The Hell You Say - Rethinking Hell - A Personal and Scholarly Exploration of Conditional Immortality

 Introduction

For years, the doctrine of eternal conscious torment—often framed as “everlasting hellfire”—has troubled me more deeply than I initially cared to admit. It is not merely an abstract theological puzzle but a lived and persistent burden. If I do not believe in the traditional view of an eternally burning hell, why does the topic continue to weigh so heavily on me? Why write about it at all? Even those close to me, including my wife, have worried that such sustained focus on death, judgment, and the afterlife might indicate some hidden melancholy. Yet the more I reflect, the more I recognize that this inquiry is not born of despair but of a sincere desire to understand God more faithfully and to represent Him truthfully in what I believe and teach.

To address the questions that troubled me, I found it necessary to step back and place my life—and my faith—in a fuller context. Over the years, I have critically re-examined many doctrines from my Christian upbringing. Some beliefs I have affirmed; others I have revised or relinquished. Among the most difficult doctrines to reconsider has been that of final punishment. At stake are not only theological consistency and biblical fidelity but also pastoral concerns, existential questions, and the very character of God.

As I have aged, the cumulative losses of loved ones—parents, in-laws, my first wife, friends, classmates—have pressed on me with growing emotional weight. Like many others, I have wondered: Where are they now… or, are they anywhere at all? I have heard people, even those with very little religious conviction, express the hope that their loved ones “are looking down” on them. These hopes reflect something deeply human: the intuition that life is fragile, that death is not trivial, and that what comes next matters profoundly.

My study of Scripture and Christian history has not yielded a single, coherent, universally accepted narrative about what happens after death—nor should one expect such unanimity. Yet I have become convinced that the view I was raised with—that the soul is not inherently immortal, and that immortality is a gift from God given only to the redeemed—remains biblically sound and theologically compelling. In this chapter, I explore why I believe the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment (ECT) developed, why I reject it, and why conditional immortality (also called annihilationism) offers a more faithful reading of Scripture and a more coherent portrayal of divine justice.

The Weight of the Question: Personal and Theological Motivations

My concern about the doctrine of hell is not academic detachment; it is a pastoral and existential struggle. The doctrine touches every aspect of life: grief, hope, justice, and the character of God. Scholars note that eschatology often becomes personal precisely because the questions it raises—death, justice, suffering—are themselves personal.⁽¹⁾ When I ask what happens when the “final buzzer sounds,” I am not merely theorizing; I am grappling with realities that shape how I understand God’s goodness.

The doctrine of eternal torment poses three profound challenges:

1. The moral challenge: How can endless conscious suffering be morally proportional?

2. The biblical challenge: Does Scripture actually teach the soul’s inherent immortality or endless torment?

3. The historical challenge: How did the early Church come to adopt a view so deeply shaped by Greek philosophical assumptions?

These questions compel deeper study not out of doubt but out of devotion—to God’s Word and God’s character.

The Biblical Case for Conditional Immortality

The conviction that humans are inherently immortal is not derived from Hebrew Scripture. Instead, immortality is consistently presented as God’s attribute alone (“who alone has immortality,” 1 Tim. 6:16). Human immortality is conditional, bestowed through access to the tree of life (Gen. 3:22). After the fall, humanity’s exclusion from the tree signifies the loss of immortality; death becomes inevitable, not merely physical but existential.

Conditionalists argue that the Bible presents two and only two destinies:

• Life (eternal), granted as a gift through Christ.

• Death (final), the cessation of life for those who reject God.

The vocabulary of destruction—apollymi (“to destroy, to perish”), thanatos (death), olethros (“ruin, destruction”), phthora (“corruption”)—dominates biblical descriptions of final judgment.⁽²⁾ Conditional immortality fits naturally into this linguistic pattern: the wicked perish; they do not live forever in torment.

Two passages commonly marshalled in favor of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) are Matthew 25:46 (“eternal punishment”) and Revelation 14:11 / 20:10 (imagery of torment “forever”). Conditionalists respond on several fronts: (a) the weight of biblical language for “destruction” and “perish” argues for final cessation as a possible reading; (b) apocalyptic and poetic texts (especially Revelation and prophetic Old Testament imagery) use vivid, symbolic language that must be interpreted in light of genre and the broader canon; and (c) the New Testament repeatedly links the wages of sin to death and contrasts destruction with the gift of eternal life (e.g., Rom. 6:23; John 3:16). Edward Fudge’s comprehensive study is the contemporary exemplar of this approach: he argues that when the full biblical vocabulary and ancient contexts are considered, the case for annihilation as the final penalty is both plausible and coherent.⁽²⁾

Objections and replies

Objection A — Revelation and “forever” language: Critics point to Revelation’s “forever and ever” language and the picture of the undying worm. Reply: Revelation is highly symbolic; the grammar and rhetorical function of aiōnios in some contexts may denote the permanence of the result rather than temporal duration of pain. This is a contested exegetical move, but one that respected scholars on both sides of the debate (and in particular Fudge’s careful lexical and contextual work) take seriously.⁽³⁾

Objection B — Jesus’ use of Gehenna and “undying worm”: Reply: Jesus uses hyperbolic, symbolic imagery (Gehenna, worm, unquenchable fire) to warn of irrevocable judgment. The force of those images need not be reduced; conditionalists insist they carry great warning power while still allowing that the final effect of divine judgment is decisive destruction. Responding to this objection requires sustained exegesis of each text rather than dismissal.⁽⁴⁾

Objection C — pastoral fear and urgency: Some critics say conditionalism undercuts evangelistic urgency by softening hell. Reply: conditionalists strongly affirm the reality and terror of final judgment; destruction is not necessarily less severe—indeed, annihilation as a final condemnation is sobering. Many conditionalists (including evangelical teachers) see the view as heightening, not diminishing, the need for repentance.⁽⁵⁾

Indeed, for balanced, dialogical treatments of ECT and Conditionalism see Two Views of Hell (Fudge and Robert Peterson), which stages the core exegetical arguments for both sides.⁽⁶⁾

Hebrew Anthropology and the Nature of the Soul

A growing body of scholarship agrees that ancient Israel did not conceive of humans as inherently immortal souls temporarily housed in physical bodies.⁽⁷⁾ The Hebrew nephesh refers to a living, embodied being—not a detachable, death-proof soul. Death in the Hebrew Bible is the loss of life, not the relocation of the soul to a different realm.

The notion of an innately immortal soul is not found in early Judaism. Instead, it emerges predominantly through the influence of Greek thought, especially Platonic dualism.

Intertestamental Developments and the Influence of Greek Thought

Between the Testaments, exposure to Hellenistic culture introduced new ideas about the soul’s immortality. Scholars such as N. T. Wright and Alan Segal have shown that Jewish views diversified during this period, with some groups adopting Greek-influenced concepts of the afterlife.⁽⁸⁾ Still, even then, eternal torment was not the dominant Jewish view; annihilation or post-mortem purification were more common.

Thus, by the time of the New Testament, Jewish eschatology was a complex mixture—but the immortality of the soul remained foreign to the Hebrew worldview from which Jesus and the earliest Christians emerged.

The New Testament Witness: Life vs. Destruction

Jesus’ language consistently contrasts life with destruction (Matt. 7:13–14). Paul teaches that the wages of sin is death, not everlasting torment (Rom. 6:23). John’s Gospel proclaims that believers “shall not perish (apolētai) but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Peter speaks of the wicked being “like animals,” destined to “perish” (2 Pet. 2:12).

If the wicked were destined for endless life in torment, the promise of eternal life would be redundant: everyone would live forever, just in different conditions. Conditionalism offers a number of theological advantages that make it worth taking seriously:

1. Proportionality and divine justice. If human life is finite, then an infinite punishment for finite sin invites questions about proportionality and justice. Conditionalism preserves divine holiness and the seriousness of sin while avoiding the moral paradox that infinite conscious punishment would present for many readers. (This is one reason John Wenham and others have found the view compelling.)⁽⁹⁾

2. Christ’s victory and “It is finished.” What I find extremely objectionable about the hell doctrine (as taught by many within the Christian church) is how it conflicts with and seems to contradict so much of scripture. It fails to portray God as our Loving Father; instead it all but brands God in an extremely distorted and hateful manner no matter what kind of language is used to try to mitigate the impact. To believe the hell story, one would have to accept that the elimination of sin (through death) is not enough. Further, ECT diminishes the sacrifice of Christ by suggesting when Jesus proclaimed, “It is finished!”…it really wasn’t. Such a hell means that the problem of sin remains for all time and thus the need for unbelieving sinners to be eternally punished by a god who also continues to sustain them so the torment can continue.

   Jesus did not, “sort of” defeat sin, either he defeated sin for all time or he did not. When he said, “It is finished” it was indeed finished. When he took on the punishment for sin in order to restore all creation, he did just that. He took on the death that he had warned Adam about, so long ago, and he defeated it. Christ did not come to somehow mitigate the effects of sin for a small percentage of humanity – he did not come to mitigate sin but to defeat it. And He did.

   If Christ’s atoning work decisively defeats death and secures eternal life for believers, conditionalists argue that it is more coherent to read “final” judgment language as destruction of evil’s power and, where appropriate, of the evildoer’s existence, rather than an everlasting perpetuation of the problem Christ resolved (cf. Rom. 6:9–10; John 3:16). Fudge and other conditionalists emphasize that “eternal punishment” can reasonably be understood as an eternal effect (permanent destruction), not necessarily endless process.⁽¹⁰⁾

3. Scriptural economy. A careful, lexically sensitive reading shows many more NT occurrences of words like “perish,” “destroy,” and “death” than unambiguous instances of “eternal conscious torment.” Conditionalists argue that the natural reading of the biblical testimony, taken as a whole, points toward death/destruction as the final outcome for the lost.⁽¹¹⁾

Historical Development: How Eternal Torment Became Dominant

6.1 Plato and the Immortal Soul

Plato argued for the soul’s inherent immortality in the Phaedo, a concept entirely foreign to Hebrew anthropology.⁽¹²⁾ Early Christian thinkers educated in Greek philosophy—particularly in Alexandria—found these ideas compelling and integrated them with Christian doctrine.

6.2 Tertullian and Augustine

Tertullian was perhaps the earliest explicit advocate of eternal conscious torment among major theologians, grounding the doctrine not in Scripture but in the philosophical axiom that the soul cannot be destroyed.⁽¹³⁾ Augustine, influenced by Neoplatonism, developed this further, arguing that because the soul is immortal, the wicked must live forever in punishment.⁽¹⁴⁾ Augustine’s immense influence cemented ECT as the dominant view in Western Christianity.

Scripture Through Latin Eyes: The Vulgate and Western Trajectory

Jerome’s Vulgate translation of key terms—especially aionion (eternal) and gehenna—reinforced Augustine’s interpretations. Over time, theological tradition overshadowed biblical language. As Edward Fudge has documented, many assumptions about hell became embedded through centuries of unexamined repetition rather than careful exegesis.⁽¹⁵⁾

Reconsidering “Eternal Punishment”

Conditionalists do not deny “eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46). But they argue that the punishment is irreversible destruction—not ongoing consciousness. The adjective aionios (“eternal”) describes the permanence of the punishment’s effect, not the duration of the process. The same principle applies to “eternal judgment” or “eternal redemption”—neither is a process that continues forever, but each has everlasting consequences.

Thus, “eternal punishment” naturally refers to a punishment whose result is eternal: death.

Pastoral and Ethical Implications

My rejection of eternal torment is not motivated by sentimentality. Rather, I find conditional immortality to be:

• more biblically coherent,

• more historically grounded in earliest Christian belief,

• more philosophically consistent with justice, and

• more theologically reflective of a God whose character is righteous, merciful, and faithful.

To teach that God sustains the eternal life of the wicked solely for torment misrepresents His heart and distorts His justice. To teach that He allows the wicked to perish honors both His holiness and His mercy.

Conclusion and an invitation to disciplined study

Conditional immortality is a serious, biblically argued, historically informed alternative to Eternal Conscious Torment. The case is cumulative: it depends on lexical practice in the Old and New Testaments, canonical theological themes (death as the consequence of sin; immortality as God’s gift), careful genre-sensitive readings of apocalyptic and prophetic texts, and a historically aware account of how Hellenistic philosophical categories interacted with Jewish and Christian theology.

Major contemporary resources to consult include Edward Fudge’s The Fire That Consumes (revised editions) for a thorough case; John Wenham’s writings as an influential evangelical voice; and balanced dialogues such as Two Views of Hell (Fudge and Peterson) and critical responses collected in Hell Under Fire (Morgan & Peterson) for the counterarguments. Reading these helps transform the conversation from emotive polemic into sober theological debate.

My conviction in conditional immortality springs from years of study, reflection, and prayer. It is rooted in Scripture, informed by scholarship, and shaped by personal encounters with death and loss. I present this view not to provoke but to bear witness to what I believe is a more faithful and coherent understanding of God’s revealed character. Ultimately, annihilationism is scripturally sound and upholds both the holiness and goodness of God: the wicked truly die, and the redeemed truly live.

______________________

Endnotes

1. Richard Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 3–12.

2. Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011), 38–65.

3. Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 3^rd edition

4. Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes

5. Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes

6. Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue, ivpress.com

7. John W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism–Dualism Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 24–59.

8. Alan F. Segal, Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 131–204; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).

9. John William Wenham, “The Goodness of God.”

   https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Goodness_of_God.html?id=qMUqAQAAMAAJ&utm_source=chatgpt.com

10. Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: The Biblical Case for Conditional Immortality. https://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Fire_That_Consumes.html?id=TggfAAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

11. Wikipedia, “Annihilationism,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism?utm_source=chatgpt.com

12. Plato, Phaedo, in Plato: Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997).

13. Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1885).

14. Augustine, The City of God, trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin, 2003), esp. Book XXI.

15. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 163–215.

______________________

Bibliography

Augustine. The City of God. Translated by Henry Bettenson. London: Penguin, 2003.

Bauckham, Richard. The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Cooper, John W. Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism–Dualism Debate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Fudge, Edward W. The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment. 3rd ed. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011.

Plato. Phaedo. In Plato: Complete Works, edited by John M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.

Segal, Alan F. Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion. New York: Doubleday, 2004.

Tertullian. A Treatise on the Soul. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1885.

Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

Where Did You Come From...and How Did You Get Here

Not very long ago, I was asked if I would give a short talk to a men’s gathering. The first question to cross my mind was, “Why me?” to be followed closely by, “About what?” What topic could I possibly discuss – at a men's breakfast – with any degree of creditable knowledge? Well, one of the things that interests me (and I'm sure I am not alone in this) is the uniqueness of each person’s life journey – their story.

As we live out our life, each of us meet many people whose pathway converges with ours. Sometimes our paths merely cross while at other times they connect for a while and we journey alongside each other for varying periods of time. At some point, as we come to know our fellow travellers, I believe we often find ourselves wondering, “where did you come from and how did you get here?” Many important life lessons are learned from the stories and experiences of others. Such stories we've either heard first hand or are those we've heard that have been told and recorded throughout history.

With this thought in mind, let me highlight just a few such stories and then conclude with a few final thoughts.

*******

There once was a man who was blind from the day he was born. Everyone who knew him, knew that he had been blind his whole life. In order to support himself and get by in life, he spent his days sitting and begging in the streets. One day a Great Rabbi passed by, accompanied by a group of His followers. Those followers had a number of questions and after answering those questions He then proceeded to heal the blind man's lack of sight in a rather curious manner.

He spat on the ground and mixed saliva and dirt to form mud which He then smeared across the blind man’s eyes. Then He told the blind man to wash himself in the pool of Siloam. The man went, washed, and returned – his eyes now alive with sight – and he saw the One who had given him this gift.

Naturally, this event sparked curiosity and many questions. First the townspeople, and then the Pharisees, wanted to know just what had happened – what was this man's story – how had he arrived at this point where he now found himself. He told his story – straightforwardly and simply without argument or debate and ended with this statement, “I was blind and now I see.”

When pressed further, and the answers that he had given them were repeatedly questioned, he simply said, “Listen, I’ve already answered all these questions, and you don’t like my answers. Do you really need me to say it all over again? Are you perhaps thinking about joining up with Him and becoming His followers?”

It wasn't until later that this formerly blind man learned that it was Jesus who had given him sight.

Well, I’m sure you are familiar with this story. It is found in the 9th chapter of John. Plenty of people (not just folks mentioned in the Bible) have recounted times and events where an encounter with God has led to a sudden, unexpected and noticeable change. Such experiences have been reflected in the countless personal testimonies given throughout history and continuing on into this present time.

 

 

Not long ago I came across a more recent story that I found very interesting, and you may as well. In describing his experience, after the fact, a very well known personality wrote:

"You must picture me alone in that room at Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England" (Surprised By Joy, ch. 14, p. 266).

That man – the “reluctant convert” was none other than C. S. Lewis who most will know for his prolific writings on Christianity and living the Christian life. Lewis was possibly one of the greatest defenders of Christianity in the twentieth century. However, prior to the conversion experience noted above, Lewis had spent many years as a determined atheist. He had left his childhood Christian faith or as he calls it, “a blandly Christian childhood” to throw himself fully into a rationalist and idealist atheism that he professed and lived.

His long journey away from faith began when he was a boy after his mother became sick with cancer and subsequently died. Lewis became disillusioned with God because his mother had not been healed, and he then set out on a path that led him to full-bodied rationalism and atheism.

His road back to faith is described as cluttered with obstacles which Lewis once thought impossible to overcome. His conversion to Christianity was not an overnight experience but rather took place after years of intellectual struggle and was only resolved after he became convinced that faith was reasonable. During this time Lewis was supported by Christian friends such as J. R. R. Tolkien, Hugo Dyson, Owen Barfield, and others. These friends faithfully and patiently walked with him and helped him resolve his many misgivings about Christianity.

The final story, in this brief talk, is a short snippet from my own journey:

I was raised in an active Christian household complete with a whole set of rules and expectations. In my early 20’s I walked away from the church and everything I felt it represented. Rather than critically examining each point and belief, I rejected the whole package and for approximately the next 25-30 years I cut myself off from almost all church-based religious contact. During that time I more or less drifted with wherever life took me.

Early in that journey, when I questioned even the very existence of God, I thought in terms of, “Did God create us or did we create God?” This question did not go away during that whole phase of my journey. Indeed, I felt compelled to look at that very question and come up with an answer. For some of that time I tried to avoid the question by adopting a very “here and now” approach to life. I tried to hold onto the view which said, “only the present matters - it doesn’t really matter how it all began or how we got here.” Of course that view leads to the conclusion that all is meaningless as it doesn’t answer the question of why we are here or is there even any purpose to our being here.

During that whole phase, all around me I would continuously see the beauty and wonder of creation. It was (and is) a silent but powerful testimony to the existence and involvement of the Creator. Eventually I was hit with the absolute realization that all this did not just happen by accident or random chance. The heavens do indeed declare the glory of God while the skies proclaim the work of His hands.

In addition to becoming convinced of the creator and that we are all part of his created universe, I also was compelled, more and more, to believe there is an undeniably spiritual side of man. There is a void in man. It is so much more than the need to find meaning in our lives. I believe only our creator can fill that void. Learning more about our Creator while exploring the spiritual need within us became the focus of my journey. As I studied, I found myself beginning to conceive of a God that was rather different and far greater than the god I’d learned of during my youth. Further, I began to see that I didn’t have a problem with God, but rather I had a problem with how I had come to think of God based on my youthful experience.

In wanting to come back to God, I immediately was confronted with the problem of what church or denomination. I decided I didn’t want to go back to the denomination I had left years earlier...but what of the others? It didn’t take me long to realize that my youthful experience could have been replicated (almost exactly) in any one of a number of other denominations! With different doctrines and teachings, each group presents God somewhat differently according to defining characteristics of that particular faith. They do this with respect to their perception of what He likes and approves of, how He would act and what He wants from us. I did not want a denomination or creed to come between God and me but at the same time I wanted to worship him in fellowship with other Christian believers.

The God I am coming to know is much greater than all the denominational differences I’ve thus far been exposed to. He is far, far greater than my capacity to understand – though I sometimes may get brief glimpses of thought and fleeting insights. It occurs to me that one simply can’t take that which is Omnipotent, All Powerful, All Knowing and Almighty and put it in a box or a neat little package. Our own understanding might fit into that package but not the Subject of that understanding.

As a part of that journey and integral to it, I began reading my Bible and soon after, began praying. This was a solitary act for several years but after the illness and death of my late wife several years ago, I began to really desire Christian fellowship and so I began regular church attendance. Though I had been baptised as a youngster, I eventually felt the desire to be re-baptised and therefore did so a few years later. To quickly sum up my journey with respect to God, the stages would go:

1. There is a God with lots of rules,

2. He couldn’t exist,

3. He doesn’t exist,

4. How could He NOT exist,

5. Of course He exists,

6. Finally (and this is where I am now). It's personal - He loves me!

*******

So, the question is, “how did you get here?” Each of you has a story to tell and it’s a story you know better than anyone else. Our story is our testimony and our witness. Sometimes I believe we miss the opportunity to share our Christian values and beliefs, with those around us, because we get all caught up in thinking we don’t know enough theology. I do not in any way wish to diminish the role or importance of ministers and evangelists but we are not all called to those roles. We are called however (as it says in 1st Peter 3:15) to be prepared “to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”

If we live our lives in accordance with our convictions and our “renewed minds,” I believe we will, in fact, be letting our light shine. I also believe that (in allowing our light to shine) we can expect to be asked questions about what we believe and how we got here. We can all share our story when afforded the opportunities to do so. It is a simple and effective testimony.

One final thought…In describing how I got here, it is important to recognize that “here” is not the final destination. I have not yet arrived and do not want to suggest anything other than I am continuing to grow and journey with God. “Here” is only a point on the path in a life-long journey.

We should all know where we are going. Where are you now? How did you get here? And where is your path taking you? God bless you on your journey.

Truly Christian or Simply Following a Religious Script

Have you ever waited anxiously for the results of some test or examination? Perhaps there was a lot riding on those results; maybe that highly anticipated outcome was accompanied by an uncomfortable level of uncertainty, doubt or even dread. Perhaps you can recall watching the bulletin-board each day for the posting of all those who passed a recently written, highly important test. Maybe you remember nervously waiting for the annual report cards to be released to see if you had passed or failed your school year. Or maybe the testing was to rule out some dreaded medical diagnosis and you were anxiously awaiting the results whilst hoping for good news.

This process (anxiously waiting) is something I’ve experienced numerous times in my life and I suspect many others have as well. This being the case, the question becomes, “Is this kind of anxiety a good thing and should we be expected to live so much of our life in such a state?” Personally, I do not believe so; I don’t believe this was the purpose for which we were designed and created. And yet, I wonder how many of us continue to live in such a manner.

Having been raised in a fairly strict, rules based, fundamentalist/literalist religion, I estimate that a significant amount of time and energy was spent doing just that. During the early years of my life, a lot of effort was invested attempting to gain God’s promised reward while also striving to avoid the ultimate punishment He would mete out on those who failed to qualify. In a way, our life itself was to be the ultimate test and the standard for passing was unachievably high. To mitigate such anxiety and make it possible to somehow achieve a “passing mark,” I was quite aware of a plan for salvation and that forgiveness was somehow a part of it. But accompanying this plan of forgiveness there is much hard work from that point forward. In this way, forgiveness was like a reprieve and we now had a second chance - a divinely granted “do-over.” The way I understood it meant that with this second chance we were expected to work it out (our salvation) until judgment day at which time you find out if you pass or fail. My “life-script,” if one can use that term, would have gone something like this:

“You’ve been forgiven now do the very best you can – always. You’ve been given all the rules you need to live your life by. At the end there will be an accounting. All infractions of the rules will be noted - nothing has been missed. Forgiveness is available...if requested. Help is available...if requested. All results are final and you will be aware of your result when time runs out.”

Regardless of how much I may have changed over the years, the fact remains that no amount of changing erases history. Even when I thought I had moved on and out of the mould that had helped shape me, I have come to realize that much of that shape remains. Any way you look at it, we are a product of our own time-line. While we have the ability to make changes… and we have the capacity for regrets, often indulging in the fantasy of “if I had it to do over again,” the fact remains that we are in a vehicle called “time” that has no reverse. We all carry our history with us, and because of that it remains influential – though usually unrecognized – in how we view life, how we feel and how we make decisions. I am not suggesting that we are unable to overcome our past or operate outside historical influence. Instead, what I am suggesting is that I believe it worthwhile to be aware of ways we still might be responding to the shaping, messages and events of history.

The question I struggled with early in my life was that of ultimate punishment and reward. It had a big impact on how I attempted to understand and apply what I learned from the teaching, experiences and examples to which I was exposed. I have since made considerable changes to many of my earlier views and life choices. Even so, in these later years of my life, it has begun to dawn on me that despite any changes I may have made, those early views continue (at times) to be at work in shaping my experience of life today.

Over the years there have been numerous times I’ve found myself in a real quandary as I attempted to move my life forward. I’ve long been aware that while the amount of time I have here is unknown, it is definitely limited and will end one day. The quandary then is what to do with the rest of my life i.e. whatever amount of time I might have, and does it matter? Is there a final accounting? If there is a final accounting, then to whom do we account… how and when? During whatever time I have ahead of me, does it serve any purpose for me to frequently be in a state of low-level, gnawing anxiety?

As I looked at these questions, I thought there were at least four possible options which might be utilized in an attempt to relieve the anxiety I’ve just mentioned:

1. I could work/try harder to become more “perfect” (religious). By perfect I mean, “more scrupulously conform to a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith.” The Definition provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

2. I could remain as I was but adopt an agnostic “don’t know what to believe and I don’t want to think about it” attitude.

3. I could walk away and “abandon” my efforts i.e. “religion.”

4. And finally, I could adopt an atheistic mind set and just totally focus on my life in the “here and now” with the idea “that’s all there is and all that matters.”

Looking back at my life thus far, I realize that at one time or another, I’ve tried each one of these options with some short-term relief but ultimately the outcome in each case was definitely unsatisfactory. However, in the course of exploring possibilities, I became aware of another option – one I haven’t listed but will get to shortly.

Back in the mid 1970’s, I walked away from a church I had been part of my whole life. At that point, I thought that I was done with religion. Before I left however, I first attempted to work harder and I became a lot more religious and legalistic. Whatever truth I had an awareness of, whatever I believed to be right or wrong, whatever I thought I was supposed to be doing, I was determined to behave and live in complete and total accordance with those beliefs and ideals. Briefly, at the beginning, this brought a certain peace and even enthusiasm because I thought taking such a course of action could work and would be as simple as following a recipe. It’s all there - just do it - and I thought I could at least follow instructions.

I grew up knowing others who, like me, determined to follow a similar course. I can recall conversations where thoughts would be expressed along the line of, “just do as you are told, it’s all there, follow the program.” I soon learned this was much easier said than done and not only did I fail, I was miserable while doing so. While I don’t know how all those other folks turned out, I can say I am aware of numerous struggles, failures and disappointments - and I also know others who got hurt along the way.

Upon realizing this approach simply wasn’t working, I became discouraged and disillusioned with my life and became increasingly envious of those who appeared to be enjoying life. I remained for a short time in an increasingly agnostic state as I slowly abandoned my beliefs. Then, within a short period of time, I left church altogether.

Decades passed and I lived basically a good life… trying different paths while exploring different ideas and philosophies. During this period, I discovered fairly quickly that I could simply live in the present moment while adopting an “I don’t know and don’t care” approach. This soon led to the realization that without definition or meaning, life would soon become pointless and boring. Questions about the purpose of life, what makes something right or wrong, morality etc… all continued to bother me. Ultimately I kept wondering, “is this all there is to life or is there something more… something I’m missing? Is there a spiritual dimension beyond the material one in which we live?”

Looking back, this detour, as I now call it, may have been a necessary part of my overall journey. Upon my acceptance of Jesus Christ as my Saviour, I began to get acquainted with God in a new and different way. Some of the differences involved shifting the emphasis off rules and on to a relationship; off religion and on to faith; away from my inabilities and on to His ability and what He accomplished for me. If He knows me, loves me and came to this world to save me, then nothing in this world (except me) can prevent Him from doing just that. Because He came for me, I wanted to know Him and have a relationship with Him. I realized everything is in His hands, and that as a first step trusting Him to do as He promised releases the anxiety and worry that I mentioned at the start of this article.

So then, what about the rules? I’d been raised to recognize there were a pile of them and some, I felt certain, conflicted with others. To me, the idea which made the most sense was to start over and begin with the idea that if Christianity is supposed to be about Christ, I would first focus my study on Jesus. I began by reading about what He taught and the life He lived.

My study of the Bible began with the gospels (books about His time here on earth) and eventually expanded to include those books written by his apostles and those who were around when he was on earth (the rest of the New Testament). After that, I began to study the Old Testament but, having the advantage of hindsight, did so in the light of what I’d learned studying the New Testament.

As time progressed, I began to once again desire connection and fellowship with other followers of Christ. With this in mind, I began attending different churches and seeking association with different small groups. At this point I am quite encouraged by much of what I’m finding while at the same time, I can sometimes become quite concerned. I think the degree of tension I feel serves to motivate me to keep seeking and studying while not becoming complacent and thinking I’ve got all the answers.

These days, I enjoy the regular fellowship of a local church group and I also enjoy meeting other followers of Christ from many different faith traditions. However, I have not yet sought membership with any specific denomination… nor do I feel any desire to do so at this point. It is the very desire I have to personally seek the kingdom of which Christ spoke, and to follow Him that has generated some of my reluctance to seek membership within any religious denomination. Why? Perhaps it is because of my own history and the journey I’ve been on that I’ve become very sensitive to denominational dogma and rules.

Throughout human history, it seems, man has sought to form groups of like minded individuals or communities and then develop sets of rules and regulations that attempt to govern the behaviours of the individuals within those groups. Sometimes this is seen as simply an attempt to clarify or expand on what began as some very simple, basic and general principles. At some point an almost kind of “group-think” seems to take over leading at times to unnecessary conflict. The early church was no exception to this process and in Acts 15 we read of the council at Jerusalem. Verses 5 & 6 read, “Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the Law of Moses.” The apostles and elders met to consider this question.”

One person who arose to address this concern was Peter and as part of his address to those raising the question, verses 10 & 11 read, “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” They then went on to develop a simple framework for Christians that was not burdensome and would not make it difficult for the Gentiles who were turning to God.

So what about the anxiety I’ve been referring to throughout this article? The “tension” between feeling ‘encouraged’ and feeling ‘concerned,’ can be seen as a kind of anxiety that is present at times. Sometimes this tension is the result of old ‘tapes’ or ‘scripts’ that I thought I was done with but which still play unexpectedly. At other times the tension is far more related to the same conflict – present in the early church and at play in the present (but with simply a different set of rules). Because churches are made up of people, the desire and tendency remains to attempt to regulate the behaviour of others within the group. Judgment of others, according to various religious scripts and distinctives, is often the outcome of such attempts to regulate. This dynamic in my opinion, is a major reason why various denominations end up at odds with each other.

There remains a kind of performance based “final grade” acceptance or rejection still within the church that also occupies a small back corner of my mind that must be actively resisted at times. Nobody knows better than me that not only am I not perfect; I’m far from perfect - and fail often. The difference now is that I am far more aware of the grace of God and that His grace is more than enough to cover all my failings and shortcomings. He has provided this gift along with His unconditional love and mercy precisely because He knew I need them, and He wants me to accept these gifts without precondition. It is when I realize that everything is in His hands, and as I trust Him to do as He promised, I am relieved from the anxiety and worry.

Moral Compasses

People are passionate creatures – we were created that way. Harness that passion and you have created a powerful force. Focus that energy through the lens of moral outrage and you have created a very potent tool. In this state of mind, reason and logic are all but irrelevant. Those involved are concerned only with the “rightness or wrongness” of the cause they face; and as long as passions remain inflamed, there can be no meaningful dialogue or resolution. None are more determined (sometimes even dangerous) than those whose passions are driven by misguided religious or moral zeal. Throughout history, this dynamic has been known and often exploited by those who understand it’s power.

A dog-training group to which I once belonged had a convention called “MCS” which stands for Moral Considerations Suspended. The idea was to encourage participation in discussion without the harsh judgments and condemnations that usually flow from moral outrage. This convention was only partially successful; some were able to abide by the request for MCS, while others could not or would not. There is no doubt that a number of topics – including discussions about the animals we keep – are often the subject of intense feelings and sometimes heated debate.

After a particularly passionate debate had devolved into arguments over whether certain books should be banned, I decided to withdraw from active participation in that particular group. In that instance what had happened was that those who wanted to simply discuss the topic at hand found themselves, and their own personal viewpoint, under attack. Specifically, others responding with passions inflamed, were critical of anyone who would even read such a thing let alone express such opinions. Such viewpoints, they proclaimed, should be banned along with any such books promoting such ideas.

At this point, rather than continuing to discuss the topic under consideration, I found myself getting ready to engage in a debate over censorship. I did not want to possibly end up spending more time and energy than I could afford, trying to reason with people that did not want to be reasoned with. They were already convinced of the moral rightness of their “cause.” Such people would not be open to listening to me or anyone else who held a view other than the one they held. Also, I did not wish to be associated in any way with a group that advocates banning books and censoring speech.

It was ironic that the timing of this particular discussion occured just a short time before the eleventh of November. Here we were talking about censorship on the eve of Remembrance Day. Had we already forgotten those hundreds of thousands of Canadians who willingly gave their lives in battle for our country? They fought in the name of freedom and recognized it for what it is – our most sacred and precious possession. They had valiantly faced tyranny and oppression so that we could speak, think and share ideas freely. Theirs was the expression, “I might not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight to my last dying breath for your right to say it!”

I thought back to one of my high school teachers whose favourite expression was, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” and I realized how true this is. Tyrants, despots and dictators always start by removing people’s rights “for the common good.” It seems that in Canada we are being conditioned to gradually give up our individual rights and lose our freedom in order to further the causes of social engineering and political correctness.

In the discussion referred to above, the training methods and books at question were written by William Koehler, “The Monks of New Skete,” and Carol Lee Benjamin. These were the specific focus of such “moral” outrage; though various works by other writers were also proclaimed undesirable and acceptable only for the “censor’s pit.” Would today’s “enlightened” authors – those whose views today are held to as acceptable – be similarly destined for banning tomorrow by a new class of zealots? Once censorship starts, where does it stop?

There is an attitude prevalent, among some of the most zealous that precludes them viewing anything through the “lens of history.” They refuse to acknowledge the valuable contributions of those who have gone before and insist on making groundless and foolish accusations. To make this point clear, I will draw on my many years of experience in the dog training business… keep in mind however, this example can be applied today to most of the current “social justice” causes.

As it pertains to dogs, some of the most experienced and highly respected trainers, in our midst today, learned and practised the techniques of Saunders, Persall, Koehler, Self, Godsell and many, many others and – here’s a news flash – THE DOGS GOT TRAINED. For a group of neophytes to sit around and say it doesn’t work: that it will cause aggression, that it will ruin your relationship with your dog, etc., etc., etc. is foolish. It’s foolish simply because it does not acknowledge that the methods have already been proven to work on tens of thousands of dogs. Some may even argue the dogs were better behaved and more reliable. As an aside, this would probably be the basis for a good study – if anyone were ambitious enough…. This is not to say that methods cannot be developed and improved upon – but any new thing should not be accepted simply on the basis of it being new. It must pass the test of careful scrutiny for it’s effectivness and reliablity.

Discussions such as these serve to highlight an even bigger problem we are faced with… the suppression of truly open discussions in which all viewpoints are welcomed. One competent and able trainer came forward and confirmed that she is one (and I suspect there are many) who feels they must be careful about expressing certain viewpoints. She felt she had to qualify everything she said and worried about the fallout and criticism that she would face if she were to, ‘tells it like it is.’ This dynamic (where people feel they must explain and qualify in order to avoid rejection by their peer group) represents a very important discussion that must take place. In my opinion this has to occur if we as a group, are to ever acknowledge and benefit from the experiences of others. However, to this point, the idea of having frank open discussions seems to be too threatening to some.

While reviewing that particular debate it occurred to me that this could go on for a very long time and possibly accomplish nothing. Perhaps we are not yet ready to really listen to each other. If so, maybe it’s time to become a bit more pragmatic and a little less consumed by ideology.

How we view our relationship with the animals in our care, and what we consider as our moral obligation to them, will be reflected in our beliefs about life in general. Whether or not one is a member of any particular group, it seems to me that central to ones philosophy on life is the question of whether or not one believes in an intelligent, creative power that is greater than themselves. If you believe all life is here because of some giant explosion followed by just the right combinations of random acts, you might have radically different views than if you believe there was intelligent design and a Creator.

In the first instance you might view all life as equal, all actions as motivated strictly by self-gain and the concept of “rights” as something to which all ‘combinations of DNA’ are equally entitled. Since that philosophy does not include God, or any power higher than oneself, it would state that there is no ultimate moral authority. Thus all moral considerations, like all other motivations, stem from the self. On the other hand, if all life flows from a higher power (God), if life is somehow connected with and subject to that creative force, then our rights and responsibilities – our understanding of right and wrong – flow from that same higher power. Just to be clear, my personal beliefs put me within this second camp.

If one’s view is that there is no ultimate moral authority (outside of themselves) than all their moral considerations like all other motivations are self-determined and come from within. Under such circumstances the very foundation of their worldview and their whole value system would be very unstable and vulnerable. It seems to me that such an individual’s ‘moral compass’ could quite easily fall under the influence and control of any group or individual that is able to manipulate their emotional state and/or apply meaningful social pressure. As such groups or persons become (in effect) the moral authority, they gain tremendous power and control over the individual.

Such dynamics work in a similar manner at the group level as well. In larger groups of people, not everyone needs to be convinced, simply get enough people onside with your aims and you have the means to impose the control on everyone else. The best defence against this process is to insist on a pursuit of the the truth and open honest discussion. Allowing all relevant facts and actual experiences (ie., the truth) to be discussed is threatening to those who desire to replace ‘freedom of choice’ with ‘freedom from choice.’

Believe it or not, this does have something to do with dog training! Dog training practices and discussions have been subjected to the same passionate focus as anything else having to do with the care and keeping of animals. This fact alone has made dog training vulnerable to the manipulations and subversive activities of various agendas and causes – not the least of which is the Animal Rights movement. If you think the Animal Rights agenda has confined itself to helping cute little fur seals on the ice flows off Newfoundland, you are mistaken.

The Animal Rights movement opposes all who value human life (above other forms of life) as well as anyone whose religious beliefs place man above the animals. Such individuals, groups and movements (in contrast to the Animal Rights movements that view humanity as a blight upon the planet) see mankind as having a rightful place on this earth. These groups are, in fact, seen as the greatest threat to the successful conclusion of the AR agenda. It is interesting to note that a great many of the world’s major religions hold both the concepts of ‘dominion over’ and ‘stewardship for’ all that was created. It is also worth noting that most folks within the Animal Rights movement reject the concept of “intelligent design” and opt for “random chance.” They add their voice to all who attempt to deny, discredit, denounce and abandon the concept of any higher power. Acceptance of such a higher creative power makes their objectives illegitimate for it removes from them the moral authority that they covet.

It is my belief that man was created as a free moral agent – free to choose and responsible for his choices. In a free society, government receives any authority it may have, from the citizens and that authority is restricted with very definite limits. Government has no authority to shift those limits and take on more power and control for itself. Our rights, our freedom does not come from the good graces of the government. Allowing government any more than a very limited role - with clearly defined areas of responsibility - in a free society, will almost certainly lead to a gradual but progressive loss of individual freedom. Allowing special interest groups and social causes to gain their objectives through government legislation can only lead (ultimately) to friction and strife. I don’t want governments making moral choices for me, and I certainly don’t want any Animal Rights group dictating laws and moral policy.

The Globalist Undermining of Western Civilization and Personal Freedoms

Having been born and raised in Canada, I understood several important things about the blessing that was mine. Growing up in a western democratic country, an oft repeated phrase… especially when differences were noted… was, “It’s a free country.” Indeed it was. I was aware that those precious freedoms came at a great price, and that they should never be taken for granted. It was also stressed that those freedoms must be protected, and would sometimes have to be defended, but in all cases we must, “Stand on guard for thee.”

Also, I was very aware that actions have consequences and further, we were not doing anyone any favours should we attempt to protect or shield individuals from those consequences. Mercy might however, sometimes mitigate the outcome. More on this as this essay unfolds.

Over the years, it has made me very sad to see the attacks against, and gradual demise of, those very things that made my country great. Slowly at first, and then with ever increasing speed the attacks have been relentless. Looking at our friends to the south… the USA is also undergoing those very same attacks and with some very similar results. There is also varying amounts of decay and decline as one looks towards other western countries. Some parts of Europe, in my opinion, are already largely a “basket case.” Is this all by accident or by design?

One of the strongest arguments for the promotion of western societal values has been the success of those nations that function as (truly) free and democratic societies. Our Judeo-Christian values, freedoms, AND civic responsibilities, coupled with strong national identities and interests has led to the successes enjoyed by such countries. Those, whose goal is to destroy and supplant successful western democratic nations, would first have to engineer their failure by destroying all that had made them successful and desirable. Succeed in doing that, and you just might then get enough support to implement a globalist agenda of some sort. Of course if such an agenda were going to succeed, it could not appear to be an attack… it would have to be made to appear as something desirable, humanitarian… progressive even. Sounds paranoid, you say? Well, let’s just stop and consider a few things.

Here in (no particular order) are just a few areas which have been under a sustained and growing attack:

1. Borders - Recent events all point at the push to eliminate sovereign borders. This would include the huge influx of illegal immigrants overrunning national boundaries, the rise in “sanctuary” cities, states or territories, and the active resistance (sponsored by the political left) toward border enforcement. This is most evident when we see a number of left-wing organizations funding, and actively subverting existing laws, while pushing toward so called, “open societies.” Sadly, while borders still can be found on maps, in a number of cases they have become incredibly weak.

2. National Identity – Along with attempts to eliminate national borders, there has also been a determined effort to deny, destroy or eradicate the history, cultural norms and symbols that are all part of a national and cultural identity. Indeed, the disastrous policies of official-multiculturalism have wreaked havoc on the cultural identities of a number of western countries. Such policy (always a darling of the “progressive” elites) is finally facing much deserved push-back and rejection… one can only hope the damage is not yet irreversible.

Indeed, following the 2015 election in Canada, Justin Trudeau proudly proclaimed Canada to be the world’s first “post-national country.” He then added, “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.” It seemed that the damaging Trudeau-regime ideals, begun by his father decades earlier, had finally been realized.

In an article titled, “For Canada Day : Repeal of 1952 Immigration Act, Multiculturalism, and End of European Canada,” Ricardo Duchesne, Professor of Sociology, UNB and author of “The Uniqueness of Western Civilization,” writes (in part) the following:

“Today, the mainstream media and the academic world take great pleasure in labelling our immigration policy prior to 1967 as “racist and exclusionary”. But this is a cultural Marxist assessment of Canadian perceptions, their culture and ethnicity. Canadians then were part of a Western world committed and strongly attached to the idea that every individual citizen of Canada should be treated equally under the law without discrimination based on race, national origin, or religion. They were not racist, but merely ethnocentric, that is, a people with a natural and normal preference for their own ethnic traditions. Ethnic groups throughout the world exhibit a preference for their own culture and a disposition to judge other cultures by the standards of their own religion and customs. But today in the Western world, ethnocentrism is looked down upon as an attitude that contravenes the “universal brotherhood of humanity” to be manifested in Western multiethnic and multicultural societies. As diverse ethnic groups come into contact with one another, inside Western countries, our liberal elites bow to the importance of “understanding” other cultures and overcoming one’s ethnic prejudices. Europeans still exhibiting strong attachments (to their age-old cultures) are said to be bogged down by “irrational fears”…

…How, then, did European Canadians come to accept the idea that it is racist and xenophobic to exhibit preference for one’s own ethnicity and heritage, while believing, at the same time, that every non-European ethnic group has a right to preserve its own culture inside Canada? How did Canadians come to believe that their identity can be proudly captured in answers to such banal Macleans questions as “How many rooms does your house have per person?” There is no space here to address these questions. Suffice it to respond — to those who claim that multiculturalism was in origins and essence a “quintessentially Canadian” idea and policy — that the relentless promotion of diversity and mass immigration, despite some variations, has been a Western-wide phenomenon since the 1960s. The American President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Immigration Act of 1965, which led to a tremendous surge in immigration from Mexico and Asia in the decades that followed. Eight years later the “White Australia Policy” came to an end, resulting in a massive influx of ethnocentric Asians.”

The article concludes with:

“The multiculturalists are the ones who have infused politics with an intolerant ideology in which anyone proud of his European heritage and refusing to join the multiculti choruses is despised as a xenophobic outsider. The irony of creating a “universal humanity” is that it has required the dehumanization of the British people, or any particular European group, wishing to retain its identity. Multiculturalists advocate in-group favoritism for immigrants and cultural Marxists, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, out-group hate for those Canadians who love their European heritage. They have demonized the European founding peoples of Canada as an out-group, an enemy of “humanity”, to be eradicated for the sake of non-European “diversity” and the creation of a new species inside Canada and the West. Their position runs counter to the natural, healthy and rational ethnocentric prejudices of humans. It also runs counter to the actual ethnic diversity of the peoples of the earth. Why would the Japanese, Koreans, and Pakistanis want their countries to look like “diverse” Toronto?

Let us defend European ethnocentrism in the name of human nature and the true diversity of the peoples of the planet.”

Quoting from a National Post article titled, “Trudeau's experiment with multiculturalism has been a failure” author George Jonas writes in part:

“In the 1960s, inspired by the spirit of the times, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his merry band of sorcerer’s apprentices, embarked on what seemed to them a jolly social experiment. It entailed altering this country’s ethno-cultural makeup, along with its institutions and ethos.”

“Canada’s brave new progressive-liberal-socialist mandarins devised on a three-step program to revamp the country culturally and demographically. It involved (a) reducing immigration from “traditional’ (read: West European) sources; (b) increasing it from non-traditional sources, and (c) dismantling Conservative Prime Minister (till 1963) John Diefenbaker’s ideal society of unhyphenated Canadians and replacing it with Trudeaucratic Liberalism’s ideal of a multicultural Canada.”

In the mean time, those wanting to hold to their traditions, national identity and culture, are being subjected to slander, ridicule and socialist style bullying tactics. Liberalized definitions of words like “racism” are being liberally used to taunt the more conservative amongst us. All the while, the left-wing generated hostility, against those of us they choose to label as xenophobic, continue to be encouraged.

3. History - “In war, truth is the first casualty.” ― Aeschylus

Whether or not you believe or like it, our society is embroiled in a culture war. The stakes are high. If you’ve read the article thus far, you are aware of what I’m referring to. Our past, the successes and struggles of our western societies are being targeted as a part of that war. To remove symbols of the past, to rewrite our history and to recast and demonize the accomplishments of those who have preceded us has been a consistent goal of the Liberal Progressives. They realise that if we can hold on to those successes and celebrate our past, their larger goal of undermining and supplanting our western democracies becomes that much harder (if not impossible) to achieve. If they can succeed in destroying our history – and with it, our roots and identity – they can perhaps move us toward their ultimate goal of a global socialist state.

4. Family – The basic building blocks of any society and indeed one of its greatest strengths is the strength and well-being of the individual family unit. A strong family unit that is teaching and passing on the history and values of society, contributes to the growth and health of that society. Destroy the family unit, and the society of which it is a part, begins to crumble. There is no question that in the west, the basic family unit has been under constant attack.

Divorce has been made far too easy to obtain. People are free to walk away from their “long-term” commitment for no other reason than they no longer wish to be married. This means there is far less motivation to do the hard work required to make marriage work. To this point, I am not questioning divorce for cause (such as abuse or adultery etc) but specifically the “no-fault,”divorce… just walk away from your spouse ‘cause you fell out of love… that has become so prevalent.

Subsequent to the significant weakening of the marriage contract, we’ve seen a sustained push for redefining marriage away from the traditional meaning that has served humanity for thousands of years. This, along with attacks on both masculine and feminine role models, plus attacks against human gender and what that means, has left many of the children of today with poor or missing role models, an unstable/uncertain home life, and great confusion about who and what they are. Taking on those missing parts and role models then becomes the perfectly created situation into which the state steps. Until recently, such roles and teachings would have been rightly fulfilled within a stable family unit. Just recently, the former Liberal government in Ontario happily declared their role within the school system as that of “co-parent.” And they have shown a readiness to take on that role aggressively as they undermine, and supplant the rightful role of parents.

5. Basic Freedoms - The rights and freedoms we’ve enjoyed for so long are being whittled away at an increasing rate as they come under an almost daily attack. Special attention is paid to eliminating the individual right to express ourselves, our opinions and to speak freely. As well, our right to defend ourselves and our basic god-given rights to guard our person and property against all others (including our own government if necessary) is under constant threat and challenge by the political left.

6. Economy – Any country can be brought to the point of collapse if the economy can be made to fail. The chaos that results from a failing economy lends itself to the imposition of autocratic forceful control and the crackdown on individual freedom; all in the name of restoring order. Western economies have been placed under tremendous pressures; many of them self-imposed. We’ve seen decades of liberal policies building larger and larger debt loads, rising taxes, and failing promises. All this is done as a kind of left-wing ideal where the state ultimately is set to become the one who will take care of us all in a kind of cradle to grave utopia. This, of course, has led to social programs and entitlements that consume more and more of the country’s ability to pay. Add to this, the ever increasing mound of bureaucratic red-tape and government oversight; couple that with government literally giving away money it does not have and you have the basis of choking out any chance of recovery.

As if these pressures are not already enough to destabilize any economy, add to this attack on the economy, the already mentioned open borders and the accompanying mass of illegal immigration. When you do, couple all that with a motivated and financed effort to overwhelm the country’s social and legal systems (all financed by left-wing special-interest groups) and the destruction is near complete. Now to complete the destruction, throw in an unproven unscientific carbon reduction protocol, couple it with a global wealth redistribution plan, and the failure seems guaranteed.

7. Churches – Many of the principles contributing to the successes of western democracies have their roots in their Judaeo-Christian foundation. Much of what has made these cultures desirable and attractive also have the same Judaeo-Christian beginnings. The peaceful coexistence of church and state has seen nations free and prosperous. Today, those same Judaeo-Christian principles and ideals, once seen as a part of the churches role, are being attacked and restricted as the state seeks first to regulate and then to assume control.

8. Schools – I’ve already mentioned schools, as the education system seeks to take on a co-parenting role in the raising of our children. I think it needs to be stressed that academics, which was once upon a time determined by social contract and understanding, was the schools primary role. It seems this is no longer the case. Schools were known as the places where children went to learn the so-called “3 R’s” and they were never intended to parent children. Learning right from wrong, ethics and morality, how to become a responsible person and a good citizen, cultural celebrations and norms… were among all the issues that were the responsibility of parents in a stable and loving family.

Of course now schools, at the granting of the progressive state, have taken over many of those roles. Parents often have no idea what their children are being taught. Sadly, little of it seems to be of an academic value (as witnessed by abysmal math, reading and writing skills). In some cases the parents are being told they do not even have the right to know exactly what their child is being taught…particularly when it comes to state-decided morality issues. With early and long-term indoctrination, the state has the ability to train up a generation of people who will carry forth the global-socialist ideals that the left seems so determined to realize.

I’ve presented just eight short examples of why I think there is a larger agenda driving the chaos and discord we see in our society today. I recognize that each could be debated at a much greater length and what I presented is just the barest of summaries for each point. It is my desire that in presenting these points of view, thought and possibly further discussion will be stimulated. As they used to say on a very popular television show, “The truth is out there.”