exceeded the preferences of the two people involved and carried weight beyond their personal satisfaction.

The sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s was not, at its most fundamental level, a revolution about sex. It was a revolution about the category of the sacred. It was the argument, made explicitly by its architects and absorbed implicitly by its inheritors, that the sacred designation was not real, that the boundaries around sexual intimacy were not structural necessities of human flourishing but arbitrary impositions of a power structure that benefited from their enforcement, and that removing them would produce freedom, authenticity, and the liberation of human desire from its artificial constraints.

The architects were confident. The confidence was not warranted.

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies of sexual behavior and wellbeing conducted in the United States, found consistent associations between higher numbers of sexual partners and lower measures of relationship quality, relationship stability, and personal wellbeing, particularly for women. This is not a study produced by religious organizations. It is peer-reviewed social science, drawing on data from over fifteen thousand participants tracked across two decades.

Jean Twenge, a psychologist at San Diego State University who has spent her career tracking generational shifts in psychological wellbeing, documents in her research a consistent pattern: the generations most thoroughly formed by the sexual revolution’s assumptions, the generations for whom casual sexual encounter is most thoroughly normalized, are also the generations reporting the highest levels of loneliness, the lowest levels of relationship satisfaction, and the most acute difficulty forming the kind of lasting intimate attachment that human beings appear to require for flourishing.

This is not a surprise if you understand what the sacred category was doing. When the marriage bed is merely a bed, when the encounter it frames carries no more weight than any other encounter, it stops doing the work that human beings built the category to do. It stops functioning as the ground for a particular kind of trust, a particular depth of vulnerability, a particular quality of being known that cannot be produced in the absence of the structural commitment that made the category sacred.

The sociologist Mark Regnerus, in Cheap Sex, documents the market logic that replaces the covenant logic when the sacred designation is removed. When sexual access carries no cost in terms of commitment, it becomes cheap in the economic sense, and cheap things are treated accordingly. The commodification of intimacy is not an accidental byproduct of the sexual revolution. It is the predictable result of treating something that was sacred as though it were merely common.

The people who were promised freedom got something else. They got a market. And the market, as markets do, rewards the powerful and underserves the vulnerable. The population that gains the most from the removal of the sacred designation around sexual intimacy is not, historically or empirically, women. It is men whose interests are best served by access without obligation. The revolution that was sold as women’s liberation delivered the conditions that most efficiently serve male incontinence. That is the fruit. Not the intention. The fruit.

Part Three: The Body as Currency

The logic does not stop at the marriage bed. It follows the category of the sacred wherever it goes.

In the Christian understanding, the body is not merely the container of a self. It is the self in its material form. The Incarnation, God taking a body and keeping it through the resurrection rather than discarding it, is the most radical possible statement about the dignity and permanence of embodied existence. Made in the image of a God who became flesh, the human body belongs to the sacred order, not as a piece of religious furniture but as the medium through which persons love and suffer and encounter one another and, in the Christian account, encounter God.

When the body is removed from the sacred order, it becomes available as currency.

The pornography industry now produces an estimated 800 new videos every day in the United States alone. The average age of first exposure to pornographic content in developed Western countries is between eleven and twelve. The content is not what its earliest liberal defenders described when they argued for its legalization, not adult material freely chosen by adults for private adult use, but a ubiquitous environment that shapes the sexual imaginations of children before they have the relational experience to place it in any interpretive context.

The clinical literature on pornography’s effects on intimate relationships is not ambiguous. Valerie Voon’s neurological research at Cambridge found that pornography activates the same neural reward pathways as addictive substances and produces similar tolerance dynamics, requiring escalation to maintain effect. Dolf Zillmann’s research found that sustained exposure to pornography produced measurable decreases in satisfaction with real partners, increases in acceptance of casual sexual encounters, and decreases in the valuation of commitment and fidelity.

The platform known as OnlyFans reported over two million content creators in 2022. The median age of women entering sex work on digital platforms has been declining. The cultural framework that produces this is not complicated. Once the body is common, it is available for sale. Once it is available for sale, the market sets the price. And once the market sets the price, the logic of the sacred, the logic that says some things cannot be bought because some things belong to a different order than exchange, has been decisively defeated.

The girls who grew up inside this logic did not choose it in any meaningful sense. They were formed by it before they had the conceptual resources to evaluate it. They were told that their bodies were theirs to use as they chose, which is true in one sense and catastrophically incomplete in another, because the freedom to use a thing however you choose is not freedom if it is purchased at the cost of the thing’s capacity to function as it was designed to function.

A promise made to everyone is not a promise. A body given to everyone is not, in the covenantal sense, a gift. The sacred category was not protecting women from their own bodies. It was protecting the relational function that their bodies were designed to serve. Remove the protection, and the function does not persist in a liberated form. It degrades.

Part Four: Promises Without Weight

There is a form of the sacred that operates entirely in the domain of language, and its collapse is one of the least discussed and most consequential features of the modern situation.

A promise made before witnesses is a different kind of speech act than a statement of current intention. When two people stand before a community and say I will, not I want to, not I plan to, not I feel this way right now but I will, they are making a claim that belongs to a different order than ordinary expression. They are binding a future self to a present commitment, staking the self on continuity between what is said now and what will be done then, and inviting the community to hold them to that continuity. This is the structure of a covenant.

Covenants are sacred because they are the mechanism by which human beings become trustworthy. Not merely trusted in the sense that their current behavior is reliable, but trustworthy in the deeper sense that their word binds their future, that the self they are now is accountable for the actions of the self they will become. The covenant is the technology by which persons become people whose promises mean something, whose relationships can carry weight, whose yes means yes and whose no means no.

When the covenant is replaced by the contract, something specific is lost that is not recovered by making the contract more detailed.

A contract is an agreement between parties who expect to remain fundamentally self-interested and provides legal mechanisms for managing the conflict between their interests. It is built on the assumption of mutual distrust managed by enforcement. A covenant is built on the assumption of mutual commitment managed by character. They are not the same thing with different vocabularies. They are different anthropological structures expressing different understandings of what a person is.

Marriage in Western civilization was a covenant. It was sacred not merely because it was blessed in church but because it operated on covenant logic: the self bound to the future by the word spoken in the present, before witnesses, before God. When marriage became a contract, which is the operational reality of most modern marriages regardless of whether they are conducted in churches or not, it lost the sacred designation and inherited the contract’s built-in architecture of exit.

Contracts have termination clauses. Covenants do not. The termination clause is not a minor procedural detail. It changes the fundamental logic of the relationship. A marriage entered with a termination clause is not the same relationship as a marriage entered without one, even if both couples stand at the same altar and say the same words. The covenant is made in the body, in the will, in the understood structure of what the relationship is. When the culture communicates that the understood structure includes an exit that requires only the decision to leave, the marriage that results is a different kind of marriage, and it produces different outcomes, and the children raised inside it inherit a different understanding of what promises are and what they cost.

Jonathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind, identifies what he calls sacred values as a distinct category of human moral cognition. Sacred values, he argues, are values that resist trade-offs. They cannot be weighed against other values on a common scale. They cannot be purchased or surrendered for compensation. The moment you begin to calculate the price at which a sacred value can be compromised, you have already destroyed it, because the defining feature of the sacred is that it is not on the market.

His research shows that sacred values are not irrational holdovers from a pre-scientific age. They serve specific social functions. Communities organized around sacred values are more cohesive, more trusting, more capable of cooperation, and more resilient under pressure. The dissolution of sacred values does not produce a more rational community. It produces a more fragmented one, in which the only remaining glue is interest, and interest is a thin adhesive that fails when the interests diverge.

Part Five: The Name and What Happens When You Hollow It

There is a commandment that the modern world has found easier to dismiss than almost any other, and the dismissal has produced a consequence that almost nobody connects to it.

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

The usual interpretation of this commandment treats it as a prohibition on using sacred vocabulary as casual profanity, which it is. But the deeper meaning is something more structurally significant. The name is not merely a sound. In the ancient understanding, and in the theology that grew out of it, the name is the person made available for relationship. God’s name is the mode of God’s presence, the form in which the infinite has made itself accessible to the finite, the technology by which the Creator can be addressed rather than merely contemplated.

To take that name in vain is to treat the sacred mode of presence as though it were common, to drain it of its weight by using it as mere expression, a punctuation mark, a filler, a signal of emphasis with no referent. When God’s name becomes a casual expletive, something specific happens to the culture’s capacity to receive what the name was pointing to.

C.S. Lewis made the observation that when we use words promiscuously, we degrade not only the words but the realities the words were designed to signify. Love becomes the word you say about pizza and about your spouse, and the promiscuity of the word is not neutral. It does not leave the word’s capacity to signify the deeper thing intact. It degrades it, slowly, by accretion, until the word no longer carries the weight it was built to carry.

The same logic applies to the name of God, and to the entire vocabulary of the sacred. When every thing is described as awesome, nothing is awful. When every experience is sacred, nothing is holy. When God is a casual exclamation, the God who speaks before he does anything else in all of Scripture, the God who insisted on the weight of his name precisely because the name was the mode of his presence, becomes unreachable through the vocabulary that was supposed to be the door.

The secularization of language is not merely the loss of religious vocabulary. It is the loss of the cognitive and relational capacity that the vocabulary was maintaining. A culture that cannot speak the sacred has lost more than words. It has lost the equipment for a certain kind of encounter.

Part Six: The Children in the Rubble

Every civilization that has sacrificed the sacred category has eventually been presented with the bill. The bill is always paid by the next generation, the generation that did not choose the ideology but inherited its consequences.

The children of the sexual revolution were not asked whether they wanted a world in which the category of the sacred was dismantled. They arrived into one. They grew up in homes shaped by the contract logic of marriage, in schools that taught them their bodies were instruments of personal expression, in a culture that saturated them with the pornographic logic of the body as commodity before they were old enough to drive. They were handed the conclusions before they had the capacity to evaluate the premises. And then, when the conclusions produced predictable damage, they were handed a therapeutic vocabulary for managing the symptoms and told nothing about the cause.

Jean Twenge’s research on iGen, the generation born after 1995, documents a mental health crisis of unprecedented scale. Depression, anxiety, loneliness, and purposelessness are running at levels that dwarf any previous generation on record. Twenge is careful about causation. She is not a moralist. She is a data analyst. And the data she is analyzing tells a specific story.

The generation with the most material abundance in human history. The generation with the most connectivity technology in human history. The generation with the fewest formal interdictions, the fewest imposed obligations, the fewest designated sacred things. The generation that was given, more thoroughly than any before it, the world the therapeutic culture promised would produce flourishing.

The generation reporting the highest rates of meaninglessness.

This is not a coincidence. It is a result. The sacred category was not a constraint imposed on human flourishing. It was a structural requirement for it. Meaning is not produced by freedom. Meaning is produced by the encounter with something that matters more than your current preference, something that makes a claim on you, something you cannot simply walk away from when it becomes inconvenient. Remove the things that matter more than your current preference and you have not produced freedom. You have produced a self in a vacuum, and the self in a vacuum does not thrive.

The developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind spent decades studying what children actually need, not what ideologies claim they need, but what the evidence shows. Her research produced the concept of authoritative parenting: high warmth combined with high structure. Not permissiveness. Not authoritarianism. The combination of genuine care and genuine expectation, the refusal to choose between being loved and being held to something. This is what the sacred category provides at the level of culture. Not the absence of love, but love that makes demands, love that says this matters enough to be protected.

The children being raised in the ruins of the sacred order are not receiving this. They are receiving the permissive culture’s version of care, which is the validation of whatever they currently feel, administered by institutions that have confused the absence of boundaries with the presence of love. They are receiving mirrors when they need walls, and they are expressing the predictable anxiety of children who cannot find the edges of the world.

The edges were the sacred things. We took them down and called it progress.

Part Seven: The Happiness Audit

At some point an ideology must be held to its own promises.

The promise was happiness. Not happiness narrowly construed as pleasure, but in the deeper sense: flourishing, fulfillment, the satisfaction of living a life that coheres, that contains love that lasts, that produces relationships worth having and work worth doing and a self worth being.

Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, economists at the University of Michigan, published a paper in 2009 titled The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness. Using data from the General Social Survey, tracking women’s self-reported happiness from the early 1970s through the 2000s, they found a consistent pattern: despite substantial gains in income, educational attainment, professional opportunity, and legal equality during this period, women’s reported happiness declined. Absolutely, relative to their own earlier reports. And relative to men, who reported stable or slightly improving happiness over the same period.

Stevenson and Wolfers did not draw ideological conclusions from their data. They are not cultural conservatives. They were genuinely puzzled, and the paper is framed as a paradox precisely because the expected result, that objective gains in equality and opportunity would produce subjective gains in wellbeing, did not materialize.

The data is not puzzling if you understand what the sacred category was doing.

The ideology that promised freedom delivered a specific kind of freedom: freedom from obligation, from designation, from the weight of promises that bind the future to the past, from the roles that the ideologists had decided were impositions rather than callings. The women who received this freedom were not asked whether they wanted to be freed from the weight of the sacred. They were told that the weight was oppression and the freedom would feel like liberation.

Many of them felt something else. Something more like loss. The specific loss of things that carried weight, of relationships that were not provisional, of a life organized around something more demanding than personal preference. The loss, in short, of the sacred category and everything it made possible.

The declining happiness data is not an argument for injustice. The specific legal disabilities that motivated the earliest advocates for women’s equality were real and rightly addressed. No serious person argues that women should be denied property rights or educational access or the vote. Those are not the question.

The question is whether the ideology that addressed those specific injustices was actually organized around women’s flourishing, or whether it was organized around something else that used women’s genuine grievances as cover. The question is what the data actually shows about what women need, as opposed to what the ideology decided they needed on their behalf.

The data shows that women who marry, who form stable families, who raise children in intact households, report higher measures of happiness, meaning, and life satisfaction than women who follow the alternative path the ideology constructed for them. This is not a comfortable finding for the ideology. It is therefore not a widely discussed finding. But it is available, and it is consistent, and it does not go away because it is inconvenient.

Part Eight: What the Sacred Was Protecting

Here is what the modern project of desacralization could not understand, or would not, because understanding it would have required revising the premises.

The sacred category was not a prison. It was a container. Specifically, it was the container for the most important things in human life, the things that are most vulnerable to the logic of the market and most damaged by it. Love. Promise. The body in its relational capacity. The name of God. The life of the child. These things cannot survive in the common order because the common order is organized around use, exchange, and preference, and these things are not use-objects. They are persons, relationships, covenants. They require a different order.

Every civilization that produced enduring structures for human flourishing, structures that served not just the generation that built them but the generation after and the generation after that, understood this. They drew the line. They designated certain things as belonging to a different order than ordinary exchange. They said: here is where the market stops. Here is where convenience stops. Here is where personal preference stops and obligation begins.

The lines were not drawn identically in every civilization, and not every civilization drew them with justice. Some drew them in ways that did real harm, that confined real people, that used the sacred as a tool of control rather than a structure of protection. The critique of those specific failures is legitimate and was necessary. The specific injustices deserved to be named and addressed.

But the response to a badly drawn line is not to eliminate the line. It is to draw it better. The response to the misuse of the sacred category is not to abolish the category. It is to recover its proper function. And the proper function is the one that every lasting civilization understood: to protect the things that are too important to survive in the common order from the logic of the common order.

The marriage bed. The promise made before witnesses. The name of God. The body in its covenantal capacity. The child whose life has not yet been expressed in terms of economic utility. These things require the sacred designation not because they are fragile, though they are, but because they are in their nature unsuited to the market. They cannot be priced without being destroyed. They cannot be exchanged without being diminished. They require an order that says: this is not for sale. This is not subject to preference. This belongs to a different kind of account than the one you run on convenience and cost.

When you take down that designation, you do not liberate the things it was protecting. You expose them to a logic that was never designed to handle them, and they are consumed by it, and the people who depended on them are left in a world where nothing carries enough weight to make a life around.

A Closing Word

There is a sentence in the Sermon on the Mount that does not get enough credit for its precision.

Do not give dogs what is sacred. Do not throw your pearls to pigs.

This is not an injunction to be cruel to people you consider inferior. It is an injunction about the nature of the sacred itself. Some things, given to the wrong order, are not preserved in that order. They are destroyed by it. The pig does not protect the pearl. The pig tramples it. Not out of malice. Out of nature. The pearl does not belong in the pig’s world, and placing it there does not elevate the pig. It destroys the pearl.

The things this civilization has been throwing into the common order since the middle of the last century have not been elevated by the throwing. They have been trampled. Not out of anyone’s malice. Out of the nature of the common order, which cannot do for the sacred what the sacred order was built to do.

The people who made the arguments for desacralization were not all bad people. Some of them were responding to genuine injustice. Some of them were motivated by genuine compassion. Good intentions do not guarantee good outcomes. The road to the data we now have was paved with confident assertions that the freedom being purchased was worth the price.

The generation paying the price was not consulted.

They are in the psychiatrist’s offices and the loneliness statistics and the declining marriage rates and the falling fertility numbers and the clinical studies on meaninglessness that proliferate faster than the therapeutic culture can manage their results.

They are the fruit. The ideology planted the tree. Judge accordingly.

We stopped treating important things as important. And gradually, predictably, and at great cost, they stopped being important. And when enough important things stopped being important, life itself began to feel, for a great number of people, pointless.

This is not a complicated diagnosis. It is, in fact, the diagnosis that every serious civilization made before us, in the accumulated wisdom encoded in their sacred designations, their covenants, their interdictions, the lines they drew and held at cost because they understood that the cost of not drawing them was higher.

We stopped listening to them. We called their wisdom oppression. We tore down their lines and called it liberation.

The question the data now puts to us is simple.

Does this look like freedom to you?

A Note on Sources: Research referenced in this piece includes the work of Émile Durkheim, particularly The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912); Roger Scruton, The Face of God (2012) and The Soul of the World (2014); Philip Rieff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic (1966); Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind (2012); Jean Twenge, iGen (2017); Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness (2009); Diana Baumrind’s parenting research, particularly The Influence of Parenting Style on Adolescent Competence and Substance Use (1991); Valerie Voon et al., Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours (2014); Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy (2017); and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health.

Leave a comment

Share

If you value unflinching, historically grounded analysis that mainstream outlets soften or ignore, consider upgrading. Paid subscribers get:

• Several new, full-length articles every week.

  Carefully researched pieces you won’t find elsewhere.

• Full access to the complete premium archive

  Archive of in-depth writing, research, and commentary — all in one place.

• Entry into the subscriber chat

  A private space for serious readers and thoughtful discussion.

A. C. Rosenthal

A.C. Rosenthal is a self-taught writer, researcher, and theologian working at the intersection of history, philosophy, and culture. He is the author of The Carpenter's Son and the Imam's Son, The God that they rejected Isn't Real.

acrosenthal.com/

https://thetwomuhammadscurriculum.thinkific.com/

Subscribe now