August 14, 2026 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

A Christian Worldview in a Strange New World

For traditional Christians the narrative of this book is inevitably a somewhat depressing one, as it points both to pass transformations in the notion of selfhood that challenge our views at every level and indicates that the world in which we now live is hostile to our beliefs on these matters . . . The truth is that the last vestiges of a social imaginary shaped by Christianity are rapidly vanishing, and many of us are even now living as strangers in a strange new world (Carl Trueman, A Strange New World).

Introduction

Carl Trueman, author of A Strange New World, brings to the forefront a challenging reality facing traditional Christians. Throughout his work he explores such concepts as the social imaginary, expressive individualism, and the sexual revolution, all couched in the postmodern worldview that views those who hold to absolute truth as intolerant oppressors. The underlying presumption of postmodernism is that those who hold to absolute truth reject the identity of anyone who lives within the framework of a social imaginary that places a primacy on self-defined identity, especially those who have embraced a postmodern view of the psychologized self, holding that one’s happiness is the ultimate value by which one should define and live his or her life. This psychologized self in turn is ensconced in the sexual revolution that took place most thoroughly in the 1960’s. Hence, as traditional Christians we live in a world populated by those who see our worldview as exclusive and oppressive. Consequently, our traditional worldview cannot be tolerated. It must be defeated and, if possible, eradicated from positions of cultural influence. To summarize the concepts Trueman proffers, such as expressive individualism, social imaginary, Critical Theory, the triumph of the therapeutic, and the roots of the sexual revolution, is far beyond what I can accomplish in one blog article. Regarding these concepts, I highly recommend and exhort traditional Christians to read the following of Trueman’s works: 1) A Strange New World; 2) The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution; 3) To Change All Worlds: Critical Theory from Marx to Marcuse; 4) The Desecration of Man: How the Rejection of God Degrades Our Humanity. Given that as traditional Christians we are now experiencing an antagonistic response to our worldview, I want to put forth some of Trueman’s ideas about what we can do to live in the culture in which we find ourselves. I will draw from the final chapter of Trueman’s A Strange New World. His take indeed might be an answer to Francis Schaeffer’s work, How Should We Then Live?

How Should We Then Live?: A Christian Response to this Age

Expressive Individualism and the Cult of Personal Happiness

One of the first things Trueman exhorts us to do as Christians is to check our own egos, ascertaining just how we are complicit with today’s social imaginary in our own expressive individualism. Are we looking to our faith to provide above all for our personal happiness? And if so, how is such a mindset influencing our relationship to the particular local churches we have chosen to attend? Trueman points out that in a country where we have freedom of religion, it is easy to view church attendance in terms of a church marketplace. We are all given to attending those local churches that make us feel good. We should ascertain just how much the cult of personal happiness influences us in our decision making. The challenge for us as believers is to remain committed to a local body, not choosing to exit that body over trivial matters. Theological conviction is one thing; superficial disagreement is another thing altogether.

Another way in which expressive individualism and its giving rise to the cult of personal happiness effects our relationship to the church is to view divine blessing as that which satisfies my sense of inner well-being. For the early church, and indeed, for the church in areas around the world today, such as Pakistan and Nigeria, persecution was a way of life. Christ tells us, in the world we will face tribulation. We are to look to Him who has overcome tribulation. As we become inundated by a culture antagonistic to our beliefs, we as believers have to decide what is to be our Biblical response. Trueman states that the notion that God exists to make me happy is the fruit of the cult of personal happiness infiltrating the church. Again, do we let theological conviction drive our decision-making in relation to the church, or do we look for personal comfort to be proof of our being blessed by God? Do we let our emotions override what Scripture presents to us as the truth? Do we seek truth outside ourselves and our feelings?

Trueman calls on the body of Christ to perform the following self-critique: . . . we need to examine ourselves, individually and corporately, to see in what ways we have compromised the gospel with the spirit of this age (p. 172, Kindle edition). Having performed such a self-critique, Trueman then says, then we need to repent, call out to the Lord for grace, and seek to reform our beliefs, attitudes, intuitions, and practices accordingly. Nothing less is required for a true reformation at this point (p. 172, Kindle edition; my emphasis). Trueman adds that our awareness of our complicities in these areas should inform us as to how to relate to others within and outside our faith. We are all guilty to some degree. Furthermore such an awareness should help us within the church to engage in a consistent ongoing self-criticism. Such awareness requires diligence on our part and a submission to the will of God to enlighten and guide our lives.

The Example of the Ancient Church

Trueman points out that as Christians we have a faith that is grounded in history. How might church history inform us on how to live in such times where our culture displays its antagonism towards our beliefs as traditional Christians? Trueman points to the post-apostolic church as a prime example. It was during that time that the church, the body of Christ, was marginalized, held in suspicion, and persecuted. Followers of Christ were truly misunderstood, and their teachings – doctrine – were highly suspect and equally misunderstood. Two particular works might inform us as believers today how to go about living in an age antagonistic to who we are as believers in Christ. First is the Didache, an ancient doctrine that delineated the moral provisions by which members of the body of Christ, the church, were to live. The Didache provides practical guidance in manners of morality, how the church was to live and present itself in the culture of their time. The practicality of living was its main thrust. What the early church wanted was for those outside the church to see its members as non-threatening, moral, and down-to-earth people. They should not be viewed as a threat to the State or to those in power. Indeed, in terms of doctrine, there are things that the State demanded that Christians could not do – e.g. worship the emperor as a god. They were to be a community that served as a beacon of light to the world at large. As a community, although each church would have its own unique identity, there were practices common to all the individual churches. First, they organized as a community. Their organizing as a community was to be one of their main ways of being a light to the world. As a community, they could more strongly exist in a culture that did not understand them. They sought to be the best citizens and law-abiding members of society. Hence, their goal was to show the State that they represented no threat to society and should simply be left alone. Hence, they chose, where possible, not to display any hostility or be a menace to society. Secondly, they worshipped and fellowshipped together as a community. Their coming together to worship, providing for one another’s needs, and to sing hymns and celebrate their faith could be one of their strongest witnesses to the culture at large.

The second work that can form a blueprint for how we are to live in a culture antagonistic to our existence is Augustine’s City of God. In that important historical work, Augustine emphasizes that the believer in Christ is a citizen both of God’s kingdom and of the world. As Scripture teaches us, we are to be in the world, but not of the world. How then are we to be in the world – How should we then live? The church, believers who make up the body of Christ – the ekklesia – should evidence an other-worldly holiness. As Augustine points out, Christians should be the best citizens in the State. Today we live in a world of Facebook, Tik-Tok, X, and a plethora of online venues where personal attacks, bitterness, and volatile disagreement are grist for the mill in worldly debacle. As Christians, while we most certainly can and will disagree with the State and its political leaders at times, we are not to be a constant source of irritation to those who represent the State and its political power. Again, the best and strongest witness the church evidences is its worship and concerns for the needs of people. Trueman says of the Didache and Augustine, the apologists and Augustine both offer a vision of the church in a hostile culture that calls on the church to be the church and on Christians to be constructive members of a wider society in which they are placed (p. 177, Kindle edition).

The Whole Counsel of God

. . . Christian truth is not a set of isolated and unconnected claims but rather stands as a coherent whole (p. 178, Kindle edition).

Again, in this day of social media, it is easy to jump on a hobbyhorse and ride it for all its worth. It is tempting to let the day’s top news stories become fodder for what one preaches in the pulpit. There is nothing wrong with addressing urgent concerns that confront the church. But if that’s all the church does, one gets the sense that it is chasing the day’s headlines that determine for the church what is of ultimate importance. If the current cultural zeitgeist is a function of how one understands selfhood and all that follows from that worldview, then the church should teach the Bible so that it, rather than being a news grabber, will speak to the whole truth set forth by God. The whole counsel of God will be brought to light as the church pursues the knowledge of God, which comes through His word. Scripture speaks to who we are as creatures of God and who we become in embracing Christ. Trueman lays it out: creation, fall, redemption, consummation. The Bible doesn’t exist as a behavioral response to social stimuli. Rather God’s word gives us the truth to understand our times and how we are to live our lives out in the midst of the culture were we are placed. The word of God answers the question: how should we then live? God is truth. The whole counsel of God lays the foundation for how we understand and respond to the challenges of the present zeitgeist. To be armed with the full armor of God means that we as believers must come to understand a Christian view of the self. In short, we can stand strong at this cultural moment and address the specific challenges we face only if our foundations in God’s truth are broad and deep (p. 178, Kindle edition).

What are some strategies the church can embrace for teaching the whole counsel of God? I belong to a church that is exegetical at its core. We explore the Bible book by book, and in many ways verse by verse. As pointed out above, we also pray for one another, take communion, and support missions. But all of these activities are in response to how we believe God’s word should direct our growth and being.

Trueman also points to the use of creeds, confessions, or catechisms. From his position as a presbyterian, he suggests the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms. These involve sweeping statements as to what is the core of the Christian faith. The church for sure should address contemporary challenges within the cultural milieu in which we exist. But it should do so in a way that sets the immediate problems of the hour in the context of the whole counsel of God, within the framework of Christian truth.

Biblical Worship: Shaping Intuitions

The thing that expressive individualism gets right is that we are creatures created by God with minds, wills, and emotions. All of us possess that inner psychological space that speaks to who we are, what meaning and purpose we find in life, and how we are to live. What expressive individualism gets wrong is exalting the human mind, will, and emotions as ends to themselves, making one’s psychological space one’s major concern (p. 180, Kindle edition).

Trueman suggests that Christians should read Augustine’s Confessions. In his autobiography, Augustine most definitely focuses on his inner life. His explorations, however, are diametrically opposed to today’s expressive individualism. Augustine doesn’t remain focused on his inner life. He moves from that space outwardly towards God. Rather than discovering identity in his own inner space and how he should live, he finds such truths in God. Hence, his inner feelings are confronted with a corrective of God’s revelation in Christ. There is a larger truth than our feelings and emotions. In the same way the Psalms are full of raw emotions and questions, but they also turn outwardly toward God to find answers to those desperate longings. The psalmists do not fixate on their emotions for self-validation and self-understanding. Rather they set these strong emotions and desperations within the contexts of God’s truths.

Trueman also stresses to the importance of hymnology in the church to aid in shaping human psychological intuitions. The psalms themselves are psalters. Singing the psalms is an important component in how people can have the word of God shape their intuitions about identity, their emotions, personal struggles, and the way God responds to all these concerns. As previously stated, a blatant way that current expressive individualism has infiltrated the church is through the notion that God exists for the reason of satisfying my personal needs and desires. Although we need to express our emotions, we must also look outwardly to God, not merely to fulfill our concerns, but to help us understand them and how He responds to them in His way of truth. We are creatures of emotions and sentiments, and we are fallen. Therefore we need songs of redemption to help restore them to their proper context (p. 182, Kindle edition).

Natural Law and Theology of the Body

The results of the sexual revolution is the toll it has taken on our identities. Not that long ago people would have thought the question what is my gender to be a nonsensical one. Today we are allowing men to compete in women’s sports and ensconce themselves in women’s bath and dressing rooms. Trueman proffers another way in which the church can address such concerns. The church also needs to recover natural law and a theology of the body (p. 182, Kindle edition).

So exactly what is natural law? Because God is the creator of the universe, the physical existence in which we find ourselves contains order and is not morally indifferent. In the epistle to the Romans, Paul writes of how the physical universe speaks to the existence of God, a truth that fallen humanity has suppressed. It therefore contains a moral structure. Previously stated, we too are creatures of God. Our bodies speak to our identity. As Trueman points out, we relate to others through our bodies. We depend on one another through our bodies. As individuals, we possess strengths and weaknesses. Hence, we are made to flourish in some ways and not others. Because each individual possesses particular skills, he or she can serve others and be served by others via one’s personal giftedness. We can find ways through our skillsets to meet the needs of others. Natural law and identity go hand-in-hand. I can claim to run faster than a Chetah, but I wouldn’t want to place a bet on it. I can flap my arms, but there is no way via my own body that I can soar to the heights with the grace and beauty of an eagle.

Trueman points to the importance of natural law and a theology of the body, not merely as apologetic tools for Christians, but what he calls a persuasive pedological strategy that the church can embrace. Because of the social imagery in which individuals in our culture are now ensconced, the church must not only teach the moral content of Scripture, but it must also teach the rationale for that moral content. In other words, [Scriptural content] makes sense, given the way the world actually is (p. 185, Kindle edition].

Avoid Despair or Optimism

Trueman opened the final chapter of his work with the epigraph with which I began this article. Because we live in times when our culture is spread thick with ideas that are hostile to Christianity, it is easy on the one hand to believe we are in a losing battle, while on the other hand, position ourselves to disconnect from our historical context by becoming a Pollyanna. The need of the hour is to be a realist. Yes, as Christians we are facing some tough times that could grow even more difficult. And yes, God’s plan will ultimately be worked out in history. Unlike historicists, we don’t need to sit around thinking that things will work out regardless of our efforts; nor should we give up, thinking that our living out our faith has no impact on our culture. The world is indeed fallen, and there is no guarantee to Christians that our lives will be ones of ease. Yet we are given a mandate, a call to be a kingdom of priests. As discussed above, that call should be carried out through our local church congregations. The impact we will have begins in our own community. We are also connected to other local bodies, and via that connection the church can have a world-wide impact. As Trueman points out, we can lament the cultural context in which we find ourselves, but such lamentations should hone us by the truth that we are members of the household of God, awaiting His gracious consummation. Each of our lives finds its meaning in the life, death, resurrection, ascension, and return of the Lord Jesus Christ (p.186, Kindle edition).

Conclusion

Trueman has provided an in-depth thoughtful challenge to believers in Christ in A Strange New World. As such, his work is indeed a gift via his skillset to the body of Christ. Moreover A Strange New World is a condensed version of his more thorough work found in The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. When we reflect on the challenges that Christians face today in a zeitgeist that is becoming more intolerable to our beliefs, we know that our solace is in Christ Himself. But that truth shouldn’t be offered as a mere abstraction. It means we will find our place and wisdom to navigate these times in the church, the body of Christ. The ways in which we worship, help meet the needs of others, and live out our faith in Christ should be the witness to others of the kind of world in which people would want to live and have their being. We have been given a mandate, and each believer in Christ is gifted in specific ways to carry out that calling. Likewise, we have been made a kingdom of priests, to be the beacon of light to the world. As the church, we either embrace that calling or we do not. The fallen world in which we live needs for us to be, through God’s gift of wisdom and grace, what we are supposed to be in Christ – a kingdom of priests.

References

Trueman, C. R. (2020). The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Trueman, C. R. (2022). Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Trueman, C. R. (2024). To Change All Worlds: Critical Theory from Marx to Marcuse. Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic.

Trueman, C. R. (2026). The Desecration of Man: How the Rejection of God Degrades Our Humanity. New York, NY: Sentinel: Penguin Random House.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D/ August 14, 2026

ANALYSIS/Christian Thought

July 14, 2026 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

A Post-Literate Society

Introduction

I have commented on this blog more than once that we live in a postmodern age. Can it be added that we live in a post-literate society? According to Jeffrey Tucker (Epoch Times, 7/12/2026), the answer is yes, and I have to agree with him. Moreover I find what he says applies to me, a baby-boomer, as much as it does to the Gen. Z and millennials. We have available today a multitude of online resources, but we have let technology take us in a direction away from reading for critical thinking and growth toward entertainment, socializing, and for all practical purposes just downright gossip online.

An “Old Technology”

Johannes Gutenberg (1395-1468) would most likely be pleasantly and unpleasantly surprised by what his invention of the printing press led to in the centuries that have passed by since his time. One of the major things the printing press brought about was the publication of the Bible that post Reformation allowed people to have Scripture in their own hands so they could read it for themselves. What followed in the intervening centuries was the creation of poetry, essays, and prose that led to a literate society. The idea of reading as an old technology has given birth to the idea that we can accomplish the fruits of critical thinking online in the same way that reading books in the past allowed us to do then. But is that the case?

Have we substituted in-depth reading, searching out ideas for ourselves, and coming to conclusions with a quick search online and the use of all-powerful AI technologies? I fear we have. And what is more, I’m guilty. It’s easy to simply search for something, take it as the gospel, and espouse it the name of critical inquiry. Like many, I too find myself spending too much time online searching Facebook posts. Now there is nothing wrong with online technologies, AI, or Facebook, etc. But can we over rely on them for solid, well searched out information?

Reduction in Critical Skills

Not only has less reading led to a diminished reading skill among elementary, middle school, and high school students, but it has also produced a mentality that is bereft of critical thinking, math skills, and the diligent search for accuracy. One of the by-products of a post-literate age is the notion that whatever one finds online, and whatever one does in fact read, is the truth. Such a mentality demonstrates the lack of due diligence to search things out and a diminished ability to critically appraise information. Reading skills are not simply about ones ability to read, but also about ones ability to think. One result of living in a post-literate society is gullibility. The elite political class loves such a reality because it means that they can say what they wish and not have their claims questioned. Those who do question them are on the other side, but those who accept what they say as the truth are on the right side. All one has to do is note the change in so-called political debates over the last couple of centuries. And given what Robert Bellah calls expressive individualism, to live life by feelings rather than critical inquiry meshes well with a post-literate society.

Information Abounds

Technology is not evil or useless. But how we engage it and what we do with it might well be useless, and in some cases evil. Note legacy media today, regardless of what side of the political spectrum on which one sets. But technologies can bring us wonderful blessings if we will only put them to use. I own a Kindle, which will store up to 3000 books, depending on size. As Tucker points out in his article, that means one can have a gargantuan amount of reading material at his or her disposal with out having to build bookcases and haul such material around every time one moves. There are also available to us websites such as the Gutenberg Project, a site that contains nearly 78,000 free ebooks that one can download on a Kindle. In addition there is Storyliaz Love Reading website that allows readers to engage discussions and debates regarding literary classics, putting an end to what the creators of that site call doomscrolling. Think about how many hours we spend scrolling useless sites and discussions that are no more than the utterances of one’s feelings rather than the product of critical inquiry. Additionally, many libraries allow readers to download books from their holdings. There are numerous websites from which one can discover and order books that are no longer being published or are out of print. There is no reason whatsoever that technology cannot mean a boost to increased reading. Yet it in fact has led to the opposite. Why is that the case?

A Decrement in Reading Skills

Evidence abounds regarding the diminishing reading skills among students from elementary to college level. As stated above, a decrease in reading skills means a loss of other skills, particularly critical thinking skills. We live not only in a postmodern and post-literate age, but also a time tainted by gullibility. The absence of critical thinking means the inability to nuance. (Tucker points to an article authored by Rose Horowitz from the Atlantic, July 8, 2026.) Horowitz proffers that post-literacy favors emotional and contradictory styles of thinking over carefully nuanced ways of thinking. Does this not indeed fit a postmodern age in which people believe they can create their own realities and truths in alignment with Nietzsche’s madman?

Conclusion

Jeffrey Tucker closes his article with a powerful question: Can real literacy be regained? He doesn’t provide an upbeat answer, but he calls on the responsibility and diligence of each one of us, proclaiming that there is something we can do. Moreover, he states, the pull to post-literacy is overwhelming. There is no doubt about that. In an age where the triumph of the therapeutic (Philip Reiff) has taken hold along with the desire to equate feelings with truth and authenticity, the post-literate destruction of critical inquiry is real. F. A. Hayek once claimed that while it takes time and diligence to build a civilization, such a result can be destroyed in a short period of time, while the effort to restore it, if ever, will come with much difficulty and time.

References

Bellah, R. (1985). Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

H. A. Hayek. (1944). The Road to Serfdom. London, UK: Routledge Publishing

Horowitz, R. (2006). “The End of Reading Is Here.” The Atlantic, July 8th, 2026.

Reiff, P. (1966). The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith After Freud. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Tucker, J. A. (2026). “Just How Post-Literate Are We?” The Epoch Times, July 12, 2026.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D/July 14th, 2026

ANALYSIS/Cultural Commentary

June 14, 2026 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

Crossroads: Liberty or Statist

[The following article is a reprint from one I wrote in September 2010 for a blog that no longer exists today. Given the upcoming midterm elections I thought the article would be appropriate for present reading. I wish I could say that over the nearly sixteen years since I have written this article, we, as a country have moved closer to a proper understanding of personal liberty versus a statist mentality. But that would be wishful thinking at best, and just plain naivety at worst. If I had written the article today, I would also emphasize that our personal liberty and meaning for our lives cannot and should not be found in politics. As a Christian in the Reformed tradition, our hope for a fulfilling life exists in and only in our relationship to God through Christ. Our Christian beliefs, however, should inform and shape our worldviews, including our political perspectives. A Reformed pietistic Christian worldview seeks freedom from statist or any other over-arching political schema. The two-party system will not provide people a meaningful life apart from looking elsewhere for purpose and meaning.]

Introduction: Establishing a Crossroad

For several decades we have fully embarked upon what F. A. Hayek called the Road to Serfdom (1). The problem we face today, particularly the collapse of our economy and the destruction of the dollar did not begin with Bush and Obama. Yet because the last couple of administrations have so blatantly expanded the role of the federal government and its intrusion into the daily lives of people, perhaps the citizens of the United States are beginning to awaken to the dangers of statist control over their lives. If such conscious awakenings bring the country to a crossroads where liberty is pitted against statist policies, such a shift in attitude questioning statist power would be a welcome sign indeed. But at that point, to eliminate the political morass that has been brought to fore will require embarking on a completely different road than most people think. The road to liberty is not found in choices between the two political parties. It is found instead in undermining the monopoly on political dialogue captured by the two-party system and supporting those individuals with the courage enough to uphold the spirit in which the Constitution was written. More importantly a proper response to the the present zeitgeist calls for us to find the courage to exorcise government from our lives.

Changing Attitudes: Government Undoing Itself

Some tell-tell signs are emerging that appear to indicate that individuals are beginning to question the role of government in their lives. First, people are beginning to question the two-party system and its monopoly on political dialogue and action. Because of voices like Ron and Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, and Judge Napolitano, libertarian thought has infiltrated political discussion and debates. People are waking up to the idea that the Republican and Democratic parties are not the only game in town. Indeed people are becoming clear on the fact that the two parties are indeed the same game. In terms of expanding government, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between them, especially over the last three or four administrations.

Second, because of the technological explosion of the Internet, websites that address a variety of issues are competing for readers and support. Once again such information flies in the face of the two-party monopoly on political ideas, and websites such as Lew Rockwell and the von Mises Institute have introduced people to libertarian thought, Austrian economics, and anti-statist politics. Discussions about the business cycle, the Federal Reserve Bank, and the central banking system have become serious topics among many people. Individuals are beginning to realize what government spending does to the dollar and the value of their future savings accounts and retirement. Discussion of private property rights has entered the limelight, and people are once again talking about the role of the Constitution to protect natural rights and property rights by restraining the power of central government.

Third, grassroots movements have emerged comprising individuals who are fed up with government and its intrusion into their lives. Most politicians do not get what is going on. The Tea Party Movement, for example, while a republican movement, is not a Republican Party movement. Many of the people involved realize the difference, and they are calling on both political parties to stay out of their lives, their daily businesses, and their pocket books.

Fourth, government actions in-and-of-themselves have spawned concern on the part of taxpayers and have brought to light ways in which their money is spent, ways that they do not appreciate. Bailouts, stimulus packages, and subsidies for Wall Street firms and big businesses, as well as massive spending on the Welfare State have angered people who see trillions of dollars of their money spent on cronyism, Unionism, and class warfare ideology. Add to the monstrous amount of spending the amount of dollars thrown toward spreading democracy around the world via our military in the name of national defense, people have begun to question the competence, integrity, and use of power in the hands of government. Both political parties had better realize that movements such as those generated by the Tea Partiers seek to rid government from their lives. When Democrats believe that the Tea Party is a Republican Party generated idea, and when Republicans believe that Tea Partiers want simply to replace Democrats with the same old tired neo-conservatism representative of the Bush family, members of both parties are displaying gross ignorance. Whether it is domestic policies or foreign policies, people are growing tired of government interventionism – statist politics.

Crossroads: Radical Pathways

If peoples’ thinking can begin to seriously entertain the idea that government is not beneficent, and that the best response to government is to severely restrict and restrain its power, then perhaps we in this country can bring thoughts about government back to a crossroad so as to imagine what path we want to take. What needs to happen if we want to establish individual liberty as the ultimate value in this country? I believe several changes must occur so as not to fall back into the politics-as-usual inherent both in the Democratic and Republican Parties. All these changes target the annihilation of government power over the individual’s life. ‘

Radically Slash Government Spending Both in Domestic & Foreign Policy

The debate around cutting government spending is typically couched in demagogic terms about the less fortunate, the poor, and the destitute. However, it should be no true surprise to anyone that seventy one plus cents of every dollar the government spends on the Welfare State goes to the payroll of government bureaucrats. Additionally, cronyism generates payback for the unions, subsidies for big business, and the purchasing of votes via class warfare ideology.

The impact of slashing government spending will be felt immediately by those on the state and federal payrolls, no doubt about it. But more money left in the hands of individuals who make it and businesses, particularly small ones, who generate productivity and jobs for others will mean a boost to the makeover of a real economy. Given that government employment now accounts for over half the GDP, we are a nation that is no longer based on productivity. To remake an economy means that production must increase. Businesses must have the incentives and the capabilities to generate production and real jobs.

Government spending not only squelches business production, contrary to what Keynesians say, but it also destroys the dollar. Inflation, hyperinflation, and a currency crisis await us if the government continues with the deficit spending and increasing the debt. We have witnessed such currency crises in Greece, the Scandinavian countries, and Iceland. For far too long we have lived by the idea here in the United States that government expenditures will not take us down the road of those countries. But the cranking of the printing press, flooding the economy with fiat money, and the continued promise of entitlements cannot help but lead to a devalued dollar.

Politicians seek election by making promises to their constituents with other people’s money. A radical change will mean that such promises and entitlements will be eradicated. The spending of trillions of dollars for ideology and pet projects cannot continue without damaging the economy, eventually destroying it altogether. America must get past the idea that there exists an endless well of money to confiscate from rich people so as to promise entitlement upon entitlement for voters. Voters must take on a radical shift in terms of the way they view government. It doesn’t exist to provide them a life. People must also come to understand that government itself has nothing by which to make such promises in the first place. It can promise someone something only by taking that something from someone else. Governments do not create economies. Entrepreneurs do. If this nation does not return to the production that begets more production, soon the parasite – the State – will kill off the host.

Repeal the 16th Amendment and Abolish the IRS

The federal government will not police itself to balance its budget or to be accountable for what it promises and what it spends. One only has to recall the impotence of the Gramm-Rudman Act. As long as there is a public purse from which to draw funds as it seems fit, the government will continue to have a stream of income until it has taxed the economy to death. Politicians have no understanding of what their fiscal and monetary policies do to the economy, nor do they care. As long as the 16th Amendment is in place, the government has first dibs on any individual’s income. There is no amendment more unconstitutional than the one that provided for the income tax.

Unfortunately, the Constitution itself allows for amendments and reinterpretations that contradict the spirit of the Constitution. The fact that an amendment can be made and a reinterpretation proffered does not mean that the amendment or reinterpretation aligns with the spirit of individual liberty, which the founders originally ratified the Constitution to protect. Unfortunately, legalese takes precedent over defending the spirit of individual liberty. Radically, we need to step forward in this country and defend personal liberty and annihilate and eradicate any laws that oppose liberty.

The 16th Amendment assaults an individual’s basic right to live, extending government control over one’s property rights, income, and pursuit of life as one sees fit. The amendment provides government with carte blanche power over people’s paychecks. There is no amendment or idea that politicians have contrived that more flagrantly contradicts the Constitution and its purpose of curtailing centralized power.

Along with repealing the 16th Amendment, the office of government henchmen, known as the IRS, should be abolished. Although not as powerful as they actually think they are, they can wreak havoc on individual’s and business’s livelihood. Based on their tax returns, individuals may become outlaws in the government’s eyes. The IRS can willfully and arbitrarily audit, intrude upon, and confiscate ones productivity. They are hired as government employees to carry out government’s dictates to confiscate the productivity of others. They epitomize the notion of the political means of making a living described by Franz Oppenheimer in his work, The State (2).

Unfortunately, many of the political and economic debates today revolve around tax rates and reforming the massive tax code. I believe we need to move beyond discussions about rates and reform. The radical solution to such intrusion into our lives perpetrated by the government is the outright repeal of the 16th Amendment and its corollary, abolishing the IRS.

States Rights and Nullification

In contrast to the 16 Amendment, the 10th Amendment must be strengthened and reestablished as a basic right in the United States. Unfortunately, states’ rights have been linked historically to slavery and segregation. In true non sequitur fashion, anyone who broaches the idea of states’ rights is immediately set upon as a racist, neo-confederate, and/or Nazi.

However, one of the more powerful weapons against the ever-encroaching centralized State can be found in a proper understanding of the 10th Amendment and its application in challenging the federal government when it oversteps its boundaries.

The 10th Amendment basically states that those powers that the Constitution does not enumerate for the federal government are left to the states. In other words, if the Constitution does not specifically delineate a particular power for the federal government, then the federal government cannot take such a power to itself. All other powers are left to the several states. The individual states have the right to prevent the federal government from intruding into any business that remains the purview of the states. When the feds pass laws that the states believe are unconstitutional, the states then can take action to nullify such laws for the particular states.

The northern states, previous to and during the Civil War, utilized nullification to stand against the Runaway Slave Act, where federal law mandated that free states should apprehend runaway slaves and return them to their rightful owners in the slave states. So the notion that states’ rights inherently support slavery and segregation is based on a faulty view of history (3).

Today, the federal government has taken upon itself power that the Constitution never permitted it to have. From waging unconstitutional wars to providing universal healthcare, the federal government has overstepped its bounds. The one remedy, and a radical one, can be found in the 10th Amendment for the states to say no to the federal government, to nullify federal laws that unconstitutionally allow the feds to take actions for which the federal government was never enumerated. The reclaiming of states’ rights and nullification, the strengthening of the 10th Amendment, and the right to secede from the Union provide protection for the states from encroaching centralized power. These powers must be activated and utilized in a radical fashion.

Abolish the Federal Reserve Bank

The Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) and central banking in general are sources of constant economic turmoil. The Fed is the major impetus behind what Austrian economists call economic bubbles. Supposedly the Fed stabilizes the dollar. But if that’s the case, it’s doing a terrible job these days given that the dollar is declining in value and taking the American economy down the toilet as it plunges into a sewer created by the very actions the Fed perpetrated. The Fed, operating on Keynesian-like principles, manipulates the prime interest rate so as to generate or restrict the amount of money that is in the economy. As such the Fed demonstrates its ignorance of, again what Austrian economists call, the business cycle. By lowering interest rates, the Fed pumps artificial money into the economy that sends mixed signals to businesses who believe that people have the savings to purchase goods. Consequently, these businesses generate production projects only to find that the amount of discretionary spending dollars that people appeared to have was artificially created by the actions of the Fed. Malinvestments ensue that then produce inventories that need to be liquidated. The bubble created by the Fed’s action eventually pops and we have a full throttled recession in store, if not worse. During times that the economy was relatively strong, it absorbed the actions of the Fed. In other words, the economy worked in spite of government interventions rather than because such interventions were made. But as government spending increases, and as the Federal Reserve cranks more and more money into the economy, the offset by a productive economy continues to decrease until we are at the point that the economy is so weak that it can no longer offset the actions of the Fed. Bubble follows bubble as government spending increases and lowered interest rates fall to about zero. The absurdity of the situation is seen in the fact that today we have people who claim that the stimulus packages have led to economic recovery, which in fact is another bubble ready to pop. All one has to do is look at the unemployment rate and realize that we are nowhere close to what some economists call an unemployment recovery. The only thing politicians can do is blame the banks for not lending and the people at large for saving rather than spending. The real economy can no longer offset consequences of actions perpetrated by the Fed and government spending.

Return to the Gold Standard for the Dollar

Historically the setting aside of the gold standard allowed government the possibility to crank the printing press and spend to its dark heart’s content. By taking the dollar off the grid of the gold standard, it is no longer tied to an objective measure that gives it value. Up to the point that the gold standard was revoked, government had to stay its course based on ratio of dollars to gold. With the gold standard out of the picture, the dollar is floating over a psychological abyss. As government spending increases and as the Federal Reserve continues to lower interest rates, the economy is flooded with dollars. No longer does the dollar represent the currency that people want to own. Its value and purchasing power has drastically declined since the original bailouts under the Bush administration and the continued bailout programs and stimulus packages under the Obama administration. Both parties have killed the dollar. And the absence of the gold standard is one reason the government can continue to spend like there’s no tomorrow.

A radical solution to this problem is to reinstate the gold standard, leading to a dollar that possesses real value on the basis of a precious metal that backs its true purchasing power. In alignment with slashing government spending, a gold standard will restrain government as to how much money with which it can flood the economy. Congress would be held in check as to what it can do with the dollar.

Reestablish Laissez-Faire Business Practices

If we can slash government spending, abolish the IRS, strengthened the 10th Amendment Amendment, and reinstitute the gold standard, then we would be on the road, not to serfdom, but to laissez-faire capitalism. Small businesses could welcome competition without government interference and the cronyism that exist between the State and big business and unions. Arbitrary and unfair tax laws, such as the windfall profit tax, would be eradicated. And businesses would be allowed to succeed or fail as they would.

The upside to laissez-faire is that big business, corporations, and unions would no longer have government running interference for them via tax laws and subsidies that favor one business over the other. No longer would corporations be subsidized to explore foreign markets. Like any business, whatever market in which they wish to tap, they would do so at their risks and must assess those risks like any business in a free market.

Unions would no longer have government force behind their desire to corral businesses. The AFLCIO would cease to be a monopoly on labor. Right-to-work states would be left alone. Tariffs and other protectionist measures would be eradicated that favor businesses and unions here in the United States. Export-import businesses would be allowed to compete on the basis of supply and demand. Prices and wages would be established via the mechanism of the free market. Minimum wage laws would be eradicated. There would be true free market competition both for capital and labor. The economy would be based on innovation, creativity, and real production.

Through the 19th and 20th Centuries in the West, and particularly here in America, capitalism produced more wealth and raised the standard of living for more people than the previous centuries combined. The Pharaohs of Egypt would have welcomed and relished what the Western middle class of the 20th Century achieved. The only thing that undermines such wealth production is government interference. From the New Deal to Nixon Price Controls to Obamaism, both Republican and Democratic Parties have pilfered a once thriving economy and are on the brink of destroying the dollar the economy produced. So the person who believes full-heartedly in individual liberty cries out laissez-faire.

End the Foreign Policy of Interventionism

The Military Industrial Complex is an economic drain on America’s day-to-day living. I do not argue against the need for a legitimate national defense. But at least, if not before, since the Korean War, the United States has engaged in one unconstitutional, undeclared war after another. And if we had not been engaged in outright war, we have been entangled in conflicts around the globe that neither serve our national interests nor have anything to do with national defense. Presently, America has troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Korea, Japan, and Germany. We spend billions of dollars per year carrying out the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan when 9/11 was an act perpetrated right here on our shores under the noses of those supposedly engaged in our national defense.

In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned America about becoming entangled in the conflicts of other nations. Just as laissez-faire befits business practices, it equally befits our foreign policies. We should be friends to all so that businesses can be free to trade and engage in mutual beneficial exchange. If the policies and politics of other countries are too unstable, then businesses here in this country need to take such risks into account when and if they choose to do business in those countries. The taxpayers owe them no subsidies, bailouts, or military protection to carry on their business operations around the world.

The Military Industrial Complex impacts us in other ways that run counter to laissez-faire. The Patriot Act is blatantly unconstitutional. It allows government to intrude, infiltrate, and monitor the daily lives of American citizens. The Act should be repealed.

In no way is such a take on non-interventionist foreign policy a statement against our military men and women. The best way to show support for our troops is to bring them home, removing them from political entanglements around the globe perpetrated by statists that are none of America’s business. Although it may sound trite by now because it has been stated so many times, America is not the policemen for the world. The notion that we are is more representative of an empire than a republic.

Conclusion: A Different Road

Make no mistake about it, I’m not going to pretend that what I’ve outlined here aligns with much of the thinking in politics today. Indeed it most likely is too radical even for those who have witnessed the road down which neoconservatives and progressive liberals have taken the nation.

I do not believe that a proper response to the pilfering of our economy and the destruction of the dollar is a mere change in political parties. We’ve had enough of that game. Being more moderate or somewhat conservative doesn’t cut it. We can’t laud Bush for tax cuts but remain silent about his expansion of the government, the Patriot Act, and his Wilsonian vision of empire. The issue is not a a choice between Democrats and Republicans.

We need to pave a completely different road. Both parties have taken us down the road to serfdom. We need a road to liberty, a pathway that rids our lives of those who parasite our productivity for their political gain. We need a realistic look at this economy and what politicians have done with it. Presently as I write this, Obama and his minions continue to tell us that spending the country into oblivion will make everything better. Simply saying that we need to keep the Bush tax cuts in place and we need to be a little more fiscally conservative doesn’t answer the call.

The only proper response to the politicians who have economically raped this country is a radical one. A legitimate understanding of the illness the Washington parasites have caused calls for a cleansing ourselves of the notion that politicians know better how to design our lives for us. Such a belief has enthroned them with the greatest centralized power the country has known. That power should be undermined, diffused, and eradicated via Constitutional means.

Today, thoughts are emerging that may signal that we can begin carving a new road. Nullification, secession, eradicating the Fed, and repealing the 16th Amendment and abolishing the IRS, while once viewed as beliefs held only by fringe elements, are beginning to be considered worthy steps to take in the face of an empowered centralized bureaucracy that has destroyed one of the most formidable economies known in the history of mankind.

But such steps will take courage. We must believe that we can carve a life out for ourselves apart from and better than what government bureaucrats can do for us. We must fight the temptation to look to people in power to guarantee our existence. We must be willing to live with the fact that creating a worthwhile life involves risks with little to no guarantees. We must undertake the steps necessary to take care of our own households, checkbooks, and communities. And we must summon the courage to stand against federal power that has flooded in waves over its Constitutional boundaries. Living free begins with the individual. Maintaining liberty means saying no to self-appointed designers of life who approach us with a handful of promises if only we surrender our productivity and freedom to them.

References

(1) Hayek, F. A. (1994). The Road to Serfdom. (50th Anniversary Edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Originally Published 1944].

(2) Oppenheimer, F. (1997). The State. San Francisco: Fox Wilkes. [Originally Published 1914].

(3) Woods, T. E. (2010). Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Washington DC: Henry Regnery.

[Needless to say, in the last sixteen years since I penned this article, the State has not withered but grown more tyrannical. Note the warmth of collectivism that has captured New York City. We are once again entangled in another Military Industrial Complex debacle in Iran. And tariffs have become the economic sword brandished by the Trump administration. I have come to believe that apart from a Christian worldview we will not reclaim our individual states, communities, and personal businesses so as to carve out a life for ourselves. People continue to look to the State and politicians to promise them a life. This is straightforward Statolatry. Until we seek freedom from the State and recognize the only Being worthy of worship is God, human beings will continue to furnish others the chains used to enslave them.]

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D/June 14th, 2026

ANALYSIS OF POWER

May 14, 2026 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

Natural Revelation: The Power & the Glory

The heavens are telling of the glory of God/Their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalm 19:1)

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made . . . (Romans 1:19-20).

Introduction

It is May in Texas, and we have had some beautiful days prior to what will be the onslaught of those well-known Texas summers that hammer us from June through August, even into September. Over the past couple of weeks, I spent some time sitting outside on a bench, conversing with a friend, both of us commenting on how beautiful the days were, and enjoying the slight spring breeze that comforted us beneath an equally comforting sun. It brought to my mind the reality of natural revelation, God’s presence in the world that He created. Although I have experienced many beautiful places, I want to highlight three of them as special experiences of God’s natural revelation, closing with a summary of why this reality is important to those us who are in Christ.

Highway 84

Numerous times I have on a whim decided to drive up to Santa Fe, NM from where I live here in Texas. Santa Fe is a town I truly enjoy, and I likewise enjoy the scenic drive that takes me there. Invariably I make my way through Lubbock at which point I turn due west to head into New Mexico, driving west on Highway 84. At Fort Sumner, NM, Highway 84 juts due north, eventually taking me into Santa Fe after some navigating jaunts on I-40 and I-25. Coming out of Fort Sumner, heading due north, Highway 84 is a lone two-lane highway across the prairie land and foothills before entering the Sangre de Cristo Mountain range outside and around Santa Fe. Driving on that highway simulates being in a technicolor movie. There are no descriptive words that can do justice to the richness and depths of the colors one experiences there. There is hardly anything man-made out there other than the highway. One of the things I like to do on my jaunt across 84 is pull over to the side at some place and get out of the car for a few minutes. Stepping out into that venue is like entering into another world. There’s an old adage, you can hear and feel the quietness. The silence is heavy. Apart from the screech of an eagle or the howling of a wolf, there is a total and complete lack of sound surrounded by stillness. I think of it as the way creation is supposed to be experienced. The peacefulness is disturbed occasionally by a passing motorist, which signals the noisiness we human beings bring to creation. Nature calls to mind Psalm 46:10, Be quite and know that I am God. The presence of God presides over that panorama.

Narrow-Gauge Wonders

Driving from Texas to Durango, CO is another journey filled with vistas. Upon approaching the Rockies, one experiences the full grandeur of natural revelation. Another amazing experience that one can undertake while in Durango, involves the narrow-gauge train ride from Durango up to an old mining town, Silverton. The ride up follows the Animus River as the narrow-gauge rises from Durango at 6500 feet to Silverton at 9300 ft. I sat next to a window taking in the beautiful scenic rise up the mountain. With dozens of people on the train obviously it was quite chatty as we made our journey to the small mining town. There was a couple sitting behind me that were bickering due to some disagreement. Along the way, the tracks cross some mountain passes. To call them breath-taking is a gross understatement. At one point, I looked out the window where I sat and experienced a sheer drop of about 1200 feet or more. As we crossed that pass, everyone became silent and remained quieter the rest of the way up to Silverton. The couple behind me not only ceased bickering, but became somewhat lovey-dovey toward one another. Each of us on that train knew we had just experienced something greater and more powerful than us. What came over us was what I considered a referential awe that brought on a form of humility. We were confronted with something greater and of more grandeur than us. It was as if God was speaking, and no one could help but hear even though no voice was heard nor were there words (Psalm 19). But yes, a voice and words were heard nonetheless. The power of God was felt by all, even among those who would claim there is no God.

Emerald Blue

Some years ago I visited Glacier National Park, which in-and-of-itself is a God-like vista. I flew into Missoula, MT, rented a car, and drove up to Kalispell and then on to a bed-and-breakfast where I stayed for a few days. The drive to Kalispell entails a short jaunt on I-90, and then one takes Hwy 93 due north to Kalispell and beyond. At one point on Hwy 93, I rounded a corner, and there it lay, sprawled out beneath the sun, Flathead Lake. It is little known, but Flathead is the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi River except for Iliamna Lake in Alaska. It is just a little larger than Lake Tahoe in Nevada. Salt Lake in Utah is larger, but it is, as its name indicates, a salt lake. The only way I can describe it is as a picturesque canvas of powerful blue-emerald color. It looked as if God had painted an enormous blue, turquoise canvas on the face of the earth. As a natural glacial lake of approximately 197 square miles, it contained the bluest water I have ever witnessed. Again, the presence of God overwhelmed me through such an powerful scene. His voice was there through the silence of this blue wonder of natural revelation.

The Meaning of Natural Revelation

So what should these wonders say to us mere creatures? There is Natural Revelation, the voice of God in nature. Then there is Special Revelation, the voice of God through His Word, the Scripture. The latter speaks to the former as seen in the epigrams that open this article. Natural Revelation showcases God’s enormous power. For those of us He called to be in Christ, we can take comfort in the power that God providentially works in directing our lives because He is creator. The very God who spoke the universe into being by the power of His Word is the God who says to us that we can enter His rest – Be quiet and know that I am God. That calls on us to trust a power, the extent of which we cannot fathom. As the epistle to the Ephesians tells us, the power that God works toward our sanctification is the very power by which He raised Christ from the dead. Such vistas bring us an inkling of His power through His creation – an inkling that signifies there is so much more beyond our grasp, but nevertheless, so much more on which we can rely.

Moreover, there is a reality outside of us, a reality that speaks to God’s existence. In contrast to this postmodern age, we do not construct that reality. Its existence calls us to common sense realism and a worldview that has as its foundation the truth of God’s existence. As we live, breathe, and have our being in that created dominion, we, live, breathe, and exist in God (Acts 10:39). In His light we see light (Psalm 36:9), which is Jesus Christ.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D/May 14th, 2026

CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

April 14, 2026 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

Foundation

O Lord, my rock and my Redeemer. (Psalm 19:14)

The Lord by wisdom founded the earth, by understanding He established the heavens. By His knowledge the deeps were broken up and the skies drip with dew. (Psalm 3:19-20)

He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER STONE. (Acts 4:11)

For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Cor. 3:11)

He said to him, YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40)

I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (John 14:6)

Introduction

What is the truth? A question posed by Pontus Pilate while looking into the very eye of truth. Yet this same question has been posed by philosophers for centuries, if not for millennia. For those of us who have been called to be in Christ, who make up the Body of Christ, the church, an answer to this question can be difficult for us to formulate at times. It is difficult even for some believers to find their way to stand on what has been revealed to them via the Scripture as the truth. Through the sinuous paths across the centuries we witness through the history of philosophy that the notion of foundational and absolute truth has been jettisoned, especially in this postmodern age in which we reside. We fold our hand in the presence of critics of absolute truth because we are at a loss, not only in how to respond to those who attack absolute truth, but also, and more importantly, how we are to live out our professed beliefs in the eyes of the world. Indeed our response should be witnessed both in what we say, and how we live out our claim.

The Search

The history of philosophy, especially epistemology, is replete with the various quests for the foundation on which all truth claims can stand. What readily comes to mind is Descartes’ I think therefore I am, or the logical positivists’ verification factor, or the empiricism of science as proffered in the Enlightenment. Modern day philosophers have forsaken the search for an absolute foundation for truth only to proclaim an absolute in its place: there is no foundation for truth, or there is no absolute truth. Postmodernism has seized the day with subjectivity as the root of all existence, proffering another absolute in the name of anti-foundationalism: humans create their own reality. Although I am deeply thankful for those in the body of Christ gifted to be apologists for the faith, (Carl Trueman, Mark Noll, James Sire, Francis Schaeffer, Os Guinness, Nancy Pearcey come to mind), I think as believers in Christ we can get too caught up in the need to win a philosophical argument while not attending to how we live out our faith in the eyes of the world. The epigrams that open this article are all from Scripture that provide us with the truth that God has given us to both stand on and live by. Yes, we need all the gifts that God gives to each believer in Christ. Again, praise Him for the gifted and passionate apologists. They are indeed fulfilling the greatest commandment to love God with all their mind. I wish and pray to think with their depth. They exhibit Biblical wisdom a its core. But we are not all gifted in that manner and to that degree. So what is truth? And how are we to live it out in this fallen existence?

Our Rock and Foundation

For those of us called to be in Christ we can take solid stock in the glorious truth that our Lord God is the creator of all things. Genesis 1:1 provides us with this glorious truth, and all that follows in Scripture stands on that beginning. Even more glorious is the Biblical picture that our heavenly Father relates to us not only as the creator but also as our rock and Redeemer. As such He is our Father. He didn’t merely wind the universe up in some clockwork manner, leaving it to run on its own, as the Deists preached in the 18th century. As our creator, we can rely – stand – on the truth of His power and glory. He brought the universe into being by the power of His word. Therefore, His infinite power speaks to the bedrock confidence that believers place in His redemptive work. The fact that He is creator of the unfathomable universe in which we live is not just a side note in Scripture. The very power that He is goes into our salvation, sanctification, and eventual glorification. His redemptive power is our life that has been placed on the rock on which we stand. His power to maintain and keep us to the day we come face to face with Christ is the very power by which He called the universe into being. In His hands we are safe. Our living out this redemptive truth via His power can be understood vertically and horizontally.

Vertically: Our Relationship to God

God is the bedrock truth on which we stand. Moreover, He has given us His word. There is great mystery and glory in this proclamation. We are told in John 1:1-5 that Jesus, the Christ is the Word that was with God from the very beginning. And that through Jesus, God created the world. That same passage tells us that Jesus is the light of the world. Christ is the light by which we live. Psalm 36:9 proclaims that in God’s light we see light. Hence, the Incarnated Christ becomes our witness – our example – as to how we are to live. His life, teaching, service, and atoning work provide the light that shows us how to live. He responds to Thomas (John 14:6) I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me. As God is our rock and Redeemer, the second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God, is the chief cornerstone (Acts 4:11-12) on whom God has placed those who believe in Him (Psalm 40:1-2). Hence, we are to look to God for what the truth entails and how to live out that truth in our lives. Moreover, God has given believers in Christ the Holy Spirit who will teach us all things as we read and study God’s word. The Spirit also intercedes for us in our prayers to and our communication with God. So vertically, our sanctification entails our growth in the revelation and knowledge of God. We are to live our lives out knowing Him. We do this through reading His word, engaging Him in prayer, and via our interaction with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Jesus proclaimed the greatest commandment to be: YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND (Matthew 2:37). This is our directive regarding our vertical relationship with God. He provides us the means by which we can grow in our knowledge of Him.

Horizontially: Our Relationship with Others

Jesus’ response to the scribe lawyer in Matthew 22:37-40 fleshes our more detail regarding the greatest commandment. He states the second greatest commandment is YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. While the first and foremost commandment defines our vertical relationship with the Father, the second, defines our relationship with other human beings created in the image of God. Although our primary relationships as believers will entail our relationships with our brothers and sisters in Christ, this commandment speaks to how we are to relate to all human beings. This commandment is also explicated in the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31). And it is explicated in Jesus’ parable concerning the Good Samaritan. These foundational truths given via God’s word provide us the guide as to how we are to live.

The How of God’s Truth

The believer in Christ answers the question what is truth in claiming that the Triune God is the truth. That being the case, what does it mean for how we are to live that truth out? Loving our neighbor as ourselves is a tall call indeed. We cannot do it apart from God’s direction and the grace He supplies via the indwelling power of Christ and the Holy Spirit on our inner being. The life of Christ in all His teaching and actions is our example. The Decalogue, the Sermon on the Mount, the Good Samaritan, the atoning work of Christ, are just a few of the proclamations we can use as guideposts for how to live the way God would have us live. Christ, the Servant, is the example par excellence.

Conclusion

As I stated earlier, it can be difficult for us to respond to critics of our faith. We all need to understand better how to do that. Again, that is the reason that I’m so deeply thankful for the apologists, some of whom I listed above. They are exercising the gift that God gave them, evidencing their work to love God with all their heart, soul, and mind. Each of us as a member of the body of Christ must seek out what our gift(s) is/are and live those out in the world. The church must become the beacon of light that draws the world to it, both by what believers proclaim and how they live. In so doing, we must stand on the bedrock truth that is God Himself, looking to the power of the Holy Spirit to guide us in how to better understand and then live out the truth God has given us.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D/April 14th, 2026

CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

March 14, 2026 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

The Fed Is the Problem: A Review of Thomas E. Woods’ “Meltdown”

Introduction

Having reprinted an article last month from a webpage that I created for a short time some years back, I want to continue in that vein this month. Given the political rhetoric surrounding affordability, the continued rise of inflation, and the ever-soaring $38-trillion dollar debt that future generations face in this country, I can’t think of a better book to revisit than Tomas E. Woods’ Meltdown, which I reviewed in August of 2009. I published that review on a now defunct webpage titled Analysis of Power. I still like that title, and I continue to engage now and then in AOP through this webpage, Contemplations. Although Meltdown dealt with the stock market collapse and bailout debacle of 2009, I strongly believe that what Woods presents in his work still needs to be heard today, loud and clear. In this country, we are still not heeding the lessons that should come with our folly of looking to the State to cure our economic ills, and in turn, to supposedly providing a life for us. What follows is a reprint of my book review from 2009.

Woods, T. E. (2009). Meltdown: A Free Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse. Washington DC: Henry Regnery.

Introduction

If there was ever a timely book to hit the market, it is Thomas E. Woods’ Meltdown. Like a bullet piercing its target, this book epitomizes the reality behind Frank Chodorov’s claim, economics is not politics. Indeed, as Woods so aptly demonstrates in this work, the political realm has so fouled up the economy, whether or not we will ever get it back on track is no mere academic question. If policy makers want to embrace legitimate economic knowledge, then they should study Meltdown. The major problem, however, with their reading it (besides not understanding it), is their having to take the blame for the economy in the first place. Additionally they would have to accept the cure – getting their butt out of people’s lives. Unfortunately, there are no actions more contrary to a politician’s mindset. One only has to listen to the pseudo praises about the present uptick in the market being due to the omniscient wisdom of the present administration. One wonders why people are intent on believing that the present market bubble at 9200+ represents a more sound economy than the bubble the previous administrations created when the market soared past 10,000. Woods explains why the present economy is no more stable than it was before the Meltdown. I will focus my review mainly on the first three chapters, not because the other chapters are less important, but because they speak directly to the present moment. Chapter 4 of Meltdown expands on Woods’ thesis that the Fed is the major culprit in the present as well as other economic crises. Chapter 5 presents an excellent historical overview of the Great Depression, explicating the major myths surrounding that event, particularly the idea that the free market caused the Depression and that the New Deal ushered in more sound economic times. Chapter 6 deserves special attention of its own with Woods’ sound scholarly discussion of money, where it comes from, the role it serves, and how the actions of central banking debase money. This chapter clarifies the misconception people have about inflation and deflation. In the final chapter, Woods asks the question, given where we are at with this present economic climate, What Now? Meltdown is a superb application of the Austrian theory of the business cycle to the present economic crisis. After reading it, I fail to see how anyone could blame those working in the free market for the present economic crises. For the mess we are in now, we have only the State to thank.

The Culprits: Chapters 1 & 2

Woods’ scholarly work takes you step-by-step through the faultless application of the Austrian theory of the business cycle, put forth by Ludwig von Mises and expounded by others (1). The first two chapters of this work explicate what Woods designates as the culprits behind the present meltdown. Rather than being the free market (which is anything but a monolithic entity), Woods delineates several political actions and institutions that created the downfall of the market. The culprits are: 1) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; 2) Community Reinvestment Act (CRA); 3) the government’s artificial stimulus to speculation; 4) the Federal Reserve and artificially cheap credit; and 5) the to big to fail mentality.

Government Action: The Great Oymoron

First, it is important to realize that these culprits cross political lines. There are little, if any, differences in the ways that either the Republican or the Democratic Parties have handled the economy through inflationary measures utilizing the Federal Reserve along with strangling much market activity in certain private sectors through regulation. As Woods explains, only politicians can foul things up with regulation, and then view the problem as too little regulation. In his opening chapter, “The Elephant in the Living Room,” Woods describes the belief systems held by politicians that only they can fix things. And if things go awry, that means they need to do more fixing. However, it’s the fixing that gets things broke. As he explicates throughout his work, of all the culprits listed above, the elephant in the living room is the Federal Reserve System (Fed for short). The Fed is anything but a free market institution. As Woods explains, the Fed is an arm of the federal government planning . . . created by an act of Congress . . . and dedicated to central economic planning (p. 8). The boom-bust cycle, or the bursting of the bubble as economists and investment planners describe it, is the result of the Fed’s manipulation of interest rates that floods the market with cheap money, producing a systemic problem throughout the market that leads to malinvestments that inevitably lead to a crash. As Woods explains, and further delineates in his book, the main action that has to be taken to end devastating boom-bust cycles involves, not a reforming or overhauling of the Fed, but its outright abolishment.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

If there was ever an insult to the notion of free market institutions, it is designating the two government-sponsored entities (GSE’s), Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, as free market institutions. Their proper names respectively are the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. They are nothing more than behemoth corporations created by Congress. The accounting that takes place as loans are shifted to the GSE’s is interesting indeed. Many people simply do not understand what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do and how they accomplish a bubble in the housing market. People mistakenly believe that these GSE’s perform mortgage loans for home buyers. On the contrary, using tax-payer money, Fannie and Freddie purchase loans from the banks after a bank has loaned to a consumer, and from that point on, the loans are no longer on the ledgers of the lending banks. Fannie and Freddie then proceed to bundle the loans and sale them to investors. But since the loans are no longer a part of the lending banks’ ledger, they can make more loans and begin the cycle all over again. Woods explains that this process inflates housing prices because of its artificial diversion of resources into mortgage lending. In other words, if the GSE’s were not purchasing these loans from banks, the banks would have to let the market dictate how many loans they could make, and the housing prices would be based on simple supply and demand and subjective evaluation.

Contributing to people’s misunderstanding of their workings is the fact that Fannie and Freddie are somewhat of a mystery. No one clearly understands their status: are they public or private? Woods explains:

As GSE’s, their exact status as public or private entities has always been ambiguous – they enjoy special tax and regulatory privileges that potential competitors do not, but their stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Their securities are designated as “government securities” and can be held by banks as low-risk bonds. And for years, Fannie has had a special $2.25 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury. (p. 14)

What small business wouldn’t love a line of credit like that? These GSE’s are anything but private firms. Woods details how politics rule the day over the GSE’s activities. More recently, during the Clinton administration and throughout the Bush administration, Fannie Mae became involved in the manipulation of interest rates for helping disadvantaged groups become proud owners of homes they never really owned. The Clinton administration turned up the pressure on Fannie to expand credit to people ranging from low to moderate income. The unfortunate mixture of economics and politics raised its ugly head as it came to light that Fannie contributes a healthy source of campaign contributions to the Democratic Party, and that the GSE’s had been operated by prominent Democrats for years. Amidst all the talk about golden parachutes for CEO’s in the market, there was some screaming silence about the $100 million dollars that Franklin Raines, Clinton’s budget director, walked away with after a short period of operating Fannie Mae.

Woods’ description of the GSE’s raises one simple point among others. In looking to the bursting of the housing bubble, one cannot ignore the role of the government via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. More importantly one cannot ignore the gross inefficiency whenever government intrudes itself into a private sector.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and Affirmative Action in Lending

It is important to realize that although Woods delineates several culprits that contributed to the meltdown that recently occurred in the economy, from his perspective and economic reasoning, which is Misean and Austrian, the major problem is the Fed. Many people wanted to solely blame either the GSE’s or the CRA for the economic downfall. Although they contributed their share, nothing in the economy that transpired could have occurred without the easy money flooding the market via manipulation by the Fed.

That said, the CRA played its role in loosening lending standards that led to the housing bubble that in turn led to the financial institutional meltdowns. According to Woods, although the CRA originated during the Jimmy Carter administration, it received a boost under the Clinton administration, and opened banks up to harsh lawsuits amid accusations of racism. Chodorov’s maxim speaks clearly here as no longer could banks look at individuals’ ability to repay loans, but instead they had to take into consideration their race. If a certain percentage of minorities did not receive loans, the Boston Fed deemed the credit standards used by banks as arbitrary and unreasonable measures of creditworthiness (Boston Fed Manual quoted by Woods, p. 18).

Woods further explains that although the CRA had a limited impact on the meltdown, the lending standards comprised by the CRA pervaded the entire mortgage-lending sector. Combined with the CRA, Fannie, Freddie, and HUD pressured banks to loosen their lending standards. Add to this the Fed’s credit expansion powers, and what you have is a housing bubble. Politics once again intruded upon economics with thugs from ACORN blocking businesses’ driveways, making business impossible for banks until they catered to demands to make billions of dollars of loans they would not have made otherwise in a free market. One wonders about the benevolence of such an action as borrowers of these loans began to default and lose their homes. Instead of expressing outrage at the government’s role in the housing debacle, the very culprits that gave rise to the problem blamed banks and predatory lending practices. When banks were strong-armed by threats of being labeled racist and intimidated by ACORN hoods, one also must wonder who the real predators are. They were nowhere to be seen or heard when people began to default on their homes. Why would they be? They could pass the blame off onto the market.

Government Artificial Stimilus

According to Woods’ analysis, although the CRA and subprime lending contributed to the housing bubble, these factors may have indeed been overemphasized by some people. When the Fed flooded banks with reserves to lend, practices such as 100% loans became common, especially among minority groups. Of course, such relaxed standards also expanded to those in higher-income brackets. Why not? The Fed had made the money available. But home prices increased, and so did foreclosures, with large increases in both the subprime and prime loans. So the notion of predatory lending to minorities and low socio-economic class borrowers did not fit the facts. Everyone jumped into the game, regardless of race and income, and signed the dotted line for homes they really could not afford. In the final analysis, Woods explains that foreclosures occurred mostly due, not to subprime loans, but to adjustable rates, a practice that Alan Greenspan encouraged people to take on.

Many people blamed the private rating agencies whose job is to rate the creditworthiness of the mortgages, hence the call for more regulation after the collapse of the housing sector. However, all these loans took place, first in institutions that are already highly regulated, the banks. And second, these problems occurred right under the SEC’s nose. Woods explains that the SEC actually controls these private rating agencies, and undue oversight would occur if they balked at politically popular lending. But through it all, the easy money that the Fed created for the banks sounded the death knell for the housing sector,

The “Too Big to Fail” Mentality

Personally, I know having heard this early on from Bush, other politicians, and talkshow hosts, I lost count of how many times I heard the words, too big to fail and systemic risks. Woods’ analysis is spot on about how this mentality creates moral hazard. The belief basically sends messages to business entities that you are too important to fail. Major firms are given the assurance that they will be protected from bankruptcy. Consequently, these firms make decisions that they would not otherwise make in a pure free market where the taxpayers are not brought on board to save their butt from bad business decisions. Such guarantees lead to a belief in an eternal boom. As Woods explains, when markets collapse, the Fed rushes to the rescue. The excessive expansion, however, would not have happened in the first place if the Fed had not made credit so easily obtainable.

The Federal Reserve

Although Woods discusses the Fed before finishing the too big to fail mentality, I summarize his discussion of it last here because his take on the Fed is the thrust of his argument and follows from the Austrian theory of the business cycle (1). The Austrian theory of the business cycle most definitely sees the central banking system, the fractional reserve system, and the Fed as the major culprits in creating a bubble that will sooner or later pop. Although Woods discusses the Fed as one of the several culprits in creating the housing bubble (his title of Chapter 2 is “How Government Created the Housing Bubble”), he expounds on central banking and the Fed as major forces of economic woes throughout our country’s economic history. Woods states that although the other five culprits are important in understanding the housing bubble (and by extraction, the meltdown in the financial sector as well), they by themselves cannot account for the sheer scope of the housing bubble and depth of the crash (p. 25). As a full explanation of these phenomena, Woods challenges us to understand why business cycles occur.

The Austrian theory analysis claims that the government’s manipulation of the money supply produces an unsustainable boom that ineluctably leads to a bust. To have a clear understanding of the business cycle, one must also understand the distinction between consumption and production goods (the latter also called higher order goods by some economic theorists). When the Fed manipulates the money supply and floods the market with money, a false signal is sent to business entrepreneurs to invest in longer-term projects such as raw materials, construction, and capital goods. These higher order goods are used to produce consumption goods. If people have legitimately produced a pool of savings, then business entrepreneurs can more safely assume that money and demand are available for long-term projects. However, there is a difference between money that is actually saved by people and money that the Fed generates and floods into the economy. At a time when people are consuming or do not have savings, the Fed’s manipulation of the money supply diverts resources into projects that are not driven by true consumer demand and are, thereby, not sustainable. The Austrian theory of the business cycle claims that this false signal generated by the Fed produces a systemic error throughout the economy.

Woods explains that in this recent economic meltdown, the money generated by the Fed found its way into the housing market, and combined with lax lending standards, and the role of the GSE’s, the result was excessive home purchases and speculation regarding the housing industry. As previously stated, the government, after fouling things up, is wont to blame others for the mess it created. Predictably, the government blamed predatory lending, when the government itself provided the money to be lent, and greedy speculators, when a bubble created by the government drew speculators into the market. With what appeared to be a solid economic reality that would go on and on, why wouldn’t speculators enter the sector? That is what they do. Woods says it clearly: Cheap money draws people into speculation who do not belong there, who know little about the market involved, and who see in it as an irresistible get-rich-quick-scheme.

As far as predatory lending is concerned, Woods further eplains that with the new money created by the Fed, the banks lent it to individuals who previously would not have been cleared for a loan. Although good entrepreneurship comprises understanding the market and where it’s headed, fiat money makes it extremely difficult to distinguish between a sound project and a bubble project (p. 27).

Expanding on the Problems that Government Creates: Focus Chapter 3

In Chapter 3 of Meltdown, “The Great Wall Street Bailouts,” Woods discusses the recent and present bailouts that the government provided for firms like AIG, Fannie and Freddie, and other industries, what was eventually called the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. He takes on Paulson and Bernanke’s explanation of the economic crisis and the ways they sought to save things. Woods works with the facts, taking us through each bailout and the nationalization of businesses. He once again expounds on the notion of too big to fail and argues that the fate of Lehman Brothers should have been the fate of those firms and industries that received a bailout. When companies are fed the notion that whatever they do will not lead to bankruptcy, moral hazard is created, and these companies make business decisions that they would not otherwise make, believing that the taxpayers have their back.

Utilizing the Austrian theory of the business cycle, Woods argues that firms need to suffer the market consequences of their decisions. While the government is telling people all will be well if they keep borrowing and spending, logical economic thinking signals that a bust is a time to step back from spending and increase savings and contract rather than expand credit. Woods explains: Excessive, imprudent lending and credit creation led to the economy’s depressed condition in the first place by misallocating so much capital into unprofitable and even absurd lines of production. The economy needs time to restructure itself, for market participants to sort out which investments are sound and which are squandering capital, and for asset prices to be brought back into line with reality, in order for rational economic calculation to proceed once again. Banks should do exactly what they appear to be doing: restoring sane and sensible lending standards and scrutinizing loan applications more carefully (p. 42). Such a process is exactly what the Austrian theory of the business cycle calls for. Businesses that make bad investment decisions need to liquidate, declare bankruptcy, and let other healthier businesses take over any usable assets they possess.

Woods goes on to discuss the moralist hit that short-selling took, explaining that it is a normal market phenomenon and that banning it has more perverse effects than good. One of the more enlightening sections of this chapter for me is Woods discussion of deregulation. He claims that while attacks on deregulation were unfounded, those who argue that deregulation is not the problem with the present crisis are likewise in error. The issue here is the banking system. As long as the banks are insured by taxpayer money, says Woods, then they should not be allowed to take greater risks than what their insurance of deposits allow. But these risks were exactly the problem exacerbated by the CRA, Fannie, and Freddy. So the risks that these banks took through relaxed lending standards were the failure of regulation, not deregulation. True deregulation would cut taxpayer ties to the banks altogether.

Woods discusses the inevitable consequences of the bailouts – more bailouts in the future. With the string of bailouts that occurred, the precedent has been set, and the private sector will be poorer than it otherwise has to be. Finally, Woods raises the question: What happens when the bill comes due? Fiat money generated by the Fed does not exist in an endless supply. Somewhere the house of cards will get shaky. Whatever else the government did wrong, the major malevolent consequence is that its actions have siphoned off resources from true wealth producers – true entrepreneurs. Resources are diverted into firms and industries that should otherwise fail. Woods states: . . . there is no shortcut to wealth. We cannot become prosperous by pushing interest rates lower than the market would have set them. There is no monetary magic wand that can make everyone rich. The interest rate was at the level the market established for a reason, and when governments and their central banks artificially interfere with it, they mislead investors into destructive courses of action they would not otherwise have taken. They encourage investments in lines that make no long-run sense. They encourage consumption at a time when investors are starved for capital (p. 60).

Conclusion

There is so much more that one could expound on in this timely work. And although Meltdown clarifies for people the business cycle and the role of the Fed in producing our economic woes, it does much more than that, bringing economic sense to areas about which most people are simply unaware. The free market versus the government, money and its role in business, consumption, production, inflation, deflation, and the common but distorted rhetoric around what we have all been taught about the Great Depression. The seven chapters of Meltdown weave a tapestry of insight into the economic world of free enterprise and its doomed fate at the hands of the State.

So what do we do with this knowledge? Woods, in his final chapter titled “What Now?” delineates several important courses of action if we want to see the economy get back on track and this country once again become a haven for liberty. First, Woods explains that we need to reverse our notion that spending and consuming are what is good for the economy. Rather than merely consuming, we need to produce. In order to produce, businesses need to save so as to invest in production. Second, businesses need to fail rather than receiving a bailout at hands of the taxpayer. Bankruptcy, Woods explains, is a legitimate path for dealing with malinvestment and business failure. The world, really and truly, will not come to an end if bankruptcy proceedings are carried out for a number of businesses. Third, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should go away; they should be abolished. Woods suggests that both GSE’s should go through bankruptcy proceedings themselves and their assets auctioned off to private mortgage guarantors (p. 148). Fourth, Woods calls for an end to bailouts and government spending. The incessant government spending depends on fiat money generated by the Fed and the central banking system, and ultimately much higher taxes, regardless of what politicians say. Government spending is nothing more than constant indebtedness. Along those lines, fifth, Woods declares that government needs to cease its manipulation of money through the Fed. The manipulation of money is inflationary, and through legal-tender laws, alternative sources of money are not available when the dollar is being abased. Sixth, (the one I like the best), abolish the Fed. This final action would also lead to seventh, shutting down the Fed’s ability to lend money, and eighth, ending its monopoly over money. Woods points to von Mises and Hayek, and their call to separate money from the State. As Chodorov succinctly put it: economics is not politics.

References:

(1) Ebeling, R. M. (ed.) (1996). The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle and Other Essays. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.

John V. Jones, Jr. Ph.D/March 14th, 2026

ANALYSIS OF POWER/Economics

February 14, 2026 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

Frank Chodorov – The Individualist

Introduction

I am posting a blog article that I wrote several years ago (January 2009 to be exact) from a different blog site that I had set up at the time. That site no longer exists. Over the years, I have stated more than once that my political leanings align with libertarianism. I rarely discuss politics on this site, and I never support a political candidate on this webpage. The reason for that stance is not to come across as neutral or apolitical. I am not neutral, and I for sure embrace a political philosophy. That philosophy is neither progressive nor neoconservative. Given the rise of saber rattling neoconservatism and the hazardous emergence of the warmth of collectivism, I wanted to restate my libertarian principles here. In the midst of cleaning out my files, I came across this article I had written in 2009. I see no reason not to restate it here. One of my favorite libertarian (Classical Liberal) writers is Frank Chodorov. His thought underpins this article

Chodorov the Individualist

Frank Chodorov explicated the idea of individualism as passionately and rationally as anyone I have read to date. And I believe that the individualist spirit that contributed to what was once the freest country in the world is waning, and has been for sometime. At 60-years old, I come to this conclusion late in life. And I wish I could have learned the lessons about living much earlier in life. All the data, experiences, people, and facts existed for me to learn solid lessons about life. But like so many others, I passed them by, paid them no mind, and even in a period of my life, demeaned what they stood for. Well, I hope the old adage, it’s never too late to learn, is in fact an accurate assessment. I know difficult times are ahead for me because I didn’t learn the lessons early in life that I should have, lessons I want to explore in this essay. I am going to have to change a lot of old patterns, much wrong thinking, and sloppy ways of living. and I hope that those of you who happen upon this webpage and are reading this blog are willing to journey with me, bearing with me as I seek to carve out ideas where much greater minds than mine have already tread. If I use as a compass the thoughts and ideas of von Hayek, von Mises, Rothbard, or Chodorov, hopefully that will keep me from going too awry.

As Chodorov so insightfully claimed, the road to collectivism is an easy path for most to follow, and today its siren song loudly wails. I established this website [humanaction.us at the time; today my thoughts have not changed but rather deepened regarding Classical Liberal principles] to espouse principles of individualism, a much maligned notion in today’s postmodern thinking [note the conflation of individualism with what is thrown around as rugged individualism]. I wish I could claim that I have always lived in line with the values I wish to propagate through Analysis of Power [the subtitle of the webpage I published at the time], however, I have not. Only in recent years have I come across the writings of F. A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and more recently, Frank Chocorov. I have dedicated my website and E-Journal to Chodorov [today, what undergirds what I delineate on this page are my Christian spiritual beliefs]. His writings resonated with me in a way that is both inspiring and challenging. I am far from the destination that Chodorov designates as the individual. Yet I hope to reach that destination and live there. Both the URL and the title of my E-Journal reflect my beliefs in Austrian economics and individualism.

Frank Chodorov was the consummate individualist. In this inaugural issue, I want to highlight some of the themes that Chodorov developed more fully in his writings. So I inaugurate Analysis of Power with an apropos essay that outlines what is to be an individualist. Several themes stand out in Chodorov’s writings. I survey them below; any misstatements of Chodorov’s ideas are solely due to my ignorance.

The Right to Live

With everything under the sun today pronounced by the public-at-large as a right, I hate throwing around the concept of rights. But properly understood, it is a powerful, and more importantly, a truthful concept. There is nothing more basic to the individual than the right to live. For whatever reason, apparently the spirit to live has been poured into each one us. (Today I would more strongly point to the Imago Dei as that reason, and the only reason). If there are those among us who do not want to live, then we conclude rather quickly that something is drastically wrong with them. But the right to live is nothing more than an abstraction if we just stop at the phrase, the right to live. What does such a right actually entail? First of all, it is important to recognize that the right pertains to each individual. It is axiomatic, a given. It is not a right that belongs to me but not to you. It is not a right that belongs to some but not to others. It is not a right that belongs to the collective but not to specific individuals. Such a statement on a collectivist level would be meaningless. As an abstraction, however, a dangerous extension is inherent in the notion of the right to live. The right is not carte blanche. So we need to understand what is inherent in the right to live.

Liberty from Government

We talk about many forms of freedom today. You hear politicians wax eloquently about freedom, oppression, injustice, and social justice. However, when we listen closely to what they mean, we get a clearer understanding of what they are trying to sell. We hear such phrases as freedom from poverty, freedom from illness, or freedom from economic injustice. The sales pitch from demagogues who spew forth these phrases is that government is in place to provide all of us with these espoused freedoms (particularly if we vote for those spewing forth these platitudes). However, I have come to believe that such freedoms have little to do with what our Founders meant by liberty, a term that I prefer to freedom because the latter has been tainted by collectivist rhetoric. (I would add both neoconservative and progressive rhetoric). Our Founders, with all their flaws, and because they understood human flaws, established a Republic in which liberty was understood to mean, not freedom of government to make our lives for us, but but freedom from government, power, the State, (to guard against) that at its whim it would intrude upon our lives. It provides a framework within which people can pursue and carve out their lives as they see fit, so long as what they see fit to do does not prevent others from pursuing and carving out their lives.

The place of government in people’s lives is an issue that distinguishes individualists from collectivists. From an individualist perspective government is to provide a minimal rule of law that enforces contracts, protects private property among its citizens, and, on the level of the State, defends the borders from invasion. A corollary to collectivism, radical egalitarianism, has gripped the mind of the United States, and now many people look to government to educate them, provide them with health care, and to redistribute income in the name of social justice. We hear promises of politicians to make our lives better, to bring about a better society, to usher in better times, and to make us all equal. How many times have we heard the rhetoric and then come to understand that, for the most part, we have to be the ones who make our lives better? (This is not a denial of our social embeddedness and our need of working in conjunction with others.) I believe an important question regarding all these promises hinges on the notion of hubris: How can one person or one group of people actually know what is better for everyone else? For the individualist, not only is such knowledge impossible, but also it takes a sizable hubris-filled ego for someone to believe that he or she possesses such knowledge. If people believe such things about themselves and the knowledge they possess, then why shouldn’t they want power?

As a radical (I might drop this adjective today because of its conflation among people with so-called rugged individualism.) individualist, I believe that government not only lacks the ability to make people’s lives better, but also, even it could by some stretch of the imagination fulfill such a mandate, it lacks both the Constitutionality and moral authority to do so. Once someone provides a life for someone else, the provider has taken from the providee all sense of dignity that constitutes a free human being – unless the provider is an all-powerful being.

Limited Government

Liberty from government logically dictates what the Founders meant by the idea of limited government. Individualism is opposed to collectivism in all its forms. The only legitimate collective activities are those in which individuals freely choose to involve themselves. For an individualist, government in any form is coercion. Hence, an individualist tends to view government with suspicion and believes it should be severely restrained in all its activities, carrying out its minimal roles of protecting life and private proper, enforcing contracts, and protecting against fraud, all minimal activities that contribute to people’s ability to carry on commerce and trade. Beyond these activities, government begins to encroach on individual liberty. From the Classical Liberal perspective, government is granted limited power to protect citizens and to establish a framework whereby they carry out the pursuit of carving out a life for themselves. Government provides no guarantee that individuals will find such pursuits successful. It cannot guarantee that individuals will not encounter hardships and fail at their endeavors. It cannot guarantee that people can have the kind of lives they desire. Government, at its whim, cannot provide a life for an individual. To carry out such guarantees, government would have to use the very rewards of people’s labor it is called upon to protect. The Welfare State (and I would add the Warfare State) represents a prime example of such coercion, where property is taken (confiscated) to provide secure retirement, medical benefits, education, and a host of other so-called rights. Government – power – the State – possesses nothing by which to make such guarantees. Government, to make such guarantees, must take (confiscate) from those who produce. Consequently, such guarantees are fraudulent from the start.

Laissez-Faire Economics

Liberty from government and severely restricted or restrained government obviously dictates that government remove itself and stay out of everyday human affairs, particularly the free exchange of ideas, goods, and service. If an individual is to reap from his efforts and secure some type of living, then he should not turn to government to direct his steps in the endeavors he chooses to pursue. If he does, he forfeits the fruit of his labor to the power that so directs him. People choose their affairs, act in accordance with their desires, and do business and commerce with one another to obtain their desired ends. Their business plans, their business decisions, and what they acquire through their efforts are not submitted to the State for approval. The only say that the State has over such efforts regards fraudulent activities and the protection of property accrued through mutually beneficial commerce. Those who carve out their existence in this life do not owe government for such a privilege. Nor do they owe the collective in the name of some fabrication called the common good. Entrepreneurs by their very activities of producing, providing services, creating jobs, contributing to people’s standard of living impact the community for the good. That they carry out such activities for profit motive does not detract from the fact their work impacts society for the good. And they owe no one an apology for their profit motive.

In today’s climate taxes are viewed as the price that businesses must pay for their success and wealth. Never mind that such wealth and profit create jobs and a higher standard of living for people. Never mind that entrepreneurial capitalism has created a standard of living heretofore unknown throughout history for an enormous population of people. Those who complain about high taxes are labeled selfish, not caring about society, and not wanting to contribute their fair share to the community. The collectivist mentality (I would also label this the Statist mentality) is seen at its fullest in empowering the State to intrude upon business activities in the name of the common good.

The individualist says to the State, hands off. The State is to keep its parasitic hands off what people have produced for their own welfare. The State is to stay out of the way of entrepreneurs who best can decide to carry out their affairs, even when those decisions may not work out the way entrepreneurs desire. And when and if those decisions do turn sour, the one who is an entrepreneur to his core does not cry and whine to government for a bailout. When times are lean, tough, and difficult, the individualist shouts as loud as when times or bountiful and fat – Laissez Faire!

Personal Liberty and Responsibility

If I may choose a phrase from the existentialist’s handbook, an individualist defends personal liberty and responsibility. As free individuals, we can choose to carve out our lives as we see fit. There is a fine distinction, however, inherent in the right to carve out a life versus the right to a life I think I should have. The distinction turns upon the difference between opportunity and results. No other person can guarantee me that I will achieve in life what I want to achieve. In a free society, a rule of law allows me the right to give it a shot. But it does not promise me that the results I want will be forthcoming.

We live today in a culture populated by people bathed in a sense of entitlement and work life by playing the victim card. We blame everyone and everything for our plight, for not having the kind of life that we want. This mindset in turn sets us up for silver-tongued orators who guarantee us that they have the promise hand-in-hand. We vote for presidents like we are searching for a messiah. We expect to hear and see all the sweet and honey-filled promised morsels we hope to find in life. If we don’t have all the money we want, then we blame those who do have the amount of money we would like to have. Somehow or another they took it from us. It is inconvenient to get sick, but it is unfair to have to pay for getting well. And so we hear and are drawn like Odysseus to the sweet siren call of nationalized health care. People want an education, but it is unfair to have to pay for it. Nirvana in learning is straight ahead in subsidized education. A nice comfortable retirement is a dream, but it is unfair to have worked all one’s life and not have it, whether one had the foresight and fortitude to save for it or not. So now we will increase that magnanimous blessing called Social Security. What a deal! (Of course, our omniscient and omnipotent orators who know what we need and have the power to bring it all about for us are not retiring on Social Security. Do I smell demagoguery here?)

Private Property

If we have the right to live and the liberty and responsibility to make choices and try to bring about the life we want for ourselves, then we must have an avenue to accrue something from what we produce. Whether this accrual be pay, goods, property, or all three, what we have accrued is ours because we have worked for it. (Actually all three are private property – privately owned through personal effort.) Such accrual is the product of our labor; thereby, it is our private property. If I have the right to live, then I work, and my production is the means by which I carve out my living, preparing a life for myself. Although I do not believe that I have a right to a job (a confusion of today’s entitlement mindset), or the right to a particular results (a confusion of today’s radical egalitarianism), I work for what I earn or produce. And I can accrue the production of my labor and create property for myself. The very basis of my freedom – my right to live – is my private property. If it is confiscated from me, then the thief has robbed me, not only of my private property, but also of my right to live. The Founders of this country understood property in these terms, and were particularly leery of the government becoming a thief. Hence, they warned the populist about the power (dangers) of taxation. Since 1913, the government holds first rights to our property, carried out by a procedure called the income tax. From the viewpoint of an individualist, the income tax, as well as all taxes, is seen as confiscation. Income tax is legalized thievery, power – the State – stepping in to claim a part of one’s labor for its purposes. And one had best tow the line and fork it over. There are many forms today by which private property is constantly under assault by the State: eminent domain, inheritance taxes, professional licenses, property licenses such as car tags and inspection stickers. All these devices are legalized ways by which the State has step-by-step encroached upon citizens’ private property. To the degree that we lose control of our private property, we begin to lose the grip on our individual liberty.

Noninterventionist

Isolationism in foreign affairs is a term that carries negative connotations today. However, I proudly accept the label. Other libertarians prefer the term noninterventionist, but to me they mean virtually the same thing as long as one understands that these terms refer to government activities. Isolationism does not mean that individuals cannot freely choose to carry on commerce and do business around the globe, or Mars if they find someone there and can get the goods to and from them. Such activities emerge from inalienable rights that go into the pursuit of living. Isolationist or noninterventionist strategies refer, instead, to becoming entangled in the political controversies and conflicts of other nations. In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned us of such meddlesome activities. Yet in the 20th Century and into this one, America has found itself engaged in conflict after conflict around the globe, spending billions of taxpayer dollars in the process (as well as the countless loss of life). Our military is ensconced all over the globe from the Middle East to Germany. Our military is positioned as a standing army for some countries, such as South Korea. It is one thing to make friends and develop respect for other countries and cultures on the basis of mutual exchange and commerce; it is another thing altogether for a government to become the policemen of the world. If our allies relish the kind of liberty we possess, then somewhere along the line, they need to stand up and be prepared to defend themselves from those who would take such liberties from them. A Biblical Proverb speaks poignantly to misguided interventionism:

Like one who takes a dog by the ears,/Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him. (1)

We need to rethink our understanding of national defense and not emotionally load galavanting around the globe with notions of patriotism. The true patriot does not allow the State to willy-nilly define defense or our national interests in a way that places brave men and women in harm’s way based on political expediency, nation building, and government power-broker deals that tend to always produce more international problems than they ever solve. We have witnessed these events over and over again in the billions of dollars we spend defending countries that refuse to defend themselves, and the more billions of dollars of so-called foreign aid that have disappeared into no-telling whose pockets – power begetting power.

Entrepreneurial Spirit: Personal Wisdom

If people are to carve out a life for themselves, then it behooves them to develop the kind of skills they need to get the job done. The problem with collectivism and the types of reformers it produces is that such crusaders become too meddlesome in other people’s affairs. I am drawn to the idea that the best way to any general reform is for one to embrace self-development (2). What skills do you need to establish the kind of life that you want? If you desire to achieve a certain lifestyle, then what do you need to develop in yourself so as to achieve what you desire? More to the point, what values do you hold? Are you living in alignment with those values? If not, what do you need to change? Do you truly value what you say you do?

Entrepreneurs are people who pursue a fulfilling life by putting their ideas to work. They know what they want in life, they know what they value about living, and they know what they need to obtain from life what they desire. They are honest with themselves about what skills they possess and which ones they do not possess. When it comes to what they lack, they find ways to fill in the gaps and develop their needed skill set so they can produce and benefit from their labor. They don’t play at being successful. They work at it with everything they have in them. If they do not do these things, then they are not successful, and they probably are not meant to be entrepreneurs.

Being an entrepreneur is something to which I aspire. However, I am not sure I have what it takes to become the kind of person I have described here. Many of us want to play the entrepreneurship game, but we do not want to do what it takes to succeed the way entrepreneurs succeed. We want the results that come to good entrepreneurs. But we do not want the process or effort that goes into making a good entrepreneur and producing the kind of results we desire. The process is hard, difficult, fraught with setbacks, disappointments, and sometimes failures so that one has to pick up and begin again. And above all, it takes vision that many people may not have and risks that others do not want to take. To aspire to entrepreneurship means asking difficult questions as to whether or not one has what it takes to be an entrepreneur.

Today achievement is something that is belittled, demeaned, and viewed as an idea that is elitist. Radical egalitarianism has won the day. Entrepreneurs are punished for their successes by the tax code and the attitude the culture at large has toward them. They achieve because they are exploitive cries the collectivist. They achieve and continue to achieve because they are privileged rages the egalitarian.

Only when individuals come to understand that they are responsible for their lives and must develop the skills they need to live, will they truly become individuals. Otherwise, we fall into the mediocre thinking that dreams and pursuits are not worthwhile. Or worse, we walk with our hands out, our palms up, our dignity emaciated to receive a life that someone else promises us. One may not be an entrepreneur, but that doesn’t mean that one cannot be an individual and claim his or her place in life. We may work for entrepreneurs, benefit from them in a myriad of ways, and find our place in life in a way that suits who we are, what skills we possess, and what desires we have. In the end, we have one thing to do: live (3). We need to choose how best to live for ourselves. To do otherwise is to forfeit who we are and what we are all about as individuals.

Conclusion

On a personal note, I penned this blog article in January of 2009. For years I struggled as I turned my back on my faith as a Christian. Close to the time I wrote this article, God had begun working on me to get me back on track with my faith and what it truly means to have faith in the atoning work of Christ and to have a personal relationship with God through Christ. Although I would change very little about this article if I were to write it now, I want to highlight a couple o f things, one pertaining to the concept of individualism, and second pertaining to my faith in Christ.

As I alluded to in the article, the notion of individualism has been much maligned, more so today than when I wrote this article in 2009. So I want to say a quick word about what individualism is not. First, the notion of individualism as put forth by those such as Chodorov, libertarians in general, and Classical Liberals, in no form or fashion claims that an individual is totally independent of others, not socially embedded or connected, or does not rely on the social fabric and interconnection with others. There is no such reality as pulling oneself up by one’s boot straps by which one is totally isolated from and independent from others. Embracing the philosophy of individualism does not mean that one does not ask for help from others when such help is needed. Nor does it mean that one does not offer help where help is needed. Individualism means that one is responsible for ones own choices and actions as well as for ones self-development. Self-development is never done in total isolation. Whatever rugged individualism happens to mean by those who throw around such caricatures, it has nothing to do with the Classical Liberal understanding of the sanctity of ones individual life. Such caricatures are nothing more than gaslighting and conflation, creating a false dichotomy seeking to provide an argument against nothing that the concept of individualism ever claimed in the first place. Those who have spewed forth such claims have been taken to task by individualists themselves.

Regarding my faith in Christ, if I were to write this article today, I would focus more on the providence of God in our lives and the spiritual gifts with which He blesses us. Psalm 139 speaks to how God intimately knows us and that He has made us who we are. A large part of discovering our skills involves coming to know how He made us and resting in that understanding. Additionally, life is played out by increasing our wisdom, as well as the pursuit of wisdom through diligence, which many of the Psalms address pointedly. In seeking to become diligent, we must also rest in the truth of God’s providence (Psalm 46:10). We must, by God’s grace, be honest about who we are as we gain in wisdom of how He made and gifted us. Since the time I authored this article in 2009 until now, I’ve come to realize that I do not, in fact, have what it takes to be an entrepreneur. That is not who God made me to be. When we realize such truths about ourselves, we can either kick at the goads against them, or by God’s grace embrace them, seeking to live as God would have us live. I am truly thankful for the gifted individuals by and through whom God has blessed the world. If you possess the skills of an entrepreneur, then I hope you follow your calling out with every ounce of energy you possess. Above all, I hope and pray that you will be called by God to believe in Christ as your Savior.

References

(1) “Proverbs 26:17.” In the Holy Bible NASB, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

(2) Chodorov, F. (1980). “The Articulate Individualist.” In C. H. Hamilton (ed.), Fugitive Essays, (pp. 317-322). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press. (Originally published in Analysis, August 1946).

(3) Chodorov, F. (1980). “Henry David Thoreau.” In C. H. Hamilton (ed.), Fugitive Essays, (pp. 309-316). (Originally published in Analysis, November 1945 & February 1949).

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D/ February 14. 2026

ANALYSIS/Analysis of Power

January 14, 2026 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

John Stott: The Man and His Works

Introduction

John Stott (1921-2011) was an Evangelical Anglican pastor and theologian. He is one of the principal authors of the Lausanne Covenant, which promoted worldwide evangelicalism. Stott was mentored by Eric Nash, from whom he heard a sermon on Revelation 3:20. Stott credits Nash and that verse as leading God to move him to open the door to Christ, thereby transforming his life. Although he was raised in a Christian home, went to church regularly, and “had high ideals,” he had always, according to his own testimony, kept Christ at a distance. That is until he heard Nash’s sermon. He was then mentored by Nash, and developed under him into the Anglican Evangelical pastor he eventually became. Stott founded the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity, through which he brought together evangelical intellectuals with the aim of developing courses and programs to communicate the Christian faith to a secular world. Through his work and ministry, he authored over fifty books, two of them being Basic Christianity, and The Cross of Christ, both of them having an impact on me.

The Works of John Stott

As stated above, Stott wrote fifty books in addition to pamphlets and tracts. I do not have the space here to explore all his works, but I will categorize them for interested readers who might want to explore and study his thought. The first work by Stott I read was Your Mind Matters. Both Stott and Francis Schaeffer had an impact on me as a young believer in the 1970’s. Although the history of Christianity is replete with those who endlessly wrote, studied, and pursued scholarship, there has, nevertheless, been a contingent within Christian circles that view intellectual pursuits with suspect, leading those in the secular world to view Christians as anti-intellectual. Both Stott and Schaeffer squelched that thought for me, helping me understand that yes, one’s mind does matter. Stott’s work introduces the basic claims of the Christian faith, and how those claims should lead us to live. God gave us a mind. If we don’t use it, then we are surrendering ourselves to superficiality. His work Basic Christianity is a guide for everyone seeking an understanding of the basic core principles of Christianity. How should being in Christ affect our daily lives? Both this work and Your Mind Matters provide a good introduction to the faith for those new to the faith. These two works will remain a constant go-to for believers regardless how long they have been Christians. One of Stott’s works that impacted me the most is one that he wrote later in life, The Cross of Christ. The cross is a universal symbol of the Christian faith. But what is its true importance for those of us who have been called to be in Christ? Stott presents a thorough exploration of the atoning work of Jesus, the Christ. He demonstrates how God accomplished the total work for our salvation. He is our justifier, redeemer, propitiator, and reconciler. This is a work that all believers in Christ should explore, study, and return to year after year.

Basic Introductory Works to the Faith

The following works are those that new believers in Christ will find useful as a springboard to their faith: Christian Basics: An Invitation to Discipleship (1958); Basic Introduction to the New Testament (1958); Basic Christianity (1965); Understanding the Bible (1972); Your Mind Matters (1972); Balanced Christianity (1975); The Authentic Christian (1995); Why I Am a Christian (2003).

Biblical Studies

The following titles are expositional works: The Preacher’s Portrait: Some New Testament Word Studies (1961); The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary (1964); Men Made New: An Exposition of Romans 5-8 (1966); The Message of Galatians (1968); Confess Your Sins: The Way of Reconciliation (1974); The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (1976); The Message of Ephesians (1979); The Cross of Christ (1986); The Sermon on the Mount [part of Life-Guide Bible Studies] (1987); Favorite Psalms (1988); The Message of Acts (1990); Men with a Message: An Introduction to the New Testament and Its Writers (1994); The Message of Romans: Good News for the World (1994); Acts: Seeing the Spirit at Work (1998); The Beatitudes: Developing Christian Character (1998); Galatians: Experiencing the Grace of Christ (1998); The Incomparable Christ (2001); The Life of Christ: A Guide for Daily Living (2003); Baptism and Fullness: The Work of the Holy Spirit Today (2006).

World-Wide Evangelical Movement

The following works reflect Stott’s outlook on world-wide evangelicalism as delineated in the Lausanne Covenant: Our Guilty Silence: The Church, the Gospel, and the World (1967); Christ the Controversialist: A Study in Some Essentials in Evangelical Religion (1970) Christian Mission in the World (1975); The Lausanne Covenant (1975); I Believe in Preaching (1982); The Contemporary Christian: Applying God’s Word to Today’s World (1992); Evangelical Truth: A Plea for Unity, Integrity, and Faithfulness (1999); Why I Am a Christian (2003); The Radical Disciple: Some Neglected Aspects of Our Calling (2010).

Conclusion

The works given above are not a complete list of Stott’s works. And there is so much more to say about Stott’s writings and personal work than has been written here. I encourage any believer in Christ who wants a basic understanding of the faith, and then the opportunity toward a deep-dive into the faith to read and study the works of John Stott. For anyone new to the faith, Basic Christianity and Your Mind Matters are excellent beginning points. For those that want to delve deeper into expositional Bible studies, listed here are several expositional works he authored over the years. Above all, I truly hope that Christians, young and old, will delve into his magnificent work, The Cross of Christ. Although Stott wrote for a few different publishers, most of his books, like those of James Sire and Francis Schaeffer, were published by IVP Press.

John Stott was rector emeritus at All Souls Church, Langham Place, London. Those who were close to him spoke of his death occurring around 3:15 in the afternoon, while being surrounded by friends and loved ones, reciting Scripture, and listening to Handel’s Messiah. John Stott is now with our Lord, Jesus Christ.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./January 14, 2026

CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

December 14, 2025 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

Worldview: Naturalism

Introduction

Last month’s blog provided a general overview of James Sire’s works. One of the works highlighted in that overview is the one for which Sire is probably most remembered by Christians who follow his writings, The Universe Next Door. The subtitle of that book by Sire is A Basic Worldview Catalog. Sire delineates what he designates as nine worldviews, exploring how each worldview answers what he calls eight prime questions. As stated in last month’s blog, Sire’s The Universe Next Door went through six revisions, 2020 being the latest and last revision. He had originally delineated seven prime questions, and then added the eighth in the 2020 updated version of his book. The eight prime questions that each worldview seeks to answer are: 1) What is the prime reality or really real? 2) What is the nature of external reality (that is the world around us)? 3) What is a human being? 4) What happens to a person after death? 5) Why is it possible to know anything at all? 6) How do we know what is right and wrong? 7) What is the meaning of human history? 8) What personal life-orienting personal commitments are consistent with this worldview? There are many worldviews that challenge the worldview of what Sire calls Theism, and thereby Christianity, but one major worldview battle that Christians face emerges from the philosophy of Naturalism. That will be the focus of this month’s blog discussion.

Although those who have been given the epithet the New Atheists, (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens,) claim that their position is based on science, naturalism, nonetheless is a worldview. The battle between naturalism and Christianity is not between religion and science, but between two conflicting worldviews. To get a solid understanding of this worldview conflict, a good work to read and study is John Lennox’s God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God. Lennox presents a thorough study of how these worldviews are indeed in conflict, and how the conflict between them historically came about. I hope to explore Lennox’s work sometime in the future on this blog.

The World View: Naturalism

What is the Prime Reality or Really Real?

Any worldview will seek to answer the question regarding the nature of existence. In naturalism, the nature of the cosmos is considered to be primary. Since there is no creator God, the natural realm becomes eternal, but not necessarily in its present form. Sire quotes Carl Sagan’s claim regarding the cosmos: The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Although naturalists can agree and disagree as to the form of matter having always been the same, where they agree is that there is no spiritual or transcendent force that gave rise to the cosmos, nor did anything spiritual or transcendent emerge from matter or the cosmos. Sire states regarding this worldview: In short matter is all there is. Ours is a natural cosmos.

What is the nature of external reality?

The cosmos exists as a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system. There was a time when naturalists or materialists held that the world was similar to that held by deists, the view of the world a machine, analogous to what is called a clockwork mechanism. However, modern scientists rightfully see the universe as more complex than a simple machine. Nonetheless, from their perspective, the cosmos is a closed system. What this entails is the view that the cosmos is not open to any kind of alteration or reordering from the outside by a transcendent creator (because no such Being exists), or by self-transcendent or autonomous beings. Sire points out that the naturalist worldview aligns with the Humanist Manifesto II (1973) that straightforwardly denies the existence of a creator and the miraculous. Naturalism is a pervasive worldview. The question emerges: In a naturalistic closed system, can one logically believe in free will and the ethics of right and wrong/morality and immorality?

What Is a Human Being?

From a consistent naturalistic worldview, human beings are viewed as complex machines. Human personality is the the epiphenomenon of chemical and physical properties of which we lack full understanding. The experience of consciousness and mind tends to challenge this idea, even from the perspective of some naturalists. However, to be consistent, the majority of naturalists see the mind as a function of machine. The human being is seen as a machine. Hence, according to naturalism, the self and soul are jettisoned, at least from a the perspective that such a notion describes the essence of being human. As human beings, we are part of the cosmos, which contains one reality: matter. Such reductionism can be over-simplified. Naturalists, such as Ernest Nagel point out the complexity of being human. . . . a mature naturalism attempts to assess man’s nature in light of his actions and achievements, his aspirations and capacities, his limitations and tragic failures, and his splendid works of ingenuity and imagination (Sire quoting Ernest Nagel). This brings up the thorny question again of free will and determinism. While some naturalists are strict determinists, others see a place for what they consider limited or restricted freedom.

What Happens to a Person at Death?

For the naturalist, death means the extinguishing of individuality and personality. Since human beings are made of nothing but matter, this position is the logical conclusion of naturalism’s view of the human being. Again, the Humanist Manifesto II states straightforwardly that the personality is a biological entity that functions in a social and cultural context. According to the Manifesto, there is no evidence that the personality survives death. The natural body is the sum of what human beings are.

Why Is It Possible to Know Anything at All?

This question gets at what philosophy designates as epistemology. How do we come to know things? What degree of certainty can we possess regarding our knowledge of things? The naturalists point to autonomous human reason granting our ability to know and understand to a limited degree the universe in which we are situated. This autonomous human reason they equate with the methods of science. It is this understanding of the mind and its operation that leads naturalists to pit science against religion. Those who hold to a theistic and Judeo- Christian worldview are labeled as anti-science. From the standpoint of naturalism, reason developed over a long period of time via the mechanism of natural evolution. The human being’s ability to reason is simply an innate ability that came about for humans via the mechanism of natural selection. Human knowledge then is the product of natural human reason and its perceived ability to grasp the truth of being in the world. The question that emerges is can we really know the world accurately? Many naturalists today would claim that language allows us to live successfully or unsuccessfully in the world. Hence, they turn to pragmatism as a philosophical approach to living. However, they hold that it is highly dubitable that we can know truth as truth about the world. More modern and poststructural positions see science in a different light from those who lived during the Enlightenment. However, consistent naturalists ground human reason in human nature – a product of nature – itself.

How Do We Know What Is Right and Wrong

A thorough worldview will take a stand on ethics, morality versus immorality. From the standpoint of naturalism, however, ethics did not play a major role in its historical development. Metaphysical notions gave rise as a logical extension of the a priori notions naturalists held regarding the external world. For quite sometime, naturalists held, for the most part, to ethics of their surrounding culture. The Humanist Manifesto II contain ethical norms similar to traditional morality with exceptions. However, the longer the existence of God is jettisoned as a legitimate belief, the wider the disagreements will become between a theistic and naturalist worldview. We are seeing that play out in the militancy by which the New Atheists attack Christianity. For the naturalist, ethics is autonomist and situational. Life has meaning, according to naturalism, because human beings themselves create such meaning. Hence, we are witnessing a split between what naturalists, especially those designated as the New Atheists, call science and the humanities. Postmodernism has brought its effect on science. However, many of the postmodern persuasion question whether science can offer human beings any accuracy regarding the world. The question that ethics gives rise to is: how do human beings derive an ought from what is?

What Is the Meaning of History?

From the standpoint of naturalism, if there is no Creator nor any transcendent meaning to existence, then history is simply linear with no overarching purpose. Human history is swallowed up by natural history. Human beings are merely along for the ride wherever natural history takes them. Since the goal of evolution was not focused on the emergence of human beings, there is nothing special and meaningful about human existence. Human beings appear on the naturalistic scene, and as self-aware creatures can make meaning of their existence, but the history they make has no inherent worth, nor is there an overarching goal to history. History will last as long as human beings last. When they go, then history will go.

What Personal Life-Orienting Core Commitments Are Consistent with Naturalism?

Naturalism itself implies no particular core commitment. Like ethics, commitments are chosen unwittingly, autonomously, and situationally. The naturalist claims that each individual is free to choose his or her core commitment. This raises the knotty question once again regarding the possibility of human freedom in a naturalistic system. Naturalism in practice is worked out in various forms of humanism. Humanism as a whole holds that human beings have dignity and value simply because they exist. One form of humanism is called secular humanism. This form of humanism is framed within a naturalist worldview. Such humanists would fall comfortably in responses to questions 1 through 6 above.

The second form of humanism is Marxism. Marxism and naturalism share certain assumptions, but Marx’s materialism was historical and dialectical, placing an emphasis on the economic factors of life as the primary determinants of history. Hence, history for Marx has meaning, and that meaning is found in class struggle. The goal of history is the new socialist individual, who will be less individualistic, working for the good of others. Marx likewise rejects any moral values as a basis for human motivation. Human beings create themselves through their work, and their work should be for the good of others. The sticky question that emerges with any worldview similar to Marx’s is can human beings really become good if they have the right environment? And then, what is the right environment? Marxism, like any form of naturalism, does not provide people with meaning and purpose. They are simply caught up in the dialectic of history that somehow will lead to Shangri-La.

Conclusion

The raging battle between worldviews of naturalism and theism is not a battle between religion and science, as individuals like the New Atheists would have everyone believe. Instead, the war is between two worldviews. Naturalism, as a worldview, posits no creator, no meaning in history, and that what people attain in this life perishes with them when they die. As a form of humanism, it provides no purpose and meaning for human beings. The church, however, has a challenge before it that has been with it since the Advent of Christ. What are we witnessing, as Christians to the world, what we and life in Christ are to be about? The history of the church has witnessed horrible persecutions of one another, the ugliness of religious wars, and petty divisiveness that has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the faith. If we are to be the light and beacon on a hill that the church is called to be, then we must understand our calling in Christ, living out our worldview, which is diametrically opposed to the worldview of naturalism.

[References

Lennox, J. (2009). God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Oxford, UK: Lion Hudson plc.

Sire, J. (1976). The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog. Downers Grove, IL: IVP. (Originally published in 1976, Sire’s The Universe Next Door underwent six editions over the years, each building on the previous edition (1976, 1988, 1997, 2004, 2009, 2020).]

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./December 14th, 2025

CHRISTIAN THOUGHT/Worldview

November 14, 2025 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

The Works of James Sire

Introduction

Anyone who follows or by happenstance stumbles across this webpage know that it is dedicated to the Christian worldview. For that reason I want this month’s blog article to provide a general overview of several works authored by James Sire. Much of what I came to understand regarding the Christian worldview come from the writings of Francis Schaeffer and James Sire. Sire (1933-2018) was known mainly as a Christian writer, working for a number of years as the chief editor for InterVarsity Press (IVP). He obtained his Ph.D. in literature from the University of Missouri and held a professorship, teaching literature, philosophy, and the Christian faith. He authored 22 books covering those same areas of thought. He is known mainly for his book The Universe Next Door, which went through an evolution of six editions from 1976 to 2020. He delivered lectures at over two-hundred universities. Due to his focus on worldview and his defense of the Christian faith, he is known mainly as an apologist and his expertise in worldview analysis. Although Sire certainly excelled in the areas of apologetics and worldview analysis, he also wrote in many other areas that believers can read and study, finding a foundation for living out their faith in today’s postmodern world with its challenges to and attacks on, not only the Christian faith, but also on the notion of absolute truth.

Sire’s Focus on Worldview

As previously stated, Sire’s most well-known and probably most widely read work is The Universe Next Door. As the subtitle of the work indicates, this book is a catalogue of various worldviews, nine in all, surveying Christian Theism, Deism, Naturalism, Nihilism, Atheistic Existentialism, Theistic Existentialism, Eastern Pantheistic Monism, New Ageism, and Postmodernism. Sire doesn’t hold back from the fact that he writes as an evangelical Christian. His purpose is not to attack other worldviews, but to provide an overview of what they proclaim. I believe he provides a fair overview of each of the above delineated worldviews. More importantly, no one can write or discuss such ideas as these by totally surrendering or checking their worldview at the door. What one can do, however, is straightforwardly let his position be known and become aware of disagreements so as to write as balanced a presentation as possible. Sire accomplishes this task. The Universe Next Door went through six editions from 1976 to 2020. Through the years, Sire updated his discussions and added additional worldviews to the original work published in 1976. For the believer, this work provides a solid foundation for the different worldviews that he or she might encounter in day-to-day living, and since Sire taught at the university level, those believers who are ensconced in university life will find this work helpful in addressing the worldviews and philosophies that counter their faith in the classroom. The Universe Next Door is indeed Sire’s most popular work, selling over some 400,000 copies.

Sire’s catalogue of worldviews, however, is not his only work on worldview philosophy that believers in Christ can find helpful. He authored another study on worldview titled, Naming the Elephant (2004). He designates this work as a worldview analysis. He makes the case for the place of worldview and cultural analysis in this important work. He provides a historical overview of the various explanations of the concept of worldview, building on a similar work authored by David Naugle, Worldview: The History of a Concept (2002). Sire explains his expansion and philosophical nuances of his definition and understanding of what a worldview encapsulates. As such, this book will be of use to the student in humanities, whether he or she is studying literature, history, philosophy, or religious studies. The book is more philosophical and academic than Universe. Nonetheless, Naming the Elephant is accessible and will provide solid ground for university students who encounter worldviews opposed and even antagonistic toward their Christian beliefs.

Additional books by Sire that believers will find helpful in the areas of worldview analysis and apologetics include: A Program for a New Man: An Alternative to B. F. Skinner, Aldous Huxley, & Herbert Marcuse (1973); Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible (1980); Chris Chrisman Goes to College: And Faces the Challenges of Relativism, Individualism, and Pluralism (1983); Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All (1994; Sire eplores the philosophical realm of epistemology); Shirley MacLaine and the New Age Movement (1988); A Little Primer of Humble Apologetics (2006); Why Good Arguments Fail: Making a Persuasive Case for Christ (2006); Apologetics Beyond Reason: Why Seeing Really Is Believing (2006); Eclectic Apologetics: An Argument from Everything – Especially Literature (2014); Deepest Differences: A Christian-Atheist Dialogue (2009, co-authored with C. Peraino).

Sire’s Devotional Works

In addition to worldview analysis and apologetics, Sire authored some works that believers can read through as daily devotions. These include: Jeremiah Meet the 20th Century: 12 Studies in Jeremiah (1975); Beginning with God: A Basic Introduction to the Christian Faith (1981; As the title indicates, this short work by Sire is an excellent introduction to the Christian faith, particularly for new believers who want a solid springboard into their faith. Sire’s book comprises 13 chapters that can form an excellent group study format over a period of twelve to thirteen weeks. From understanding God’s name to coming grips with what it means to be in Christ, or relating to God as a personal God, this concise introduction to the Christian faith provides a foundation from which believers in Christ can begin their journey into the faith, moving toward sanctification and growth. Basic themes from the Bible are explored: God as the I Am; God as creator; human beings in the Imago Dei; the fall; sin; the believer’s life in Christ; believers as members of the family of God.); Meeting Jesus: 13 Studies for Individuals and Groups (1988); Discipleship of the Mind: Learning to Love God in the Ways We Think (1990; this work builds on what Christ proclaimed to be the greatest commandment); Jesus the Reason: 11 Studies for Individuals and Groups (1996; 2003); Habits of the Mind: The Intellectual Life as a Christian Calling (2000; 2022); Introducing Jesus (2001); a devotional study); Learning to Pray Through the Psalms (2005); Thirsting for God: Exploring Prayer Through the Psalms (2006); Praying the Psalms of Jesus (2007); Echoes of a Voice: We Are Not Alone (2014; Sire discusses those experiences that connects us with something that is beyond the realm of our immediate experience. He designates such experiences as echoes of a voice, drawing on Peter Berger’s nomenclature, signals of transcendence. As the title indicates, these are experiences that tell us in some way we are not alone. Such echoes may occur for us the first time we see an ocean, or our first encounter with a place such as Flathead Lake or Glacier National Park in MT. Sire distinguishes 4 different levels of theses echoes. Level 1 is simply a signal per se that leads us to think beyond its mere existence. Level 2 signals tell us that there is something about an experience that points to that which is beyond its mere material existence. Level 3 signals point to something that is personal that exists beyond ordinary reality, something that can bring peace or danger. Level 4 signals speak of the depths of the Thou, a Person who is ultimate being, and can be described only in terms of the holy and the divine – the mysterium tremendum. Sire explores these echoes or signals throughout this work, calling on us as readers to reflect and meditate on such experiences as signals of transcendence coming from the one true God as spoken of in the Bible.)

Sire’s Approach to Literature

Having received his Ph.D. in Literature, Sire also provides some thoughtful studies for believers and others in literary analysis. These include: How to Read Slowly: Reading for Comprehension (1978; Sire provides some poetic passages from Matthew Arnold, William Blake, and others on which to concentrate, learning to read and re-read slowly.); The Joy of Reading: A Guide to Becoming a Better Reader (1984). In the genres of biography and autobiography, Sire provides some insightful works: Vaclav Havel: The Intellectual Conscience of International Politics: An Introduction, Appreciation, and Critique (2001); Rims of the Sandhills: Why I Am Still a Christian (2012; An autobiography that traces Sire’s life from his early childhood, growing up in Nebraska through his journeys from his early school days to his stint in the military in Korea to his navigations as a college student, teacher, professor, and editor of InterVarsity Press. Along the way readers travel with him through his various lectures in the U.S. and Europe. One major theme that stands out is that Sire was always drawn towards ideas, wanting to be an intellectual in service to Christ and God’s Kingdom. In alignment with his interests with scholarship was his strong desire to understand various worldviews and how Christians could respond to a culture steeped in ideologies that contrasted with and were even antagonistic towards Christianity. This short book contains key bibliographic information regarding Sire’s works along with some of those that influenced him. While not exhaustive, they provide a solid beginning for those who would like to know more about Sire and who would want to read more of his works.)

Conclusion

The list of works above authored by James Sire provides believers in Christ a thorough foundation for dealing with worldviews that counter and/or are antagonistic toward their spiritual beliefs. Additionally, Sire provides some in-depth devotional studies that can offer a thorough foundation for believers in their day-to-day sanctification, whether they are university students or those who simply want to deepen their relationship with God. For students and connoisseurs of literature, he offers some insights on how to read slowly for comprehension. Finally, readers can learn much from Sire’s writings on Vaclav Havel, the dissident who stood against Russian communism that had invaded Prague. For Christians, readers can delve into Sire’s autobiography, Rims of the Sandhills, in which Sire discusses how he came to faith and maintained that faith through his life-long endeavors. For those Christians who seek to engage worldview analysis, one can’t find a better guide than the works of James Sire.

John V. Jones, Jr. Ph.D./ November 14th, 2025

CHRISTIAN THOUGHT/Worldview