Shifting Battle Lines in the "Culture Wars"

Looking back in the history of this blog, I've made reference to what is commonly called the "culture wars" a few times. I wrote my first post explicitly on this topic in November of 2020 and argued that in the aftermath of the pitched cultural battles over such things as race and the pandemic, it seems that many more Americans than before had joined the culture wars. There were, I argued, opportunities for the gospel in this, but it also meant that political and ideological upheaval was going to get worse, not better. (That prediction has proved true, I think.) In 2022, I wrote another post whose purpose was to explain why abortion is such an important component of the culture wars, since people's contrasting views on the topic are grounded in conflicting, deep worldview commitments. Otherwise, I had not written on the topic itself very much, though my writing could be seen as engaging in the culture wars, as I address controversial issues and demonstrate why worldview matters in these discussions.

Ever since the notion of "culture wars" first made its way into the cultural and political discourse, it has been associated with political distinctions between people. The term was first utilized by American evangelicals on the Right to argue that the most important political issues of the day were so-called "social issues," issues that struck at the heart of our worldview commitments. In this way of seeing "culture wars," the battle lines are drawn between the Right and the Left. "Radical leftists" are seen as a significant social danger to American society, and part of advancing God's Kingdom is advancing a particular conservative political agenda. At least, this is how things have been described for at least two generations.

Then Donald Trump won a second, non-consecutive term as president - a feat that had not been accomplished since Grover Cleveland first did it in 1893. The Right was triumphant. At the same time, very troubling things were happening within the Right. Tucker Carlson releases an interview of YouTuber Darryl Cooper in September of 2024, describing a man with no serious academic credentials a "historian" while that same man calls Winston Churchill the "chief villain" of WWII. In October 2025, he very amicably interviews Nick Fuentes, an open and avowed antisemite and racist. Shockingly, even as conservatives such as Ben Shapiro criticize this interview, others on the Right defend Tucker and even Fuentes. In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination in September of 2025, Candace Owens releases a myriad of videos insinuating that some deep conspiracy is at play - involving a wide array of conspirators such as the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, French intelligence, Egypt, and high-ranking people in Charlie's organization, TPUSA, including his wife, Erika Kirk. Again, we might have hoped for a swift, public, united denunciation of these conspiracies, as well as the slander involved in presenting them, on the Right, but we would have been disappointed. Some, again, defended Candace, or rather refused to comment on the situation.

Something weird is happening on the Right, and it's been happening since before Trump's second term began. The term has come to be called the "Woke Right," which describes a sector of politics on the Right that displays a commitment - similar to that of the radical Left - to identity politics and grievance. Some have started calling it the "horseshoe theory." The image below is a visual representation of what I think most people are describing when they describe the horseshoe theory:

The line along the x-axis represents the political spectrum. Here, I use "Right" and "Left" to describe political coalitions, rather than using "conservative" and "liberal" to describe ideology, because I do not believe that those people aptly described as being on the "radical Left" or "woke Right" are aptly described as most liberal or most conservative. (In fact, the point of the horseshoe image here is to demonstrate that these radical groups agree philosophically and ideologically in some key areas, even if they are aligned differently in terms of coalition.)

The y-axis represents degree of support for radicalism. The Cambridge Dictionary defines "radicalism" as "the belief that there should be great or extreme social or political change." In other words, people who are aptly described as "radicals" believe that in order to address some social or political ill, widespread and systemic socio-political or cultural change is needed. Less radical people tend to support incremental change or reform to an existing system. For example, a radical leftist and liberal might agree that the current system of taxation disproportionately benefits the ultra-wealthy. The liberal might then support modifications to the existing tax system to remove loopholes that help the ultra-wealthy to legally avoid paying taxes. The radical leftist might instead support a 100% tax on all income above a certain threshold, so as to prevent income inequality and ensure that there is no such thing as being "ultra-wealthy." Both may agree on the problem to be solved; how they propose solutions demonstrates whether they are radical, and to what degree. (An especially extreme radical leftist ultimately desires for the entire capitalist enterprise to be overthrown and replaced with socialism.)

The red vertical lines represent boundary markers. Between those lines is something like "the center." Politically speaking, one can be aligned center-left or center-right. Typically, in our culture people in the center are called "normies," normal, everyday Americans. The vast majority of all Americans are normies of some kind or another, whether aligned left or right. I consider myself to be center-right. On the outer regions of the red boundary lines, tolerance for radicalism increases drastically. The Radical Left sees the Woke Right as the enemy, and these people tend to see all people right of themselves as extremely right-wing. (To a hammer, everything is a nail.) The same happens for those on the Woke Right; there is a tendency to see everyone on the left of oneself as a Radical Leftist.

Over the last few years - as I've seen this "horseshoe" dynamic play itself out in American political life - I've come to the conclusion that political alignment is not the best framework for understanding the conflicts raging across the United States - and the West more broadly - today. I'm not the only person who's thought this. In fact, in a recent book called Lions and Scavengers, Ben Shapiro has explored this idea as well. Famous psychologist, Jordan Peterson, has explored this idea, too. In this post, I want to argue that the real battle lines raging in our culture wars cut across deep-seated, conflicting assumptions about worldview - namely, how one's fundamental relation to the world influences one's actions in the world. These assumptions are ones we often don't think about. However, when we identify them and contrast them with one another, we will notice them at work across our culture in a way that determines what issues we are interested in, the problems we see in our societies, and the solutions we propose to address those problems. Crucially, one set of assumptions aptly describes both the Radical Left and the Woke Right, and another set of contrasting assumptions is shared by "normies," whether center-left or center-right in their political orientation. I believe that clarifying these assumptions can give Christians in America and the West greater focus in addressing the cultural issues of our day in a way that points people to Jesus.

With the road prepared, let's consider the first set of contrasting worldview assumptions.

First Contrast Passive Victimhood vs. Personal Responsibility

Think about the course of your life until this moment. In your life, what things have happened to you? How have you been blessed or wronged? How have those things that have happened to you affected you? Now, think about what you have done. What have you achieved? What are some key decisions you've made in your life that have changed the course of your life?

If you engage in deep conversations with people about their own lives, asking these kinds of questions, and listen closely, you will notice a pattern begin to develop. Most people tend to think along one of two patterns. For some, the narrative of their life is told in terms of what they have done. Even bad decisions were their decisions, and they probably had to pay for that decision in some way or correct it. They tend not to focus on what others have done to them, preferring instead to focus on that over which they have control. There is a note of activeness in every major event in their life. For others, the narrative of their life is told in terms of what has been done to them. Listening to this person, one gets the sense that no matter what happens in their life, it is always someone else's doing. If they achieve something, it is not their achievement. If they make a mistake, it is because someone else forced them to do it. If there is some flaw in their character, they picked it up from family of origin or desire to protect themselves or something like that. There is a note of passiveness in every major event in their life.

On the cultural level, whole ideologies or philosophies display the same patterns. Marxism, whether in its classical or cultural form, distinguishes collectively between the "oppressor" and "oppressed." The oppressor class is the unmitigated victimizer, responsible for all social ills experienced in society. The oppressed class is the unmitigated victim; every ill faced by people in this class is attributable to the actions of the oppressor class, not the actions of any individual. Cultural Marxism, from which critical theory is derived, identifies individuals as within either group by their group identity, based on sex, gender identity, race, sexual identity, class, etc. Therefore, if you affirm cultural Marxism and find that you are part of an oppressed group, you are by definition a victim. The one responsible for the state of your life is a "system of oppression," which prevents you from getting ahead in life in tangible ways.

One of the most important points that I want to make in this post is that the false worldview assumption in each of these three contrasts can be found on both the Radical Left and the Woke Right. In this first contrast, it is passive victimhood that can be found on both the Radical Left and the Woke Right, and it is personal responsibility that can be found as a central worldview assumption in the middle, among the "normies," whether they lean Right or Left. As passive victimhood - a general sense that I am being disaffected, disadvantaged, or oppressed by "the system" - takes hold in American culture, more and more people become convinced that their mistakes are someone else's fault and that they cannot do anything to make their lives better in the long run.

For, I suspect, most readers of this blog, that passive victimhood is found on the Radical Left is obvious. It is seen in the cultural Marxism, or critical theory, that I've already mentioned above. Where can it be found on the Woke Right? In many ways, the Woke Right mirrors the Radical Left in its approach to something called identity politics, a political perspective and approach that sees group identity as central in coalition-building. For the Left, the coalition included all people of minority status on the basis of race, sex, gender identity, class, etc. The Woke Right responded with its own coalition of predominately white "Christian" men. The Radical Left tends to think of the challenges individuals face in terms of oppression by some institution or "system" (hence, claims of systemic racism, class warfare, "the patriarchy," etc.). The point is that the individual in the coalition can blame the system for her problems - and be politically mobilized appropriately. These systems are represented by those they consider to be radical on the Right. On the Woke Right, the "system" includes a cabal of Leftist politicians, radical doners, and, unfortunately more often than ever now, Jewish conspirators. But the fundamental assumption is the same: your problems are not your responsibility, less so your fault; you have been disaffected by "the system."

What, then, is personal responsibility? Simply put, personal responsibility describes an individual's willingness to see her decisions as her own. Some might call it "taking ownership" of one's state in life. Put more technically, consider a person S. We'll describe S's "state in life," the circumstances that come together to describe S's life at any given time, as L_t, which represents S's state in life at some time t. The notion of personal responsibility claims that, in some sense, S is personally responsible for L_t, which describes S's state in life now, as well as future instances of L_t for S. This is true even if the description of L_t includes the consequences of some undeserved, unwanted, innocent suffering experienced by S at an earlier time. Even though S did not ask for, did not want, and was innocent in S's suffering in the past, it is now up to S what S will do with that experience.

The notion of personal responsibility undergirds moral judgements we make about people's actions. If someone is morally responsible for their state in life, the description of which includes that person's actions, then that person is also morally responsible for her actions. When her actions are good, we call them morally praiseworthy. When they are evil, we call them morally blameworthy. When they are wise or prudent, we call them wise. Ascriptions of all kinds - of vice and virtue - are made by others on us because we are morally responsible for every state in our lives.

To say that I am morally responsible for every state of my life is not to say that I am to blame for every part of the description of any state of my life. In fact, being responsible is not the same as being to blame; this is a common misconception about personal responsibility. If the description of L_t for me includes undeserved, unwanted, innocent suffering on my part in the past, I am not to blame for that suffering. God forbid that we would say that. However, I am responsible for what I do with that suffering. And this means that whether I allow my suffering to strengthen my faith, destroy it, crush me, make me more or less a loving person, etc. is up to me. No one but I must make the right decisions to ensure that my suffering does not define me, but ultimately makes me a better person.

If you're a young person looking at your state in life today, you have two radically different answers as to what accounts for your state in life, especially if its description includes suffering in your life. On the Radical Left, it's systemic oppression. On the Woke Right, it is hidden cabals of shady dealers - and the Radical Left. On a "normie" morality - which, by the way, is more in line with Christian ethics - it's you. God attributes to his human creatures the freedom to make a choice, a choice between good and evil, and he encourages us to choose the good. Ultimately, this means choosing Christ. The notion of a coming judgement day assumes a high degree of personal responsibility. When that day comes, God will not give any of us a pass because our story includes suffering - even undeserved, unwanted, innocent suffering. He is compassionate with us in the midst of our suffering, but he calls us and gives us the tools necessary to overcome our suffering, by his grace.

And this is why this contrast is one of the battle lines of the culture wars today. Americans - and young Americans especially - are caught between two answers as to what accounts for their state in life. One answer is hard: look in the mirror, see what you can do differently, and make a change. The other is easy: place that responsibility on someone else. Because of this, many Americans are rendered powerless to do anything productive about their state in life. As Christians, we should preach that every person is morally responsible. We should defend this viewpoint biblically. It should be part of our apologetic and evangelistic approach.

Second Contrast Fast & Easy Fixes vs. Slow & Hard Transformation

What does it take for a person to change? Human beings are infinitely complex individuals. In every one of us, there is a staggering array of different influences, including our desires, thoughts, beliefs, motivations, intentions, and emotions. If you, like I, believe that free will is to be thought of in libertarian terms - meaning that for every decision before me, given my past circumstances, I have a real choice between one course of action and another, without changing those past circumstances - then these parts of me influence my actions without determining what I do. However, these influences can be very strong; their impact on my choices can make it strongly seem as if I have no choice in the matter. We call certain behavior compulsive when, roughly, the facts of a person's psychology make it such that it seems almost impossible for the person to avoid the behavior. For this person, avoiding her compulsive behavior may be psychologically impossible, or nearly so, for her, even though, logically speaking, she can avoid the behavior.

How, then, do we change? If there is some action I do, which I would like to avoid and know that it is best to avoid, how do I avoid it? Is it purely a matter of avoiding circumstances in which the action is possible? For instance, if I am an alcoholic, am I guaranteed to win by avoiding liquor stores. The answer, obviously, is no. It is a step in the right direction, certainly. But this then means that I should desire to avoid liquor stores. What if that desire is not strong? What if my work route runs past several liquor stores? What if there are other ways to get alcohol? Or, what if my spouse drinks alcohol, and this means that it is normally in the house? Quickly, one consideration that will lead to transformation for me becomes a multitude of hard decisions and conversations. (Disclaimer: this is entirely fictional. I do not consume alcohol.)

Here is the point: human transformation is not an easy thing. As we unwind the facts of a person's mental states, we find complexity. We are complex beings. Add to this the biblical truth that we are fallen, meaning that all of us are driven toward sin because our good nature is corrupted. As Jeremiah 7:9 (CSB) says:

The heart is more deceitful than anything else and incurable—who can understand it?

The human heart is an infinitely deep well. When we attempt to explore it, we find two things preventing us from reliably doing it. First, that well is corrupt; it hides itself from our view and keeps things obscure and fuzzy. Second, we - the explorers - are corrupt. We are corrupt explorers of our own corrupt souls. According to the Christian worldview, only God can plumb these depths and know us perfectly. Only he can fix the mess that is us. Only he can equip us to know ourselves, for we must first come to know him first. Jeremiah goes on in 7:10 (CSB), telling us what God says:

I, the Lord, examine the mind, I test the heart to give to each according to his way, according to what his actions deserve.

Only God can plumb the depths of the human soul, so as to know us perfectly, and give a right judgement about who we are in the deepest sense. The Psalmist, who desires for God to know him and transform him, asks in Psalm 139:23-24 (CSB):

Search me, God, and know my heart; test me and know my concerns. See if there is any offensive way in me; lead me in the everlasting way.

On the Christian worldview, then, human transformation is a slow, gradual process of growth in relationship with God. Likewise, true transformation is possible only through faith in God - a faith daily walked out, little by little, over a lifetime. And it comes to completion only in eternity.

In the first contrast, I indicated that if you are facing some difficulty, challenge, or obstacle in your life, you should take personal responsibility for what you'll do about it moving forward. I sometimes say, "If you are suffering, the first place to look is in the mirror." This does not mean that you are to blame for what got you there, but you are responsible for how you live now. The second contrast indicates that if you are facing some difficulty, challenge, or obstacle in your life, the solution will be found in slow and gradual transformation of the self, not in some quick fix. God has not built us or the world for quick fixes.

Unfortunately, we live in a world and culture that makes it seem as if quick fixes are possible and preferable to alternative ways of addressing our problems. Consider the weight-loss drug, Ozempic, as well as other GLP-1's. Recently, I heard of a person who had gone to the doctor after having lost substantial weight through diet and exercise, and the doctor was impressed and pleased to learn that this person had not taken any GLP-1 medication to aid that person's weight loss. To lose weight without medical aid is now a flex! Do not misunderstand me; I am not criticizing or judging anyone for using this medication. In some cases, where weight-loss is especially difficult, it can be a lifesaver. However, there was a time not too long ago when we would have laughed - did laugh - at the notion of a weight-loss drug. But now such a thing is possible.

Or, consider our hyper-commercialized, fast-paced economy. If I break some device at the house that I need, I can pull up Amazon on my phone, purchase a (likely cheap) replacement, and have that device at the house by that evening, in many cases! Sudden problem, easy solution. This sort of thing would have been inconceivable just a few decades ago. No wonder, if you search TikTok for a few minutes, you'll see videos peddling "advice" of various kinds - on finances, marriage and relationships, and all sorts of other topics - letting you know how you can achieve some goal, quickly, in a video that takes you 30 seconds to watch. Our ancestors would have been mind-blown by the technology. And, I suspect, very worried for our souls.

Why would they have been worried? My answer is that they would have seen that though, in many ways, our highly advanced and modernized world of commerce provides innumerable and incalculable blessings, it also teaches us a false lesson. That false lesson is that solutions to our problems come quick, cheap, and easy. If a quick, cheap, and easy solution is not forthcoming now, then we'll find it. The world exists for us to intelligently manipulate it to get what we want out of it. On the other hand, wise people in the ancient and medieval world understood that in order to flourish, we must conform to the world, not the other way around. There is no "get rich quick scheme," in finances (see, e.g., Proverbs 28:22) or in life. Our modern world has led us to believe that what is true in a very limited sense - that we can invent and innovate and that, by doing so, we bless others - is true in every sense in every part of life. That lie leads us to make rash, unwise, and desperate decisions that threaten to ruin us.

So, our commercialized world has distorted our view of the world. What about social media? When you're scrolling social media, you are getting "snapshots" of people's lives, often doctored up and air-brushed to make things look perfect, and many of us are prone to comparing ourselves with the snapshots. We see the husband and wife, standing and smiling besides two well-dressed and well-behaved young children, and we wonder why we struggle to get ours to behave, why their kitchen is the spotless designer kitchen while ours is constantly beset with the mess of two wild kids. We see the young woman on vacation and wonder why we cannot afford that vacation. We think things like this, "I am such-and-such age and haven't gotten anywhere. Why am I so behind?" Again, I think our ancestors, though blown away by this technology, would have thought us slightly insane. I think they'd have seen through the lies we allow to leak into our souls, daily, often over many hours a day. So many of us seek quick fixes desperately in order to achieve whatever glamorized portrait of "arriving," "thriving," or "#blessed" we want to see to be true in our lives.

The truth: life in a fallen world is hard always, but very often good. As I, a young man in his upper twenties, get older, I find myself feeling sad more often. Life is good, and my wife and I are blessed in innumerable ways. But the more life I live, the more I find my soul weighed down by the suffering happening around me. As my capacity for love increases, so does my capacity for suffering. The more I realize that life is not always thrilling; I will not always feel like I am thriving; and my wife and I will not always feel "madly in love" (who wants that kind of craziness all the time, anyway?). I am actually finding that boredom can sometimes be a blessing, that to sit still on a Sabbath day, rest, and do nothing is often a time filled with quiet joy. That not every moment is a "mountaintop" moment. I have also seen myself, at times, subtly expecting that every moment is that and feeling a sense of frustration, discouragement, or disappointment about this. But then I remind myself that this is just a lie - a lie that social media tells me about how others live their lives, when in fact we're in the same boat. Life in a fallen world is hard always, but very often good. The more I acknowledge this and see the world in light of this, the happier I am. But it is not a thrilled kind of happiness; it is much more like contentment. I am content in the quiet sort of joy that comes in sitting still, in the goodness of God, surrounded by his good gifts.

There are, then, two problems that confront us related to this contrast. The first is the problem of expectation. We expect unrealistic things because of how we have been (mal)formed by our commercialized context and social media. We are prone to be disappointed when does not align with a facade of what life is really about or is like. The second is the problem of solution. When a challenge arises in our lives, we expect that quick and easy fixes are the solution. We are mal(formed) by social media to think and try them, often with disastrous results.

How all of this connects with the political landscape in America today: both the Radical Left and the Woke Right peddle in quick and easy fixes. In fact, they often literally sell them. They drive an economy that depends for its revenue on fear, outrage, resentment, and desperation. The young man feels discouraged about his ability to find a wife, so he begins to exercise. Exercise and building muscle are good things for various reasons, but he wants quick transformation. Low and behold, an influencer offers to sell him a short course on getting gains for a few hundred dollars, followed by an advertisement for that influencer's brand of protein powders and other supplements, promising that you'll be shredded and get the girl in six weeks. If that doesn't work, then maybe the institution of marriage is a sham and all the young man should care about is getting what he wants from as many women as he can by attracting them with his looks, money, and status. Enter the red pill and Andrew Tate, along with other courses for $50 a month. The result: a young man with large muscles who knows less than what he did when he started and is both broke and broken. And the same happens on the Radical Left in the form of donations to large organizations purportedly devoted to social justice causes, even if the money is eventually used to make someone else wealthy at the expense of the donor.

Normies understand that wisdom is not found on TikTok. Rather, wisdom is found in the past, with those who've come before us and often knew more and better than us. Here, I am not just talking about Christians, or even those who are particularly religious. Normies are more likely to read the Bible, the Torah and Hebrew Bible, the Analects of Confucius, or even Aristotle, Plato, or Marcus Aurelius. I believe that the recent resurgence of interest in Stoicism - an ancient philosophy of life associated with figures such as Seneca and Marcus Aurelius - is due in part to that felt need for old wisdom in our contemporary culture. None of these sources teach quick fixes. Though I believe the Bible to be the best source, the only divinely inspired source, for wisdom in life, all of them add something of value.

Notice again the crossroads presented to Americans - especially young Americans - in our culture. One choice seems easy; take the quick fix. The other seems hard; do what's necessary to form new, small habits that will make a change in your life slowly and over a long period of time. The former is big and flashy. It often looks good. In the short term, it seems effective, though in the long term it is ruinous. The latter looks ordinary, even boring. But in the long run, the person who lives this out is a very great blessing to the world - to himself, his family, and others in numerous ways.

Third Contrast Envy & Resentment vs. Gratitude

Toward the end of his earthly ministry, Jesus took time with his disciples to give them some parting words of wisdom before he went to die on the cross. With the weight of what's coming hanging over Jesus' conscious - both the physical pain he was about to experience and the incomprehensible spiritual pain of alienation from God the Father because our sins would be applied to him - Jesus says this (John 16:33 CSB, emphasis is mine):

"'I have told you these things so that in me you may have peace. You will have suffering in this world. Be courageous! I have conquered the world.'"

Notice the two things Jesus does in this verse. First, he ensures the disciples that they will face suffering in this world, prior to the return of Jesus. The Bible never sugarcoats reality in a fallen world; often, in fact, its descriptions are so graphically realistic that it can be difficult to face the truth. All but one of the disciples would die gruesome deaths as martyrs; even John, who was not martyred, faced exile and other forms of suffering for his faith. This leads to the second point: Jesus encourages the disciples of what is ultimately true. Ultimately, everything will work out because Jesus has overcome, or conquered, the world. The old sinful system and worldview is dead and dying. Its end is assured. So, disciples of Jesus can be confident that, even though they suffer, their victory in Christ is sure.

Suffering is not just a reality for Christians. Everyone suffers. However, not everyone responds to their suffering in the same way. If my claim about personal responsibility from the first contrast is true, then we are responsible for how we respond to suffering. One way of understanding suffering is that it is the experience of the loss of some good we desire. There are many goods most of us desire - and rightly so - in life: good health, stable finances, good relationships, meaningful existence and work, etc. When we experience these goods and steward them virtuously, we flourish. When we do not, we suffer. Suffering is that distress we feel at not possessing some good we desire. For some of us, because we live in a fallen world, we experience the permanent loss of a good. Some women desire to be mothers but are barren, unable to see that desire fulfilled naturally. Everyone desires good health, but many have cancer or other debilitating diseases. When an elderly person faces the end of his life, it is sometimes the case that his health fails him, and he knows his health will never recover before he dies. This, too, is a form of suffering. Still others suffer under oppression and injustice, prevented from experiencing certain goods because of the abusive actions of others.

Goods have a way of multiplying over time; so, too, do evils. However, it is generally the case that evils multiply more rapidly than goods, and this makes good sense. It is always easier to destroy than build. The Bible conveys this truth in many ways. For instance, it took untold numbers of human beings to build the Tower of Babel, but God destroyed it and ended the project easily just by confusing the language of the people. David spent many years building the Kingdom of Israel, only to see it nearly fall into civil war because of his children. Just as evils multiply in kingdoms, so too do they multiply in souls. Not everyone responds to suffering well. Virtually all of us are tempted, upon suffering, to respond with anger, vitriol, shame, resentment, unbelief, despair, rage, and all manner of other destructive ways. Many people use other means, such as alcohol and drugs, to attempt to cope with their suffering, to drown out what they are experiencing. In this way, we often add to our suffering, making what is already bad much worse. Terribly unwise decisions, made out of desperation or envy, leave some heartbroken, impoverished, and ashamed.

The third contrast is all about how we respond to a world filled with goodness - but also with evil. There are entire markets and industries built on ensuring that you suffer, and that you respond to your suffering with envy and resentment. We see it in all of the social media posts, mass media stories, and politicians' speeches about "rich white men" and the evils of billionaires. In 2021, Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attended the posh Met Gala - an annual fundraising event that costs $75,000 for individuals to attend - wearing a white dress with the words "Tax the Rich" on it.

Source: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Ordered To Pay Up For “Tax The Rich” Dress | Vanity Fair

The United States, however, has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. As of 2025, the tax rate for single taxpayers earning $626,351 and up is 37%. On top of this, the Estate Tax, otherwise known as the "death tax," is a tax on a person's right to transfer assets upon death to heirs, if the value of those assets exceeds a certain amount. As of 2026, the tax kicks in if the value of the assets is above $15 million, and the tax rate is 40%. Most Americans will not die with over $15 million in assets, so this tax is quite literally directed at the rich. Other taxes, which we might think are directed at the rich, affect millions of everyday Americans just as much. This includes, for example, the capital gains tax, which is a tax on the increase of the value of an asset, such as a share of stock in a company, at the sale of that asset. Some people think that only the rich are invested in the stock market, but millions of everyday Americans trade in the stock market through their tax-sheltered retirement accounts and other investment vehicles that are not tax-sheltered. The point is this: we do "tax the rich" already, and many of the policies intended to extract taxes from the rich affect everyday Americans who are not particularly wealthy.

Aside from the painting of policy proposals on expensive dresses, some politicians would have you believe that there is a moral problem with wealth. Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders often makes this sort of claim in his references to "billionaires." Meanwhile, while he is not a billionaire, Sanders's net worth is estimated to be between $2-$3 million. My point is not that there is anything wrong with Bernie Sanders's being a millionaire; I do not believe that there is anything inherently morally wrong with having a high net worth. However, what is unclear is why comparison-fueled, resentment-filled language about billionaires is warranted. Is there something about amassing the first $999,999,999 that is morally neutral? What about the first $999,999? If wealth itself is morally problematic, then it seems Bernie Sanders is a hypocrite, since he is quite wealthy. If the capitalist system that makes millions of Americans wealthy is inherently morally problematic, then again, Bernie Sanders is a hypocrite, as a beneficiary of that system.

The previous few paragraphs apply, of course, to the Radical Left. The Woke Right has a tendency to appeal to envy as well. I've already mentioned the "red pill" and "incel" (short for "involuntary celibate") phenomena in the second contrast. These movements are more closely associated with the Right. They are appeals to envy because they prey upon young men's feelings of impotency and resentment toward those they see as "successful" - in this context, pertaining to success in the sexual domain. Other appeals to envy can be found in the Right's economic populism (which it has in common with parts of the Left) and rising anti-Semitism. The former, economic populism, mirrors the Left's economics in its claim that "the system" - or big corporations or bad trade deals - has taken advantage of the average American, especially blue-collar workers in middle America. On the Left, this is addressed via the language of "income inequality," though I'm seeing more of this kind of language on the Right as well. ("Affordability" is another catchword here.) Again, the point is that all of these movements appeal to a felt sense that there is something the individual would like to have (e.g., economic prosperity) but doesn't have and can't have, and the proposed solution is to blame someone in power (e.g., "the system," big government, big corporations, etc.).

On both the Radical Left and the Woke Right, that envy is crystalized into anti-Semitism by blaming "the Jews." The Jewish people are the ultimate example of an historically oppressed and suffering people (ever read the Old Testament and Western history?) who have achieved surprising success in spite of that suffering. For that reason, they are also the ultimate scapegoat. For the envious person, my lack of success must be someone else's fault. If I cannot achieve what I want and that person can, then that person must be taking advantage of me. The history of the Jewish people serves as a definitive counterexample to this idea. So, rather than escaping the envious worldview, the envious person must explain why the Jewish people have been so successful. Either (a) they have not suffered as badly as everyone thinks (e.g., Holocaust denial) or (b) there is some conspiratorial cabal at work to enable them to oppress and control everyone else (e.g., recent claims that President Trump went to war with Iran because Israel told him to). For this reason, anti-Semitism is quintessential evidence of an envious worldview. It is the surest sign that someone has given in to a mindset fueled by (1) a victimhood mentality that denies personal responsibility, (2) fast and easy fixes, and (3) an envious outlook on the world that blames the successful for one's lack of success.

In this case, the alternative - gratitude - is also the cure for this way of seeing the world. Gratitude is a disciplined emotional response of thankfulness and joy to the good one experiences in one's life. It is an emotional response, and emotions are often felt spontaneously. However, it is disciplined in the sense that, properly speaking, gratitude is a result of the proper formation of one's character. To be grateful is to be a more virtuous person. Gratitude is also the proper response to one's state in life, even in the midst of difficult circumstances involving suffering.

Once cultivated as part of your spiritual formation, gratitude leads to contentment: an emotional state of settled happiness or joy in your state of life, no matter what that state consists of. Suffering, if we respond to it well, can teach us contentment. This is the lesson Paul learned from the immense suffering he faced in his missionary journeys, as we find in Philippians 4:11-13 (CSB):

"11 I don’t say this out of need, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I find myself. 12 I know how to make do with little, and I know how to make do with a lot. In any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of being content—whether well fed or hungry, whether in abundance or in need. 13 I am able to do all things through him who strengthens me."

For the Christian, to be content is to understand that one's ultimate source of joy - an eternal, all-sufficient, all-satisfying, perfect joy - is God alone, to know and love him and be known and loved by him. If you are a Christian, you have this joy, whether you are poor or rich, sick or well, hungry or filled, at all times. Thus, you are grateful for these earthly goods when you have them, for all good things come from God, but you do not need them to be happy or joyful. Gratitude sets your eyes on what is good, and on the God who is the Source of all goodness, and simply trusts God when other things are lacking in your life. In the midst of many evils in a fallen world, the grateful and content Christian mourns and laments, but he also responds in hope, knowing that there will come a day when Christ returns and everything is brought to completion and fulfillment. Then his and the church's joy will be made complete, since "God will be all in all" (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:28).

For these reasons, any political or social movements that rely on envy to organize and generate an emotional response to evils - real or imagined - are entirely antithetical to the Christian life; Christians should have nothing to do with them. No true disciple of Jesus should ever occupy the place of Cain in any situation. This is the tragedy of complicity in, and even support for, movements on the Radical Left such as Black Lives Matter among otherwise orthodox evangelicals. Today, there is far too much complicity in similar movements on the Woke Right, such as economic populism and especially anti-Semitism. That any Christian would think it appropriate, wise, or in keeping with biblical orthodoxy and orthopraxy to be complicit in any of these movements is an indictment of the American church's unwillingness and inability to teach biblical worldview and theology. It is damaging to the soul of the individual Christian and damaging to our witness.

With our three contrasts explained, in the next two sections, I'll discuss why these contrasts represent a shift in how we should think about the culture wars - and how Christians should respond.

Changing Battle Lines

As you can see from the length of this post, describing the changing cultural landscape is not easy. I consider this post to be a project in cultural analysis, a component of what Christian philosopher Paul Gould calls "cultural apologetics." With that analysis in place, I want to make three points about how this should change our understanding of the culture wars. First, the current cultural landscape shows that the battle lines do not divide the Right and the Left. Second, the current cultural landscape shows that engaging in the culture wars is not merely a matter of resisting political advancements from the Left. Third, the current cultural landscape shows that the culture wars have their source in something much deeper than politics, or even worldview; there is an incredibly deep spiritual conflict at play.

First, the current cultural landscape shows that the battle lines do not divide the Right and the Left. This is bound to be surprising for many American Christians in our current political situation. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the word "liberal" used as a slur, as if the invocation of the word alone is a reason for distrusting or disagreeing with someone. (I've used the word this way as well in the past.) However, remember that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" refer to ideologies; the terms "Left" and "Right" refer to political and coalitional alignments. The terms "Republican" or "Democrat" refer to party alignments and generally map onto the Right and Left, respectively. There are liberals on the Right (e.g., Tulsi Gabbard) and conservatives on the Left (David French, perhaps). Furthermore, all of us are an ideological mix. There are very few people who are purely liberal or conservative ideologically.

Finally, what counts as "conservative" or "liberal" depends on the politico-cultural situation in a society at that time. In the first-century A.D., when women were granted a lower status than men in Jewish society, Jesus' actions toward women, counting them among his disciples, would have been interpreted as radically liberal, upending the socio-cultural status quo. A mindful Christian conservatism understands that there are cases when, because of the demands of justice, tradition must be challenged and at times overridden. Mindless conservatism - just upholding tradition without defending its reason for existing - is apparently something that Jesus righteously despises. These are broad-brush points I'm making, but the key is hopefully clear enough: ideological alignments are culture- and context-dependent. Perhaps, 100 years from now, the proper Christian response to certain contexts will be "liberal" in that context. It would be silly to deny this out of hand as an impossibility simply because of a knee-jerk response to the word specific to our current context.

Additionally, our three contrasts above demonstrate that the battle lines do not cross along political or ideological lines. Rather, there are tendencies on both the Right and the Left to adopt perspectives or join movements that inculcate a victimhood mentality, a tendency toward seeking fast and easy fixes, and envy. Because of this, there is a serious danger to blindly following whatever is said or is happening on your "side" of the aisle. Christians should be more thoughtful and critical of their own side.

None of this is to say that the two sides are morally equivalent, and I am not making this claim. I am, however, saying that many Right-aligned, conservative Christians are too comfortable with the tendencies of the Woke Right, while they criticize the Radical Left, and are failing to see the same pitfalls and errors on their side. That kind of blindness needs to be called out and rejected. If I am right in my analysis, it should be repented of.

Second, the current cultural landscape shows that engaging in the culture wars is not merely a matter of resisting political advancements from the Left. This follows clearly from what we've already established. Tragically, many Right-aligned Christians have reacted to recent events by adopting the very same basic worldview whose Left-aligned manifestations they reject. In some cases, especially in the "new media" online, Right-aligned public figures have found a new sense of respect for Left-aligned people they previously had criticized.

Mindful Christians need to recognize temptations to adopt a similar worldview on their side of the aisle, and they need to be better at recognizing liberal and Left-aligned allies. In other words, there are normies on both sides. This leads me to a hopeful point: there is a still a "middle" in this country. I still think that the vast majority of Americans agree more often than not. To a certain extent, polarization is a social media and legacy media phenomenon, and the cure is to get off social media and ignore the legacy media. Meet your liberal neighbor. Invite him or her to church. Do life with people who disagree with you. You'll likely find plenty of common ground. Likewise, mindful Christians need to be better able to identify pundits of the Radical Left and Woke Right as people who are not aligned with the Christian worldview and should stop allowing these people to influence them. On the Woke Right, I have in mind especially Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, at least at the time of publication. Brothers and sisters, avoid these people!

Third, the current cultural landscape shows that the culture wars have their source in something much deeper than politics, or even worldview; there is an incredibly deep spiritual conflict at play. Political engagement is important. I agree with those Christians, such as Allie Beth Stuckey, who argue that political engagement at some level is a civic duty and, for Christians, an extension of the command to love one's neighbor as oneself.

However, there is a danger of making too much of political engagement. It should never be said of any Christian that he or she talks more about these topics with non-Christians more than he or she endeavors to share the gospel with non-Christians. Similarly, the "culture war" mindset has led many evangelicals to act with prejudice toward those on the Left, rather than making every effort to befriend and love them in the hope of sharing the gospel with them. The "culture war" mindset can distort how the Christian sees the non-Christian by causing the Christian to see the non-Christian as the enemy. Brothers and sisters, this is unbiblical and sin.

If my thesis is correct and the arguments for it sound, what the "culture wars" now amount to is a battle between some of the deepest and most basic assumptions of the Judeo-Christian worldview and its discontents. It is a battle between Abel and Cain. Between King David and his rebellious, resentful son, Absolom. Between Christ and his Church and the dragon and the harlot of Babylon. Between the woman and Satan. It is a battle of epic proportions because it is a manifestation of the cosmic conflict between good and evil. One road - the road of personal responsibility, slow and hard transformation, and gratitude - leads to great and ever-expanding goods; ultimately, it leads to faith in Christ. The other road - that of the Radical Left and the Woke Right - leads to destruction and hell. It is, in many ways, a self-inflicted hell, one in which you feel a false sense of power at the expense of others, but are in reality weak, impotent, small. If they keep on this road, the pundits of both the Radical Left and the Woke Right, some of whom I've named and discussed in this post, will end up just like that. They'll have gained popularity and clicks, made some money, won some elections. But no one will remember them for any achievements, much less God. There will be nothing worth remembering.

Brothers and sisters in Christ, in one sense, this post is an appeal to shun distractions and focus on what's most important. We are tempted toward these extremes by being too engaged online and in politics. In another sense, this work has been an exercise in confronting extremes in my own thinking over the last few years. The year, 2020, made most of us a bit crazy. If you're like me and find this post to be convicting, take some time with the Lord to repent. Maybe there were opportunities to share the gospel with your liberal (even your Radical Leftist!) neighbor or co-worker, and you dismissed that person because of her politics or worldview. Make a commitment today never to do that again. Maybe you disfellowshipped fellow Christians over disagreements that, mind you, are important but weren't the gospel. Reach out to them and catch up. Make it a goal in the next month to sit across the table from someone you strongly disagree with and have a pleasant meal together. Treat others as if God created them in his image and loves them.

When you see evidence of this creeping anti-Christian sentiment coming into your life, through your feed or through a relationship with someone close to you, identify it and repudiate it in love. Remind yourself that even if someone says they're Christian - and even if some of their positions superficially look good - it takes discernment to tell whether that person's worldview is, at bottom, driven by victimhood, fast and easy fixes, and envy. If it is, avoid them. Do not allow yourself to be influenced by a spirit that, under the surface, is more of Satan than of Christ.

And, perhaps the hardest thing for the Christian reader - whether on the Left or Right - to hear, stop rejecting fellow Christians offhand for their political alignments. I have been guilty of this at times, too. We should care deeply about representing Christ well in every area. We should care deeply about affirming the truth of Christ in our doctrine and theology. Practice discernment. But knee-jerk reactionism is not discernment. This weird cultural moment in America has opened my eyes to the strange bedfellows one can have in this kind of situation. I find that among figures on the Right and Left, I am aligned at some level with many Christians (obviously) as well as non-Christians (e.g., Jordan Peterson and Konstantin Kisin) and even atheists (e.g., James Lindsay and Bill Maher). Likewise, some so-called Christians on the Right, with which I'm generally aligned, approach things in a way that I find morally repugnant and not exemplary of Christ (e.g., Andrew Wilson, Tucker Carlson, etc.). Their worldviews are, at bottom, not that of Christ.

If you've made it to the end, my hope for you is that this post has helped you to make sense of and navigate the wild cultural and political landscape that currently exists in the United States in 2026. This post is the result of some years of reflection on these issues that have resulted in changes in how I approach cultural apologetics in "our Athens," to quote Paul Gould. As the landscape changes, this post will no longer be relevant at some point. However, another hope is that this post equips you with some resources for how to engage in this kind of cultural analysis well, no matter the milieu. All for Christ and his glory and for love of neighbor as we endeavor to make disciples.

If you've stuck with me the whole way, then thank you for reading! If you've found this essay helpful and think others could benefit from it, please share it with others. Comment below or leave a like to let me know what you think. And feel free to check out the backlog of posts on this blog to get more content on Christian philosophy, theology, and apologetics!

Thanks again for reading!