Welcome to my new series on the belief system known as Antifa.
If you’re a parent or student, you might be wondering: What do the Antifa professors on my campus actually believe? Why are they pushing communism?
My goal in this first installment is to explain their ideological foundation—how they think the world works—so that you can recognize their framework, understand their appeal, and ultimately see why it collapses under its own weight. This helps you see that such professors, for all of their study, have failed to become wise and cannot explain the basics of reality.
In the next part, we’ll expose the rational incoherence of that foundation. The public refutation of any movement takes away its influence over the minds of its adherents and potential converts once it is exposed as incoherent—when it’s shown to make no sense whatsoever. Its initial appeal, grounded in teenage angst and sin, dissipates went the adult wants wisdom instead of folly.
One of the best resources for understanding the Antifa movement from its own perspective is the 2017 book Antifa: The Antifascist Handbook written by Mark Bray.[1] In it, Bray says: “This book takes seriously the transhistorical terror of fascism and the power of conjuring the dead when fighting back. It is an unabashedly partisan call to arms that aims to equip a new generation of anti-fascists with the history and theory necessary to defeat the resurgent Far Right.”[2]
1. The Organizing Idea: “Oppression”
Every worldview has a core idea that organizes its moral and political vision. For Antifa, that concept is oppression.
To understand their appeal, you have to see that there’s always some admixture of truth—a kernel of reality—that draws people in. This one especially appeals to our sin and natural desire to cry, “life’s not fair.” Because we are made in the image of God we have a natural desire for justice. But our sin corrupts this into a merely materialistic justice.
Here’s what Antifa affirms, in their own way:
- We are born into systems over which we have no control.
- Those systems are mixed with moral evil.
- In every system, there are groups who are “marginalized”—used by the system but denied its benefits.
- In every system, others are born into privilege they didn’t earn and use it to preserve their power.
Even Jim Morrison captured the mood:
“Into this world we’re thrown, into this house we’re born.”
It does seem unfair that some benefit from the lottery of birth while others suffer. These aren’t new insights—they’re ancient philosophical questions about justice, responsibility, and fate. They press us to think, “Are the economic advantages of life really our highest good, or is there something even better than money and status?” The problem isn’t the questions Antifa raises. It’s their answers.
The problem isn’t the questions Antifa raises. It’s their answers.
2. The Marxist “Solution”
Antifa’s answers are, quite simply, catastrophically incoherent. Generally speaking, theirs are the answers of the French and Communist Revolutions. Rousseau, the French philosopher who laid the philosophical groundwork for the revolutionary spirit, taught that humans are born good and crime is an invention of society due to private property. “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.”
Similarly, Antifa believes that through violent revolution they can overthrow the oppressive system and rebuild a materialistic utopia of communal living. Bray tells us, “Despite the various shades of interpretation, antifa should not be understood as a single-issue movement. Instead, it is simply one of a number of manifestations of revolutionary socialist politics (broadly construed).”[3] Anything that gets in the way of the socialist revolution, even small government constitutionalism, is “fascist.”
According to Antifa, anything that gets in the way of the socialist revolution, even small government constitutionalism, is “fascist.”
From their initial complaint about inequality, they leap into revolutionary nihilism by implementing old-fashioned Marxist materialism dressed up in radical chic:
- Burn down the existing system—it cannot be reformed, only destroyed.
- Replace it with the standard communist formula: redistribution of wealth and state control of production.
The modern twist is that their Marxism has become decentered and nihilistic, following the ideas of Michel Foucault rather than Joseph Stalin. They still want to overthrow all order, but they prefer to use chaos, bureaucracy, and “cultural revolution” instead of centralized Soviet power.[4]
Bray links the “anti-racism” movement championed by figures like the disgraced Ibram X. Kendi with the LGBTQ+ and decolonizing movements, and all under the umbrella of anti-racism.[5] In other words, all of the causes the radical university professors advocate in university classes across the nation.
That said, they’re always willing to use a government—when it suits their purposes—to impose their ideology on everyone else. This is why they are so sensitive to the appearance that someone else might do it. “The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.” In their view, there are only two options, communists and fascists, or international socialists and national socialists—both are radical leftist ideologies.
3. The Religious Core of a “Materialist” Movement
Despite claiming to be materialists, Antifa offers its adherents an unmistakably religious outlook. This can be seen in the zeal with which they pursue their goals and the strength of fideism by which they believe themselves to be justified. They are anarchists and decentralized but we can still define those terms to see what holds the group together even if it is in a loose sense.
“Antifa should not be understood as a single-issue movement. Instead, it is simply one of a number of manifestations of revolutionary socialist politics (broadly construed). Most of the anti-fascists I interviewed also spend a great deal of their time on other forms of politics (e.g., labor organizing, squatting, environmental activism, antiwar mobilization, or migrant solidarity work).”[6]
Like all cults, they are organized around an “us vs. them” mentality where the “them” are outsiders, followers, sheep, who cannot understand. And because “they” cannot understand, the focus for Antifa is not rational persuasion but “community organizing” to “resist.”
Marx borrowed heavily from Christianity. He gave his own version of the fall and redemption. The fall occurred when private property was introduced, the fallen system is the capitalist exploitation of workers, and redemption occurs (and the millennium is introduced) when the workers of the world unite to overflow that system and replace it with their own.
The materialism of the movement can be found in its often overt anti-Christian, anti-God rhetoric. But it is also present in the absence of anything transcendent when the movement presents its utopian views. The human is a mere evolved animal that is to live in a materialist paradise where its material needs are met. The “revolution” is the only thing that gives the adherents of this religion any hope of a “cause” that transcends their lives and gives some appearance of meaning to their existence. This is why it has such a cult-like zealotry.
4. The “Authenticity” Creed
Their moral ideal is “authenticity.” They teach “existence precedes essence,” meaning you exist first and then define who you are. Echoing Sartre, Foucault said, “It’s my hypothesis that the individual is not a pre-given entity which is seized on by the exercise of power. The individual, with his identity and characteristics, is the product of a relation of power exercised over bodies, multiplicities, movements, desires, forces.”[7] That’s why they attach themselves to the LGBTQ+ movement—because both rest on the same principle: the will to power.
To be “authentic” means to exert your will, to define yourself, to reject all external authority. Again, Foucault said “The relationships we have to have with ourselves are not ones of identity, rather they must be relationships of differentiation, of creation, of innovation. To be the same is really boring.”[8]
This rejection of authority is also why the movement is anti-intellectual at its core. It abandons the authority of reason, dismisses logic as “oppressive” or “logocentric,” and replaces truth with the mantra: “Do what thou wilt.”
This is also applies to means/ends reasoning. All means are justifiable for the end sought by the radical. Saul Alinsky tells us, “If you actively opposed the Nazi occupation and joined the underground Resistance, then you adopted the means of assassination, terror, property destruction, the bombing of tunnels and trains, kidnapping, and the willingness to sacrifice innocent hostages to the end of defeating the Nazis.”[9] There are not “rules” for radicals; they are justified, in their own eyes, to do anything that achieves their goals. If they label their opponent a “Nazi,” as we hear the radical left doing with Charlie Kirk and other conservatives, then they are justified to stop him at all costs.
5. The Luciferian Inspiration
Their own mentors don’t hide their allegiance. For example, in Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky’s handbook for modern activism, dedicates itself to the first radical—Lucifer. There, he says, “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”[10]
That’s no metaphor. They admire the arch-rebel. Whether or not they think there is a being named “Lucifer,” they worship him as their “light-bearer.” They would rather, as Milton’s Satan put it, “rule in hell than serve in heaven.”
Their concept of being “oppressed” even includes living under God’s law—because to them, God’s authority itself is oppression. Saul Alinsky says, “The Revolutionary Force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, ‘Burn the system down!’ They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world.”[11] They are idealists but without Christ and therefore without any restraint. They see the “system” as structurally racist and bigoted and not worth saving.
They would rather invent their own morality, even if it leads to ruin. The community organizer of Alinksy is to be a political relativist, and Machiavellian, who will use any means necessary to achieve his end. Nothing is off the table.[12]
The technical word for this is “heteronomy.” They opposed any law that originates outside of themselves. But their mistake is that God’s law is written on our hearts. It is a description of our being. God’s law describes the choices we must make to achieve what is best for us as humans. Seeing this, some are willing to take the step of denying their humanity and identifying as animals.
Alinksy goes on to teach about how to be a community organizer. Here he is very clear about the radical’s intentions: “The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach—to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God.”[13] l think of Lucifer as the Phoenix who is cast from heavens, only to rise again in the flames and create his own reality. These radicals are clear that this is their hero and their own aspiration.
6. Be Free in the U.S.A.
The sad irony is that those with communist leanings are nowhere more free to live that out than in the United States. Throughout our history, utopian groups have set up shop to show the rest of us how it is done.
In the United States, you’re free to voluntarily start a commune with others who are like-minded. Many have done this over the last few centuries. Such communes regularly fail disastrously, but you’ll still find groups that try again.
The keyword here is “voluntary.” In the United States, you can work together with others who voluntarily decide to do so. But the French and Marxist revolutionaries want to force everyone else to do it their way.
The United States is built on the idea of rational persuasion. That’s why we began our history with a Declaration of Independence where we presented an argument to the world. By comparison, the American revolution was far less bloody than any of the revolutions that followed. Our goal was not to destroy the British system, but to defend ourselves as having a right to our own system.
When a philosophy is essentially irrational, like that coming out of Marxism, it tends to hate the idea of rational arguments.[14] Instead, it seeks to force others to conform. That is why Antifa does not want to work within a system to change it, but wants to instead overthrow it.
7. What This Reveals
Once you understand these ideas, the Antifa professor’s worldview becomes predictable:
- They see the world as an evil system that must be destroyed.
- They justify rebellion as liberation.
- And they redefine good and evil as power and weakness.
Their entire life’s work rests on shifting sand—a rebellion disguised as moral compassion. Their “system” is built on falsehoods and misunderstandings of reality.
It’s easy to convince people that they are oppressed and that life is unfair. That’s the seductive power of sin: the allure of rebellion.
What’s far more difficult—and far more valuable—is to pursue truth: to see the world as it really is, to understand our fallen condition, and to find redemption not in revolution, but in Christ.
Antifa has nothing lasting to offer its followers. It reduces human life to the material and promises a utopia it cannot deliver. To find meaning in life, we must come to know what is transcendent.
Next in the series:
In Part 2, we’ll examine the logical and moral contradictions in Antifa’s worldview—and show why their system not only fails philosophically but collapses under its own claim to justice.
Bibliography
- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York: Vintage Books, 1971), at: https://ia801202.us.archive.org/28/items/RulesForRadicals/RulesForRadicals.pdf
- Mark Bray, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook (Brooklyn, NY: Melville House, 2017),
at: https://files.libcom.org/files/Antifa%2C%20The%20Anti-Fascist%20Handbook.pdf
- Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), “Examining Extremism: Antifa,” (CSIS Briefs, 2021), at: Available at: https://www.csis.org/analysis/examining-extremism-antifa
- George Washington University Program on Extremism, “Anarchist/Left-Wing Violent Extremism in America,” (Washington, D.C.: GWU, 2021), Available at: https://extremism.gwu.edu/
- Ruth Kinna, “Heretical Constructions of Anarchist Utopianism,” Utopian Studies 15, no. 2 (2004), 97–121, at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20718631
- Sophie Scott-Brown, “Utopian Anti-Utopianism: Rethinking Cold War Liberalism through British Anarchism,” Intellectual History Review (2025), at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2025.xxxxxx
- Murray Bookchin, “Anarchism: Past, Present, and Utopia,” in The Anarchist Papers, Dimitrios Roussopoulos, ed (Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1980), at: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-anarchism-past-present-and-utopia
- Marty Tomszak, “Anti-Fascism as Constitutive of the Gospel Ethic,” Political Theology Symposium (Political Theology Network, 2024), at: https://politicaltheology.com/symposium/anti-fascism-as-constitutive-of-the-gospel-ethic
- Acton Institute, “Five Facts about Antifa,” Acton Institute (Religion & Liberty Online, 2017), at: https://rlo.acton.org/archives/97805-5-facts-about-antifa.html
References:
[1] Mark Bray, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook (Brooklyn, NY: Melville House, 2017), xii.
[2] Bray, xii
[3] Bray, xvi
[4] Editor’s Note: In this way, Antifa is a decentralized, organized around different hubs of anarchist and marxist radicals, rather than a strict centralized hierarchy of power. In recent weeks, some voices on the left have argued that Antifa isn’t an “organization” but a leaderless ideology. But it’s naïve to think that a terrorist group cannot also be an ideology or that it would need a centralized power structure to exist. For an argument against antifa’s “terrorist group status,” see, Luke Baumgartner [interview], “What is Antifa and why Trump calls it a Terrorist Group?” [Video] Public Broadcasting System (23 September 2025) at: https://www.pbs.org/video/targeting-antifa-1758662072/
[5] Bray, xvi, xxii, 46-7, 93, et al.
[6] Ibid, xvii.
[7] Michel Foucault, “The Subject and Power” (1982), The Foucault Reader, edited by Paul Rabinow (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984), pg. 214.
in Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, edited by Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, 2nd ed. (University of Chicago Press, 1983), pages 208–226.
[8] Michel Foucault “Sex, Power and the Politics of Identity” [interview] (1982), in The Essential Works of Michel Foucault, Volume 1: Ethics, Subjectivity, and Truth, edited by Paul Rabinow, ed., Robert Hurley, trans., (New York: The New Press, 1997), 162.
[9] Saul Alinski, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (New York: Vintage Books, 1971), 27.
[10] Alinski, ix.
[11]Ibid, xiv.
[12] Ibid, 79.
[13] Ibid, 61.
[14] Editor’s Note: Rather than treating reason as a principled methodology, with reality and truth being an objective judge between competing parties, Antifa – with it’s Marxist and Machiavellian roots – tends to treat truth as optional, and reason as disposable. Reason is, for them, a mere tool, to be used for pragmatic purposes when it suits one’s interests, but its readily discarded whenever it begins to work against antifascist aims. For antifa (and disciples of Alinski), power is the guiding principle, leaving reason/rationality is merely a pragmatic tool to be used, abused, and discarded, in service to the greater pursuit of power. Truth itself is seen as sophisticated tool of oppression under the current hegemony. This anti-realistic stance stems not from Antifa’s Marxist roots but rather from it’s postmodern influence, via critical theory, wherein reality itself is seen as a malleable social construct rather than an objective reference point for adjudicating between competing claims.
Recommended Resources:
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )
You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)
Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.
A version of this blog was originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4hGcv08
The Persecution of Christians on Campus
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics[Editor’s Note: “The point of peak persecution on American soil is the University” – John Ferrer. This article from Christian Apologetics professor and high school Bible teacher, Steve Lee has been his passion project spanning most of his teaching career at the high school and college level. Over the past 14 years, this list of anti-Christian incidents has steadily grown with the most recent example being perhaps the most significant religious and political assassination in this generation: Charlie Kirk’s shooting at the Utah Valley University.
Readers should note that this list is not exhaustive. There are many more examples beyond this list. Also, these persecution events on U.S. college campuses is not intended for petty games of comparison, as if our persecution is more important than someone else’s. No, this is just an attempt to be honest about the kind of environment that young people are going into when they go to college. If the last 5 years have taught us anything about Campus life, it’s that college can be a slaughterhouse for immature, half-hearted, and shallow ‘Christians.’ And even for mature, and motivated young Christians, or even professors and administrators, sometimes administration and oppressive policies can still do a lot of spiritual damage. A major motivation for teaching apologetics is to prevent that from happened by raising up smart, savvy, committed Christians who can stand against oppressive speech policies, restrictive event policies, or even over anti-Christian behavior.
There are still tons of solid Christian clubs, local churches, and even some Christian professors who can help students make it through the gauntlet of university life. But, the point is that persecution is real, and Christian students have a better chance of standing up straight if they can brace for impact]
Being a professional student and spending over fourteen years in undergraduate and graduate education and another seven years as a professor at the collegiate level, it is disappointing to see the anti-Christian bias that is found on the college campus today. Instances have ranged from prohibiting Christian clubs from requiring their leaders (not members), their leaders to be Christian, to being shouted down in class for endorsing Christian views (and of late, being shot for discussing one’s Christian convictions). The rise of anti-Christian bias on campus is evident. Granted, many of the instances listed here are in no way comparable to what Christians are facing around the world, but an indicator of the rise of this attitude was found in a 2007 study by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research concerning anti-Semitism on-campus. Rather than finding anti-Semitism, the Institute discovered that 53% of college professors admitted to “unfavorable” feelings about evangelical Christians. No other religious group (including Muslims) was even close to this number.
Below are some instances of these “unfavorable” feelings about Christians on college and university campuses today:
See the 96 Examples of Christian Persecution
on US Colleges and University Campuses
Page 1 – #87-96
Page 2 – #1-85
Recommended Resources:
If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas
J. Steve Lee has taught Apologetics for over two and a half decades at Prestonwood Christian Academy. He also has taught World Religions and Philosophy at Mountain View College in Dallas and Collin College in Plano. With a degree in history and education from the University of North Texas, Steve continued his formal studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a M.A. in philosophy of religion and has pursued doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Dallas and is finishing his dissertation at South African Theological Seminary. He has published several articles for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students as well as articles and book reviews in various periodicals including Philosophia Christi, Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics, and the Areopagus Journal. Having an abiding love for fantasy fiction, Steve has contributed chapters to two books on literary criticism of Harry Potter: Harry Potter for Nerds and Teaching with Harry Potter. He even appeared as a guest on the podcast MuggleNet Academia (“Lesson 23: There and Back Again-Chiasmus, Alchemy, and Ring Composition in Harry Potter”). He is married to his lovely wife, Angela, and has two grown boys, Ethan and Josh.
Originally Posted Here: https://bit.ly/49kuGG4
Jesus in the Old Testament? Look for These Clues! Plus Q&A
PodcastWhat did Jesus mean when He said the Old Testament was all about Him? Frank continues his discussion from a previous podcast episode about typology and prophetic symbols of Jesus found in the Old Testament, based largely on his new Bible study series, ‘The Bible You Never Knew’. This week, he answers questions like:
Later, Frank answers listener questions about:
Also, be sure to tune-in on Friday for an interview with special guest, Robby Starbuck!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
Just Asking Questions: A Response to Candace Owens (Allie Beth Stuckey)
Candace Owens, Discernment, and the Crisis of Critical Thinking (Alisa Childers)
Is THIS One of the Strongest Evidences for the Bible?
Inside the Antifa Mind, Part 1: The Myth of Oppression
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsWelcome to my new series on the belief system known as Antifa.
If you’re a parent or student, you might be wondering: What do the Antifa professors on my campus actually believe? Why are they pushing communism?
My goal in this first installment is to explain their ideological foundation—how they think the world works—so that you can recognize their framework, understand their appeal, and ultimately see why it collapses under its own weight. This helps you see that such professors, for all of their study, have failed to become wise and cannot explain the basics of reality.
In the next part, we’ll expose the rational incoherence of that foundation. The public refutation of any movement takes away its influence over the minds of its adherents and potential converts once it is exposed as incoherent—when it’s shown to make no sense whatsoever. Its initial appeal, grounded in teenage angst and sin, dissipates went the adult wants wisdom instead of folly.
One of the best resources for understanding the Antifa movement from its own perspective is the 2017 book Antifa: The Antifascist Handbook written by Mark Bray.[1] In it, Bray says: “This book takes seriously the transhistorical terror of fascism and the power of conjuring the dead when fighting back. It is an unabashedly partisan call to arms that aims to equip a new generation of anti-fascists with the history and theory necessary to defeat the resurgent Far Right.”[2]
1. The Organizing Idea: “Oppression”
Every worldview has a core idea that organizes its moral and political vision. For Antifa, that concept is oppression.
To understand their appeal, you have to see that there’s always some admixture of truth—a kernel of reality—that draws people in. This one especially appeals to our sin and natural desire to cry, “life’s not fair.” Because we are made in the image of God we have a natural desire for justice. But our sin corrupts this into a merely materialistic justice.
Here’s what Antifa affirms, in their own way:
Even Jim Morrison captured the mood:
“Into this world we’re thrown, into this house we’re born.”
It does seem unfair that some benefit from the lottery of birth while others suffer. These aren’t new insights—they’re ancient philosophical questions about justice, responsibility, and fate. They press us to think, “Are the economic advantages of life really our highest good, or is there something even better than money and status?” The problem isn’t the questions Antifa raises. It’s their answers.
2. The Marxist “Solution”
Antifa’s answers are, quite simply, catastrophically incoherent. Generally speaking, theirs are the answers of the French and Communist Revolutions. Rousseau, the French philosopher who laid the philosophical groundwork for the revolutionary spirit, taught that humans are born good and crime is an invention of society due to private property. “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.”
Similarly, Antifa believes that through violent revolution they can overthrow the oppressive system and rebuild a materialistic utopia of communal living. Bray tells us, “Despite the various shades of interpretation, antifa should not be understood as a single-issue movement. Instead, it is simply one of a number of manifestations of revolutionary socialist politics (broadly construed).”[3] Anything that gets in the way of the socialist revolution, even small government constitutionalism, is “fascist.”
From their initial complaint about inequality, they leap into revolutionary nihilism by implementing old-fashioned Marxist materialism dressed up in radical chic:
The modern twist is that their Marxism has become decentered and nihilistic, following the ideas of Michel Foucault rather than Joseph Stalin. They still want to overthrow all order, but they prefer to use chaos, bureaucracy, and “cultural revolution” instead of centralized Soviet power.[4]
Bray links the “anti-racism” movement championed by figures like the disgraced Ibram X. Kendi with the LGBTQ+ and decolonizing movements, and all under the umbrella of anti-racism.[5] In other words, all of the causes the radical university professors advocate in university classes across the nation.
That said, they’re always willing to use a government—when it suits their purposes—to impose their ideology on everyone else. This is why they are so sensitive to the appearance that someone else might do it. “The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.” In their view, there are only two options, communists and fascists, or international socialists and national socialists—both are radical leftist ideologies.
3. The Religious Core of a “Materialist” Movement
Despite claiming to be materialists, Antifa offers its adherents an unmistakably religious outlook. This can be seen in the zeal with which they pursue their goals and the strength of fideism by which they believe themselves to be justified. They are anarchists and decentralized but we can still define those terms to see what holds the group together even if it is in a loose sense.
Like all cults, they are organized around an “us vs. them” mentality where the “them” are outsiders, followers, sheep, who cannot understand. And because “they” cannot understand, the focus for Antifa is not rational persuasion but “community organizing” to “resist.”
Marx borrowed heavily from Christianity. He gave his own version of the fall and redemption. The fall occurred when private property was introduced, the fallen system is the capitalist exploitation of workers, and redemption occurs (and the millennium is introduced) when the workers of the world unite to overflow that system and replace it with their own.
The materialism of the movement can be found in its often overt anti-Christian, anti-God rhetoric. But it is also present in the absence of anything transcendent when the movement presents its utopian views. The human is a mere evolved animal that is to live in a materialist paradise where its material needs are met. The “revolution” is the only thing that gives the adherents of this religion any hope of a “cause” that transcends their lives and gives some appearance of meaning to their existence. This is why it has such a cult-like zealotry.
4. The “Authenticity” Creed
Their moral ideal is “authenticity.” They teach “existence precedes essence,” meaning you exist first and then define who you are. Echoing Sartre, Foucault said, “It’s my hypothesis that the individual is not a pre-given entity which is seized on by the exercise of power. The individual, with his identity and characteristics, is the product of a relation of power exercised over bodies, multiplicities, movements, desires, forces.”[7] That’s why they attach themselves to the LGBTQ+ movement—because both rest on the same principle: the will to power.
To be “authentic” means to exert your will, to define yourself, to reject all external authority. Again, Foucault said “The relationships we have to have with ourselves are not ones of identity, rather they must be relationships of differentiation, of creation, of innovation. To be the same is really boring.”[8]
This rejection of authority is also why the movement is anti-intellectual at its core. It abandons the authority of reason, dismisses logic as “oppressive” or “logocentric,” and replaces truth with the mantra: “Do what thou wilt.”
This is also applies to means/ends reasoning. All means are justifiable for the end sought by the radical. Saul Alinsky tells us, “If you actively opposed the Nazi occupation and joined the underground Resistance, then you adopted the means of assassination, terror, property destruction, the bombing of tunnels and trains, kidnapping, and the willingness to sacrifice innocent hostages to the end of defeating the Nazis.”[9] There are not “rules” for radicals; they are justified, in their own eyes, to do anything that achieves their goals. If they label their opponent a “Nazi,” as we hear the radical left doing with Charlie Kirk and other conservatives, then they are justified to stop him at all costs.
5. The Luciferian Inspiration
Their own mentors don’t hide their allegiance. For example, in Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky’s handbook for modern activism, dedicates itself to the first radical—Lucifer. There, he says, “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”[10]
That’s no metaphor. They admire the arch-rebel. Whether or not they think there is a being named “Lucifer,” they worship him as their “light-bearer.” They would rather, as Milton’s Satan put it, “rule in hell than serve in heaven.”
Their concept of being “oppressed” even includes living under God’s law—because to them, God’s authority itself is oppression. Saul Alinsky says, “The Revolutionary Force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, ‘Burn the system down!’ They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world.”[11] They are idealists but without Christ and therefore without any restraint. They see the “system” as structurally racist and bigoted and not worth saving.
They would rather invent their own morality, even if it leads to ruin. The community organizer of Alinksy is to be a political relativist, and Machiavellian, who will use any means necessary to achieve his end. Nothing is off the table.[12]
The technical word for this is “heteronomy.” They opposed any law that originates outside of themselves. But their mistake is that God’s law is written on our hearts. It is a description of our being. God’s law describes the choices we must make to achieve what is best for us as humans. Seeing this, some are willing to take the step of denying their humanity and identifying as animals.
Alinksy goes on to teach about how to be a community organizer. Here he is very clear about the radical’s intentions: “The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach—to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God.”[13] l think of Lucifer as the Phoenix who is cast from heavens, only to rise again in the flames and create his own reality. These radicals are clear that this is their hero and their own aspiration.
6. Be Free in the U.S.A.
The sad irony is that those with communist leanings are nowhere more free to live that out than in the United States. Throughout our history, utopian groups have set up shop to show the rest of us how it is done.
In the United States, you’re free to voluntarily start a commune with others who are like-minded. Many have done this over the last few centuries. Such communes regularly fail disastrously, but you’ll still find groups that try again.
The keyword here is “voluntary.” In the United States, you can work together with others who voluntarily decide to do so. But the French and Marxist revolutionaries want to force everyone else to do it their way.
The United States is built on the idea of rational persuasion. That’s why we began our history with a Declaration of Independence where we presented an argument to the world. By comparison, the American revolution was far less bloody than any of the revolutions that followed. Our goal was not to destroy the British system, but to defend ourselves as having a right to our own system.
When a philosophy is essentially irrational, like that coming out of Marxism, it tends to hate the idea of rational arguments.[14] Instead, it seeks to force others to conform. That is why Antifa does not want to work within a system to change it, but wants to instead overthrow it.
7. What This Reveals
Once you understand these ideas, the Antifa professor’s worldview becomes predictable:
Their entire life’s work rests on shifting sand—a rebellion disguised as moral compassion. Their “system” is built on falsehoods and misunderstandings of reality.
It’s easy to convince people that they are oppressed and that life is unfair. That’s the seductive power of sin: the allure of rebellion.
What’s far more difficult—and far more valuable—is to pursue truth: to see the world as it really is, to understand our fallen condition, and to find redemption not in revolution, but in Christ.
Antifa has nothing lasting to offer its followers. It reduces human life to the material and promises a utopia it cannot deliver. To find meaning in life, we must come to know what is transcendent.
Next in the series:
In Part 2, we’ll examine the logical and moral contradictions in Antifa’s worldview—and show why their system not only fails philosophically but collapses under its own claim to justice.
Bibliography
at: https://files.libcom.org/files/Antifa%2C%20The%20Anti-Fascist%20Handbook.pdf
References:
[1] Mark Bray, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook (Brooklyn, NY: Melville House, 2017), xii.
[2] Bray, xii
[3] Bray, xvi
[4] Editor’s Note: In this way, Antifa is a decentralized, organized around different hubs of anarchist and marxist radicals, rather than a strict centralized hierarchy of power. In recent weeks, some voices on the left have argued that Antifa isn’t an “organization” but a leaderless ideology. But it’s naïve to think that a terrorist group cannot also be an ideology or that it would need a centralized power structure to exist. For an argument against antifa’s “terrorist group status,” see, Luke Baumgartner [interview], “What is Antifa and why Trump calls it a Terrorist Group?” [Video] Public Broadcasting System (23 September 2025) at: https://www.pbs.org/video/targeting-antifa-1758662072/
[5] Bray, xvi, xxii, 46-7, 93, et al.
[6] Ibid, xvii.
[7] Michel Foucault, “The Subject and Power” (1982), The Foucault Reader, edited by Paul Rabinow (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984), pg. 214.
in Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, edited by Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, 2nd ed. (University of Chicago Press, 1983), pages 208–226.
[8] Michel Foucault “Sex, Power and the Politics of Identity” [interview] (1982), in The Essential Works of Michel Foucault, Volume 1: Ethics, Subjectivity, and Truth, edited by Paul Rabinow, ed., Robert Hurley, trans., (New York: The New Press, 1997), 162.
[9] Saul Alinski, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (New York: Vintage Books, 1971), 27.
[10] Alinski, ix.
[11]Ibid, xiv.
[12] Ibid, 79.
[13] Ibid, 61.
[14] Editor’s Note: Rather than treating reason as a principled methodology, with reality and truth being an objective judge between competing parties, Antifa – with it’s Marxist and Machiavellian roots – tends to treat truth as optional, and reason as disposable. Reason is, for them, a mere tool, to be used for pragmatic purposes when it suits one’s interests, but its readily discarded whenever it begins to work against antifascist aims. For antifa (and disciples of Alinski), power is the guiding principle, leaving reason/rationality is merely a pragmatic tool to be used, abused, and discarded, in service to the greater pursuit of power. Truth itself is seen as sophisticated tool of oppression under the current hegemony. This anti-realistic stance stems not from Antifa’s Marxist roots but rather from it’s postmodern influence, via critical theory, wherein reality itself is seen as a malleable social construct rather than an objective reference point for adjudicating between competing claims.
Recommended Resources:
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )
You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)
Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.
A version of this blog was originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4hGcv08
Time to Suit Up! Bringing HOPE to Utah Valley Univ. with Pastor Greg Laurie
PodcastIn a world of constant tragedy and heartache, where is hope? Frank sits down with Pastor Greg Laurie, one of today’s most recognizable voices in evangelism and the driving force behind Harvest Crusades, large-scale evangelistic events which have led millions to Christ since 1990.
Together, they discuss Greg’s powerful conversion story, his upcoming crusade coming to the site of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Utah Valley University, this Sunday (11/16), and how the saving grace of Jesus brings joy and purpose to our lives even through unimaginable pain. They answer questions like:
Friends, keep praying for the protection and spiritual guidance of leaders like Frank and Greg. And pray for thousands of hearts to accept the saving grace of Jesus Christ during the Harvest Crusade this Sunday (11/16) at Utah Valley University. Jesus is coming soon and the devil knows his days are numbered. In the meantime, he continues to wreak havoc on the world. But fear will never silence the Gospel. Like Pastor Greg says, “Don’t freak out, suit up!”
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
Harvest.org
Harvest Crusade: Hope for America – UVU Event Details
Frank’s Speech Plus Q&A at UC Berkeley
UC Berkeley TPUSA Event on Rumble
The Contradiction In Demanding Extraordinary Evidence
CrossExaminedMy last post discussed some of the problems with demanding “extraordinary” evidence before considering the possibility that an extraordinary event – like the Resurrection of Jesus – actually did occur. Setting artificial standards for evidence, I argued, does little to advance the goal of determining the truth.
Skeptics often respond by insisting that nothing short of the miraculous will convince them of the existence of God. After all, they reason, if God did exist, would he not expect us to use the mind he gave us to come to our own conclusions about reality, conclusions based not on what others tell us but upon evidence and reason? Would he not expect us to work to separate fact from fantasy, and not just accept what someone else believes?
When pressed, the skeptic will often provide examples for the kinds of proof that would cause them to shift their thinking, such as:
These examples of “adequate” proof all share the quality of being “extraordinary.” Faced with such evidence, many more – though I would submit not all – would have a conversion experience. Since God performed such extraordinary acts in antiquity, the skeptic wonders whether it is asking too much that he perform these same types of acts for all people at all times in all places.
The first step in assessing this challenge is to consider whether God has an adequate reason for not addressing each of us in a direct and unambiguous way. Why doesn’t God write us an email each day that makes his will known? The answer, I suspect, has to do with the Fall – as a result of which God removed himself from direct contact with us – and from the fact that he actually does intend us to use our intellect to move towards him. To better know, and experience and understand him requires not a one-sentence tag line – “You should take that job. /s/ God” – but a conscious effort of the will to solve the puzzles of life, of revelation, of awareness of God in our lives. That this is achievable requires little more than perusing a book on the lives of the saints.
But at a deeper level, the skeptic who insists on such direct communication is betraying the very commitment to rationality that he pretends to have. The skeptic insists he cannot just believe “on faith” and that he expects that a God who gave us a mind would expect that we use it. Christians agree. In fact, many passages in Scripture reaffirm Jesus’ admonition that we are to love God with all of our minds. In placing trust in the Biblical account of reality, Christians use a rational process known as abduction – reasoning from inferences to a logical conclusion – piecing together dozens of bits of information to see where they lead. This process is an example of how rationality works.
By contrast, despite their asserted reliance on rational thinking, skeptics insist 1) that the evidence be “extraordinary” (whatever that means) and 2) that nothing short of a direct contact by God would suffice. Do they not realize that the intellect isn’t necessary if one’s expectations are set to that level? Even the person of below normal intelligence would be able to conclude “God Is” with such evidence and without any use of rational thinking. Reasoning from evidence to a conclusion would simply not be necessary.
The skeptic’s position is like that of a juror who refuses to convict the murderer because there was no confession, or no video of the killing as it took place. But killers always leave some evidence behind, and piecing together the bits and pieces of that trail allows for a thoughtful, rational person to find guilt regardless of the killer’s silence. Now, the skeptic may object that God should not try to hide, the way the killer does. No matter. Use a different example. Many of the greatest discoveries of science – for instance, unlocking the secrets of the atom – required effort to uncover the reality that lies beneath the surface. If scientists waited for an instruction manual to appear written into the canals of Mars, or printed on the cell, we would still be lighting fires to illuminate our caves. In any other pursuit of knowledge and understanding, the thoughtful person understands that the answers will not always be clear, and that reasoning to best conclusions is a viable way of attaining knowledge. Why should it be any different when it comes to knowledge of God? What is too easily obtained is often too little valued.
The skeptic sets impossible standards because he is trying to find reasons to reject what is patently obvious to most people who ever lived – created things require a Creator. Christians take this knowledge to a deeper level, placing confidence in their conclusion that this Creator revealed himself in the pages of the Bible. In so doing, Christians rely on reason.
It is the skeptic, with his impossibly high demands, that refuses to.
Recommended Resources:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.
UC Berkeley Update – Plus Q&A on Two Messiahs and More
PodcastWhat happened last night at UC Berkeley? Frank gives a report from the road followed by listener Q&A about Jesus being the Messiah.
If Jesus is really the Messiah, why isn’t there peace on earth? And if He conquered death the first time, why does He need to come again? In this midweek episode, Frank responds to a heartfelt question from a secular Jewish listener living in New York City who wants to know the truth about Jesus. Along the way, he unpacks powerful Messianic prophecies and answers questions like:
Later in the program, Frank also answers:
If you’re looking for practical ways to engage both Jews and skeptics with the truth of Jesus as the ONE and ONLY Messiah, this episode is for you!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined.org
TPUSA Presents ‘This is the Turning Point’ at UC Berkeley – 11/10/2025
Two Messiahs in Judaism: Ben David and Ben Joseph
The Real Messiah
Debate: Was Jesus the Jewish Messiah?
Bringing Jews to Jesus? with Jeff Morgan
So Be It – Jews for Jesus YouTube channel
Watchman Fellowship
Charlie Kirk Conspiract Theories? Homicide Detective Speaks Out
Charlie Kirk Conspiracy Theories That Lead to Death Threats
The Bible Tells Us That We Need Apologetics
Theology and Christian ApologeticsPaul met the Lord on a road (Acts 9:1-9), Peter fell down before him by the sea (Luke 5:1-11), the Ethiopian eunuch came to him after having the scriptures explained to him (Acts 8:26-40), and the man possessed by a legion of demons believed after experiencing a liberating miracle on his life (Mark 5:1-20). The same gospel which unites us reaches us in different ways.
Many people encounter Jesus and come to faith immediately when the Bible is preached and explained to them. Becket Cook is an example that immediately springs to my mind. Others encounter Jesus after a long and detailed analysis of the evidence, and after having their friends engage them with the evidence for Christianity. Nabeel Qureshi is a big example here. Still others encounter Jesus after seeing him in a dream or witnessing a miracle.
Humans are complex beings made in the image of the infinite God (Genesis 1:27), and the gospel draws in and unifies a host of people from all sorts of different backgrounds. The way we receive the gospel isn’t uniform, programmed, and mechanical. The unifying factor is the gospel we receive (1 Cor 15:3-8), not the way we receive it.
Evangelism Is Helped By Social Intelligence
As we evangelise, we do well to have social awareness in understanding that people respond to the gospel in different ways.
Some people may need to witness a miracle before receiving the gospel, others may need to have the evidence for Christianity explained to them, and others may simply need the Bible preached to them plainly.
Some may need all three or a combination thereof!
This should be an obvious thing to say. But I’ve recently and repeatedly heard the absurd claim that apologetics is not necessary for the gospel, because the supposed key to every single human heart, and the only way to do evangelism, is by preaching the Bible and only the Bible to every unbeliever we encounter. . . without any need, ever, for apologetics.
Now of course, preaching the Bible is an eternally wonderful thing, and the Bible really does have all the answers to life’s most important questions. And there is no question that some people convert immediately when the Bible is simply preached to them. Charles Spurgeon is an example of such a person.
The Bible is a source of never-ending wisdom and insight that is a greater treasure than all the money in the world, and apologetics itself is empty without it, because without the Bible, apologetics leads nowhere. Christians who are privileged enough to own a Bible need to be reading it daily.
There is no dispute, regardless of theological conviction, that the Holy Spirit softens people’s hearts as they read and hear God’s word. But how can anyone who’s socially aware of the unbelieving world say that apologetics isn’t ever necessary . . . especially when the Bible itself tells us to use it?
The Bible Tells Us To Use Apologetics
Peter (in 1 Peter 3:15) says that we always need to be ready to give a ‘defense’ for the hope that we have (‘apologia’ in Greek – the word from which we get the English word ‘apologetics’). Apologetics isn’t a random modern Christian word. Apologetics is a biblical word.
Paul – who uses apologetics in Athens (see Acts 17) – uses the same Greek word ‘apologia’ in writing that God has placed him to ‘defend’ the gospel in Philippians 1:16 (see also 1:7).
Are Peter and Paul wrong? Do they just need to understand that all we need to do is preach the Bible to each and every non-believer, without ever giving a reasoned defense for the Christian faith?
Paul also writes that if Jesus has not been raised then Christianity is false (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17). How are we to investigate whether Jesus has been raised? Are we only allowed to investigate that question by looking at what the Bible says?
“The Bible says Jesus was raised; therefore, Jesus was raised.” Is this really sufficient evangelism that will convince every single unbeliever in the world?
The “Bible-only, ever” method is inconsistent
And there’s something awkward that needs to be pointed out:
Does the “Bible-only, ever” evangelist realise that they first have to use their philosophical, linguistic, and reasoning faculties to decide which part of the Bible to open up for every evangelistic conversation with an unbeliever?
It’s the “Bible-only” evangelist’s own philosophical and linguistic reasoning which directs them to show their non-believing counterpart John 20, say, and not Song of Songs 5:3.
So, if I were to grant that we should only use the Bible to evangelise and nothing else – never engaging in philosophy or apologetics with the unbeliever – then I’d be committing myself to an inconsistent epistemology and self-defeat. That should never be the case for the people of God who belong to the Truth!
Jesus himself isn’t a “Bible-only, ever” evangelist
We must remember that Jesus himself demonstrates social awareness when, for example, he uses two different evangelistic methods in two different situations after his resurrection.
In John 20, Jesus convinces Thomas not by the scriptures but by the evidence of his broken body. Yet over in Luke 24, Jesus convinces the two disciples on the road to Emmaus not by his broken body but by unpacking the scriptures!
Here is my point:
With the Holy Spirit’s help, we need the social awareness and intelligence to understand the needs of the unbeliever in front of us.
Some will need apologetics. Some will need miracles. Some will just need straight preaching. Ask people “How did you come to faith?” and you’ll get a range of answers, appealing to different lines of evidence, apologetics included.
Recommended Resources:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide,TEACHER Study Guide)
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek
Sean Redfearn is a former Community Youth Worker who now works for Christian Concern in Central London, UK. He completed an MA in Religion at King’s College London, is in the process of completing the MA Philosophy program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is a 2022 CrossExamined Instructor Academy graduate. Passionate about Jesus, he is grateful for the impact that apologetics has had on his faith.
How to Debate 20 Progressive Christians at Once with Allie Beth Stuckey
PodcastHow do you address progressive arguments from 20 liberal “Christians” against the historic Christian faith with truth and grace? Look no further than the recent Jubilee debate with Allie Beth Stuckey, author and host of the popular ‘Relatable’ podcast, who impressed even non-Christians with her amazing performance. This week, Allie joins Frank to pull back the curtain on what happened behind the scenes during the debate while answering questions like:
If you’ve ever wondered how to stand your ground in a culture that calls good evil and evil good, this episode is for you! Don’t miss this powerful conversation that will challenge Christians to think clearly and hold fast to truth in a culture that keeps shifting its moral compass.
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined.org
Jubilee: 1 Conservative Christian vs. 20 Liberal Christians
Allie’s TPUSA Speech at LSU
Watch the Relatable Podcast
AllieBethStuckey.com
Toxic Empathy
Legislating Religion Or Morality?
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsIt’s often said that “You shouldn’t legislate morality!” But, as Frank Turek argues ably, “all laws legislate morality.” He’s got a point. Legislating morality is inevitable. The question isn’t whether to legislate morality, but whose morality to legislate.[1] This predicament sets the stage for a genuine power struggle. Whose moral vision should win that tug-of-war? The outcome has yet to be determined on this side of eternity.
Legislating morality is unavoidable. Legislating religion, however, remains undecided.
Historically, the United States has been a majority Christian nation, informed by broadly Christian values, ethics, and worldview. The laws of this land, unsurprisingly, have often reflected a judicious and humanitarian outlook rooted in biblical Christianity. That means a growing recognition of sanctity of human life, the presumption of innocence, and freedom of religion.[2] The first amendment, for example, has firmly protected against forced religion, while fortifying freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, all while preventing any national religion.[3] America was founded, in part, because people rejected force-fed religion. With this in mind, we can readily admit that the United States has had a majority Christian worldview influencing its founding and maturation, without committing to a heavy-handed Church-state merger forcing Christianity on its citizens at the federal level, or confusing the two institutions for each other. Furthermore, that description seems to be the primary meaning of the phrase “Christian Nation.” At minimum, that’s what I’ve always meant by “America is a Christian Nation.” This country has a Christian heritage, lots of Christian citizens, and Christianity has been instrumental in the founding and fortification of this country.
What about Legislating Religion?
That concept of a “Christian nation,” however, has been variously understood and misunderstood over the years especially under the banner of “Christian Nationalism.” At this point another question arises, “What about legislating religion?”
The Majority Left
On the left side of the political spectrum it’s pretty common to hear fear-baiting rhetoric about a forceable Christian takeover. Christians, apparently, are trying to force their religion on people through religiously charged anti-abortion laws (“Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!”), converting public schools into Christian churches with school prayer, and imposing the Bible on courtrooms and congress (through congressional prayer and displaying the Ten Commandments). In this vein, the common phrase, “Christian nationalism”, is thrown around as a left-wing slur indistinguishable from “white nationalism,” “fascism,” or even “neo-nazism.”
For the majority left, especially in legacy media, “Christian Nationalism” isn’t a precise term. Nor was it meant to be. Mudslinging isn’t a precision sport. It’s just meant to smear, degrade, deride, and dismiss the victim. Aiming isn’t important when you’re making a mess. The force of this phrase, “Christian nationalism” is primarily emotive – it feels like theocracy, forced-religion, and heavy-handed Christians trying to “take back America” for rich white men, and their domestic slaves (jobless wives, dependent children, and employees). Of course, that’s a deeply uncharitable understanding of “Christian nationalism.” But, if the goal isn’t truth but power, and the aim isn’t precision but political posturing, then the label “Christian nationalist”, for the majority left, works well as a sweeping generalization lumping every conservative Christian patriot or politician under the same blanketing libel as the most hard-core theocrat, as if Christians generally want to replace the constitution with the Bible so we can start exiling non-believers, stoning gay people, and banning inter-cultural marriage.
It bears repeating that, coming from the majority left, the phrase “Christian Nationalism” is a libelous term meant to disqualify people. It sounds, to them (and to many moderates), like a substitute word for “white nationalism,” “white supremacism,” or even “neo-naziism.” So, anyone who embraces the phrase “Christian Nationalist” is liable to be dismissed and ignored before they have a chance to explain what they mean. The Christian Nationalist can try explain how they aren’t talking about forced religion like the Spanish Inquisition, apartheid-South Africa, or the Salem Witch Trials. But by the end of the explanation, there’s no one left in the lecture hall. The people dispersed as soon as he said he’s a “Christian Nationalist.” That’s the risk Christians run if they toy around with the phrase “Christian Nationalism” without realizing the enormous baggage it carries. Yes, we can encourage Christians to get more involved in politics and encourage politicians to bring Christian values and ethics with them to congress. But to call that “Christian nationalism” is about as naïve as calling people “gay” because they’re happy. People don’t hear that innocent intent when they hear such loaded words.[4]
The Radical Right
On the fringe right wing, however, the phrase “Christian Nationalism” is gaining fashion. Leaving the majority of Christian conservatives in the dust, there is a faction of people who openly promote Christian Nationalism in a more or less “theocratic” sense of the phrase.[5] Doug Wilson, for example, argues that Christianity should be the national religion, as well as the framing worldview and reference point for government.[6] For people to hold public office they would have to be Christian.[7] And certain Old Testament and 1st Century cultural laws would be reinstituted such as repealing women’s right to vote, and reinstituting legal bans on homosexual practice.[8] Some Christian nationalists, in this vein, would go so far as to say that the Constitution should be replaced with the Bible.
From this fringe right wing perspective, one could argue that legislating religion is just as inevitable as legislating morality. In their view, religion is unavoidable and the only question is whole religion to legislate.
Three of the main contenders for that “inevitable religion” status are Christianity, Islam, and what some have called the “Woke Cult” or more charitably, “Progressivism.”[9] History has plenty of examples of Christian Theocracies and Islamic Theocracies, but the third category – Progressivism – might not seem as obvious.[10] Progressivism, might not seem like a “religion” at first. But the word “religion” does not simply refer to a formally established historically rooted belief-system with rituals, worship, theology, and so forth. Rather the first amendment sense of “freedom of religion” has always covered ideology, freedom of thought, and freedom of conscience. In this regard, progressive ideology certainly qualifies. Without parsing out “progressivism” too narrowly, it can include a range of left-wing ideologies including Critical Race Theory (CRT), Diversity Equity and Inclusion teachings (DEI), Anti-normativity and Queer theory, and more. Note, this is not just a question of ethics, but a wider ideology underneath those ethics. Progressivism is a religion in this broad, first amendment sense.
It is not clear, however, that the government will inevitably legislate religion. Ethically charged activity is unavoidable. Religiously charged policy, however, doesn’t have to happen. Sure, progressive ideology can sneak through sometimes, just as Christian, Jewish, libertarian, or conservative ideology, can sneak through too. But it’s still a stretch to call those religious and ideological influences “legislated religion.” The founding fathers never forbid such influence, but rather than giving special preference where one religion could be imposed on the general populace, they wisely installed a restrained sense of natural law. It has only a broad reference to “nature’s God,” and no particular religious trappings (prayer, worship, theology, rituals, etc.). Strictly speaking, a person could interpret “nature’s god” in terms of theism, polytheism, agnosticism, deism, pantheism, panentheism, or even atheism, where “nature’s god” is a personified reference to the mysterious machinations of primordial nature. We cannot safely assume that the Federal Government will necessarily impose a religion on the masses, nor can we use that fear to force Christianity on people under the banner of “Christian Nationalism.”
The Majority Right
The Majority of Christians on the political right-wing are somewhere in between those extremes. They don’t agree with Doug Wilson or any theocratic brands of Christian Nationalism. They might be open to some nuanced sense of “Christian nationalism” but, not if it means granting the libelous use of “Christian Nationalism,” on the left, where any given Christian patriot is labeled a hardline theocrat and lumped in with a motley crew of Conquistadors, Crusaders, and Witch Hunters. This group has the hard job of charting a path forward that avoids extremist errors on both ends. We probably shouldn’t replace the constitution with the Bible, or install a bunch of Old Testament laws in place of the bill of rights. But there is a lot of room to discuss repealing abortion-choice laws, reevaluating the Obergfell decision, and allowing prayer in schools. These ideas can be debated, case by case, without having to jump to any extremist conclusions. There is foolish excess on every side of the political spectrum. It is not enough to guard against “left-wing” errors with no concern for right-wing errors.
Charting a Way Forward
Surely there has to be another option. Right?
Vested parties probably need to have serious public discussion about the intricacies of “Christian Nationalism.” We can initiate this effort at the local level by simply asking, “What do you mean by ‘Christian nationalism’?” We cannot safely assume that everyone is using the phrase in more or less the same way. We need to identify looming errors, uses and misuses, and carefully carve out different senses of the phrase to avoid confusion, especially where people want to exploit that confusion for political purposes. People use smoke grenades only when they’re sneaking something past you. People use blurry confusing language for the same reason, to sneak something past you.
That’s why we need to clarify terms. There might be a time, in the future, when the phrase is redeemed enough to where it’s more helpful than hurtful in public discourse. At present, however, the best way to maintain spiritual integrity and political sensibility, moving forward, is probably to avoid the phrase “Christian National/ism/ist.” Perhaps the phrase can one day be rescued from its baggage on the majority left and extreme right. Maybe one day it will no longer be a trap phrase that gets patriotic Christians to unwittingly imply they’re white supremacists. But as it stands now, the phrase is probably more trouble than it’s worth.
Patriotic Christians, of course, can still celebrate and be thankful for their country. They can assert American Exceptionalism. They can engage in politics, join political action committees, vote, petition, teach, speak, and run for office. They can even affirm Nationalism in the sense of an “America-first” agenda for the nation. In essence, Christians can affirm all sorts of political objectives without adopting the label of “Christian Nationalist.” For 95% of Christians, they lose nothing by shunning or shedding that label. Strategically, shedding the baggage of that phrase is all gain and no loss.
Meanwhile, the phrase “Christian Nationalism” already has a range of popular meanings that many people aren’t aware of, aren’t prepared for, nor are they ready to distinguish between them. “Christian Nationalism” can mean “patriotic Christian,” “a Christian who is a nationalist,” “Christian-influenced government,” “Church-State blurring,” “Church-State Fusion,” “Forced Religion,” “White-Nationalism,” “Anti-1st Amendment,” “European Cultural Christian Theocracy,” “Old Testament Theocracy,” and of course, “Handmaid’s Tale Theocracy.”
Finally, Christian conservatives should be wary against big tent partnerships with self-identified Christian nationalists. I’m not saying it should never happen. But they should weigh the costs involved, recognizing that not everyone who identifies as a “Christian Conservative” is aiming at the same target. Whatever foolishness and evil we might be seeing on the political left, we should be humbly self-aware that human depravity isn’t partisan. There’s foolishness to be found on every political extreme, and even in the center. We need to be independently principled as Christians, not mindless partisans or reactionary populists.
“Do not be overrighteous,
neither be overwise—
why destroy yourself?
Do not be overwicked,
and do not be a fool—
why die before your time?
It is good to grasp the one
and not let go of the other.
Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes”
Ecclesiastes 7:16-18
References:
[1] This is the general thesis of Frank Turek’s Legislating Morality (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003).
[2] Turek 2003, throughout.
[3] Before the first amendment, as many as 11 of the 13 colonies had a state religion even as they had different degrees of tolerance for other denominations and religions. Today, in light of the 1st amendment (at the Federal Level) and the case history over “separation of church state,” no American states have a state religion anymore. See also, Turek 2003.
[4] It would also be like saying, “I’m not that kind of Nazi. I’m the good kind of Nazi.” Good luck with that one. You could be some other kind of Nationalist Socialist – and that’s the literal etymology of Na-Zi – and have nothing to do with the Third Reich, racial supremacism, antisemitism, eugenics, imperialism, or Germany. But as long as you adopt the same ruinous terminology, you’ll be considered discredited from the start. For the record, I think socialism is a bad idea too, whether nationalist or otherwise.
[5] There are several different ways to define “theocracy,” but the common theme between them seems to be “forced religion.” Weak forms of “forced religion,” would be disqualifying people from certain privileges and opportunities – like voting, citizenship, public schooling, public office, etc. – unless they convert to Christianity. Strong forms of “forced religion” would be explicitly punishing (prison, fines/taxes, exile, torture, killing) people unless they convert to Christianity. In the United States, where the first amendment prevents any strict identity between Church and State, it would be a theocratic, or at least potentially theocratic to eliminate the “separation of church and state.” When the institutions of “church” and “state” become so intertwined it’s difficult to tell where “church” ends and “state” begins, the state would be able to do, as Church’s do, and deny people different privileges and opportunities based on their religion. For churches, that would mean denying church leadership denying membership, or refusing to hire non-Christians. For the state, that would (or could) mean denying people voting rights, citizenship rights, or public office, based solely on their not being Christian.
[6] Doug Wilson, Frequently Shouted Questions About Christian Nationalism (Canon Press, 2025). See also, https://midamerica.edu/articles/41/doug-wilson-christian-nationalism-and-the-theonomic-debate, https://www.perplexity.ai/search/outline-douglas-wilson-s-chris-aL7PdXSBQe..ktOVtg5mjA
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Islam is a historically and traditionally theocratic religion. Christianity has some theocracy, on a case by case basis, but theocratic unions of Church-State have been less common since about 1500AD. The protestant reformation was a major turn away from heavy-handed Christian statism.
[10] Christianity and Islam are contenders as they are the two largest world religions, and both have a history of imposing religion through governmental means – even if Christian theocracy has been waning since at least around 1500AD, around the start of the Protestant Reformation.
Recommended Resources:
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)
Legislating Morality (mp4 download), (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek
Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.
Charlie Kirk Conspiracy Theories That Lead to Death Threats with Seth Dillon
PodcastWhy are Frank and other close friends of Charlie Kirk getting threatening messages and phone calls? In the wake of the tragedy that occurred almost eight weeks ago, Frank sits down with Babylon Bee CEO, Seth Dillon, to unpack how speculation, misinformation, and social media outrage are fueling fear and false accusations that are putting innocent people in harm’s way. Together, they confront the ethical and spiritual dangers of spreading unverified claims, even under the banner of “free speech.” Tune in as they answer questions like:
In a world where rumors spread faster than truth, this episode reminds us that careless words can destroy reputations and deepen wounds. Unchecked speculation isn’t just irresponsible, it’s dangerous. Please continue to pray for everybody involved in this tragedy.
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
Charlie Kirk Conspiracy Theories? Homicide Detective Speaks Out
The Babylon Bee
Seth Dillon on X
Not the Bee