Exorcism and Demonology – Fr. Ripperger

by Thomas Abshier | Apr 4, 2026 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

The Regulated Enemy

What an Exorcist Reveals About Spiritual Warfare

Renaissance Ministries | April 4, 2026

A Fellowship Discussion Essay
Demonology Series, Part 1 of 4

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
— Ephesians 6:12

“And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils.”
— Mark 16:17

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”
— 1 Peter 5:8

Introduction: The Forgotten Twenty-Three Percent

Tucker Carlson, a Protestant who grew up thinking exorcism was “something kooky that the Latin Church does for weird cultic reasons,” recently discovered something that shocked him:

“Twenty-three percent of the Gospels are actually about Christ dealing with demons.”

The first miracle Jesus performs in the Gospel of Mark is casting out a demon. He repeats this continuously throughout His ministry. When He sends out the disciples, their commission is explicit: “Preach the good news and cast out demons.”

And yet, as Carlson notes, the modern church — at least in the Protestant West — has “so de-emphasized this to the point where it’s disappeared.”

Fr. Chad Ripperger has been an exorcist for eighteen years. He founded a society of priests dedicated exclusively to exorcism work. He has dealt with cases ranging from ordinary temptation to full possession by Satan himself. His interview with Tucker Carlson provides a window into a dimension of reality that most modern Christians have been trained to ignore.

This essay is the first in a series on demonology. It extracts the key insights from the Ripperger interview and connects them to Scripture, to the Renaissance Ministries theological framework, and to practical Christian living.

Part I: What Are Demons?

Fallen Angels

Demons are not mythological creatures. They are fallen angels — spiritual beings created by God who rebelled against Him.

According to the theological tradition from Pseudo-Dionysius through Thomas Aquinas, God created the entire hierarchy of angels instantaneously, all at once. These beings are “pure spirits” — they have no bodies, only intellect and will. Unlike humans, who learn by gathering information through the senses and reasoning toward general principles, angels have all knowledge infused directly. They know immediately and exhaustively everything about any subject they turn their attention to.

Ripperger explains:

“All their knowledge was infused. So they know exactly what the essence and nature of every created thing that exists is… They don’t have to sit and reason it out, they just immediately know it.”

This has practical implications for exorcism:

“This is a diagnostic we use in session. If you ask them a technical, theological, or philosophical question, if it’s a human being, you can see they have to think about it. That’s not how demons work. They’ll immediately give you the answer.”

The Three Instances

The angels were created and then faced a choice. Ripperger describes “the three instances”:

1. First Instance: They were created in an act of knowing — understanding God, themselves, their assigned task, and all of creation.
2. Second Instance: A concomitant act of delight in the magnificence of God’s creation.
3. Third Instance: The choice — will you do what God is asking, or not?

The choice required sacrifice. Each angel was given an assigned task that was, in some sense, below a perfection they could see and desire. To accept the task required letting go of something they wanted.

“They had to be willing to let go of that thing they wanted. They literally wanted something that God had not intended for them.”

A third of the angels refused. Their choice was made with full knowledge — “unadulterated malice.” And because angelic choice is complete (unlike human choice, which is often confused or half-hearted), their will became permanently fixed.

“Once they make their choice, it’s all in. It’s not half-hearted. They’re either going to accept God’s will or they’re not.”

The Hierarchy of Evil

Under Satan (who is also called Lucifer and Beelzebub — a “trifurcated personality” as punishment for wanting to be God), there are five demons who function as “generals”:

1. Baal — The spirit of fornication and impurity
2. Asmodeus — The demon of homosexuality in men
3. Lilith — The demon of homosexuality in women (passive type)
4. Leviathan — The demon of homosexuality in women (aggressive type)
5. Baphomet/Moloch — The demon of child sacrifice (abortion)

Ripperger traces a progression:

“When they shot down the anti-fornication laws… they ceded the territory to Baal. After Baal, and we get this from St. Paul, if people give in to lust, then eventually men start sleeping with men and women start sleeping with women… And when they allowed abortion in this country… those five generals now basically have a gainsay over our country.”

This is not a conspiracy theory. It is the application of a theological framework that takes seriously both Scripture and centuries of exorcist experience.

Part II: The Good News — Demons Are Regulated

Christ Has Complete Control

Here is the most important insight from the interview — and it is profoundly encouraging:

“Demons are one of the most regulated things in the universe.”

They are regulated by three things:

1. Their nature — Each demon has a specific nature with specific inclinations and limitations.
2. Their fixed will — Once they made their choice, their will became fixed. They cannot change direction; they are almost “obsessive-compulsive” in following the pattern of their original sin.
3. Christ’s authority — They cannot do anything without Christ’s permission.

Ripperger emphasizes:

“All power was given to me in heaven and earth — that means the demons. They know that they can’t do anything without Christ’s permission… In the spiritual warfare landscape, I don’t have to worry. If it turns into the type of thing where I get shellacked a little bit during a session, I know Christ is still controlling and metering how much and what He can and cannot do.”

He illustrates this with the story of the legion and the pigs:

“The demons actually approached Christ to ask to go into the pigs. They can’t even enter into pigs without His permission.”

And from his own experience:

“The demon said, ‘When I entered, Christ restricted me to this part of the body.’ That’s when it made me realize — He has control over everything. When they can manifest, how long they can manifest, the kind of manifestation they can do, how they can attack the person that’s possessed, how they attack us, even in our ordinary temptations. He regulates all of it.”

For Our Spiritual Benefit

This regulation is not arbitrary. It serves a purpose:

“It’s ultimately for our spiritual benefit.”

Christ uses demons as instruments of sanctification. The person who overcomes demonic temptation develops greater virtue than they would have otherwise. The person who fights their way out of possession often becomes “some of the most holy people you’ll ever meet.”

Ripperger notes that demons hate this:

“I’ll mention to the demon, ‘You’re becoming this person’s instrument of sanctification.’ They’ll admit it’s true, and they hate it.”

Part III: How Demons Operate

Levels of Influence

Ripperger distinguishes several levels of demonic influence:

1. Ordinary temptation — Normal temptation that all Christians experience. Demons suggest, but we can resist.
2. Oppression — Attacks on externals: job, relationships, health, circumstances.
3. Obsession — Attacks on psychological faculties. The demons “besiege the imagination and emotions to such a degree that the person can’t really think outside the box.”
4. Possession — The demon takes possession of a specific part of the body and from there affects the rest of the person.

How Demons Attack

Demons affect us primarily through imagination and emotion:

“They have the ability to affect our imagination and our emotions. A lot of times what they do is they put a perspective on an image in your imagination.”

Ripperger gives the example of marriage:

“When a guy is first married, he thinks his wife is wonderful. Then after ten years, his perspective on her changes because they’ve had fights. When he sees her — even though she hasn’t changed — his perspective of her has, and so his emotional response changes.”

Demons can artificially create this perspective shift:

“They can put that perspective on your imagination… The first thing they ever do in a marriage is try to put a perspective on one of the spouses to psychologically divide the people — so the person thinks they see something bad in the other spouse when it’s actually not there.”

This insight is crucial. Much of what we experience as “just how I see things” may actually be demonic manipulation of our perspective.

Signs of Demonic Involvement

How do you know if something is demonic versus merely psychological?

1. Switching on and off without external stimulus — “You’ll wake up in the morning just torqued. You’re like, ” Why am I angry? Why am I sad?”
2. No prior causation — “I just sat down one day, and I was just depressed from that point on.”
3. Resistance to normal intervention — If you can use will to put aside a thought, but it keeps coming back, that’s an indicator.
4. Pattern of preternatural signs — In possession cases: speaking foreign languages never studied, knowledge of hidden things, superhuman strength, morphing (physical changes in appearance).

The Building of Psychological Compatibility

This is one of the most disturbing insights:

“From the very beginning of our lives, they’ll start tempting us with certain things. When they see us being born, because the knowledge of these things is infused in their mind, they actually know what our DNA is. So they know, because of this guy’s genetic disposition, he’s more likely to be inclined to these kinds of sins.”

The demons pick at weaknesses from childhood:

“Their goal is not just to get him to commit sin and offend God, but it’s to slowly build a psychological compatibility. Each time you give in, you create a set of habits and defects that make you much more easily intertwined with them.”

Over decades, this builds a person who is “psychologically compatible” with certain demons, whose patterns of thinking mirror demonic patterns.

Part IV: How Possession Happens

The Three Doors

According to Ripperger, there are three ways people become possessed:

1. Grave sin (50% of cases)

“You commit some grave sin — abortion, murder, engaging in the occult arts, selling your soul to the devil. Those sins can open you up to diabolic influence.”

The occult is particularly dangerous:

“Engaging in the occult arts is one of the principal ways we see people becoming possessed.”

2. Grave disorder done to you (50% of cases)

“Something really disordered or grave has happened to you. About 50% of our caseload are women who have been raped, molested, psychologically or physically abused in a grave fashion. That disorder is the domain of the diabolic.”

This seems unjust — the victim becomes vulnerable? But Ripperger notes:

“Christ permits it, and what you find very often is those, especially the women, as they climb their way out, they become some of the most holy people you’ll ever meet.”

3. Christ’s permission is still required

Opening the door is not enough. Christ must permit the demon to cross the threshold:

“Most people who do stuff that’s bad don’t become possessed because Christ just doesn’t allow it, because it’s not gonna be good for the person ultimately.”

The Rarity of Possession

Possession is rare. Of the 400-800 monthly requests for help that Ripperger’s society receives, only about four are actual possession cases.

Most people dealing with demonic influence are experiencing obsession or oppression, not possession. These are serious but not the high-drama events depicted in movies.

Part V: Exorcism

What Exorcism Looks Like

Ripperger describes the practical process:

1. Initial interview — Understanding what the person is experiencing and what might have caused it.
2. Prayers over the person — If it’s psychological, not much changes. If it’s demonic, the person will experience relief (“lifting”) that may last hours or days before symptoms return.
3. For possession cases — A series of sessions (potentially over years) where the demon is progressively weakened and eventually expelled.

Why It Takes So Long

“The average case is four to eight years.”

Why so long?

• The depth of possession varies
• The person must cooperate in their own liberation (if they want the demon there, Christ respects their free will)
• The person must address whatever opened the door in the first place
• The person must develop the virtue necessary to remain free

“This Kind Only Comes Out by Prayer and Fasting”

When the disciples couldn’t cast out a demon, Jesus said this kind only comes out by prayer and fasting (Mark 9:29). Ripperger explains:

Prayer: Petitioning God enough through intercessory prayer so that liberation occurs.

Fasting: “Bringing your body under subjection” (St. Paul). This is meritorious work that can be offered for the person’s liberation.

Why does fasting help?

“When we get our body under subjection, two things occur. One, demons don’t want to get involved with you because if they attack you and suggest something contrary to that subjection, you’re going to reject it outright… But also, you become much more sensitive. As you fast, if the demons attack you, you’re much more sensitive to that disorder.”

Ripperger fasts six days a week when in session — one moderate meal in the evening only.

Part VI: The Connection to Culture and Politics

Why Christian Leaders Are Targeted

“When you get to a position of power, that attracts the demons. Because they know, if I can get control of this guy, then I can basically use his power to cause all this other damage.”

Ripperger observes:

“A lot of times the Christian leaders go with the right intentions, but when you get that high profile, the demons are going to be really spending a lot of time and energy trying to take you down.”

And they don’t just target existing leaders — they cultivate future ones:

“They’ll get the wrong types of people into positions of authority. They know this particular person has this defect. They’ll give the person the inspiration, ‘You should go into politics.’ Knowing that because of this person’s psychological compatibility with the demons, they can manipulate this person to cause all sorts of damage.”

Communism and Demonic Psychology Are Identical

Ripperger made a startling claim:

“I actually did a series on how communism and diabolic psychology are identical. When you strip the veneer away of one being political and the other being from the spirit world, the patterns of thinking are exactly the same.”

The pattern:

1. Promise pie-in-the-sky — Present the temptation as wonderful, all pleasure, everything will be great
2. Get buy-in — Get the person to sign off
3. Then take them down — Use the compliance to destroy them

“They sell you a bill of goods, they get you to sign off on it, and then from there they take you down. And that’s exactly what the communists do… I always watch politicians in this country that are clearly communist. They’ll start out idealistic. Give them a couple years and you’re gonna see the malice.”

The Attack on Christianity Specifically

Tucker observed that government and media actions seem “aimed at Jesus.” Ripperger agrees:

“Their goal is ultimately to destroy the Christian religion, because they know deep down that is the religion that Christ established, period… You can be any other religion you want, believe anything, do anything you want. But don’t, whatever you do, don’t be Christian.”

The State of American Culture

Ripperger does not mince words:

“If you, by hopeful, mean in the sense that human beings are going to correct this, right this ship — I think it’s beyond human correction at this stage… Especially when you look at the corruption in the higher levels of government.”

But he is hopeful that Christ will correct it:

“If you look at the history of how God deals with human beings, He’ll let us be evil only for so long and then He gives us a spanking… We’re almost as bad as Sodom and Gomorrah. At least at Sodom and Gomorrah they weren’t trying to marry each other.”

Part VII: Practical Protections

What Opens the Door

Based on Ripperger’s experience, the primary doors:

1. The occult — Tarot, Ouija, séances, fortune-telling, witchcraft, New Age practices
2. Grave sexual sin — Pornography, fornication, homosexual acts, abortion
3. Substance abuse — Creates vulnerability; some substances are deliberately cursed
4. Trauma — Being victimized opens vulnerability
5. Cursed objects — Items that have been cursed can carry demonic influence

On pornography specifically:

“The number of men that confess is pretty high up there… A lot of the pornography is cursed to increase its addictive effect. That was one of the things that Satanists taught people in the porn industry — curse the master copy and then the copies that are made will influence the people.”

What Provides Protection

1. Consistent prayer life — “If you’re praying regularly, you can pray for your own protection.”
2. Fasting — Brings the body under subjection, makes you more sensitive to demonic attack, and creates virtue.
3. Sacramental life — For Catholics, regular confession and communion. For Protestants, regular repentance and communion.
4. Stop the sinning — Especially the grave sins that open doors.
5. Address undisciplined areas — “Every person the demons attack, there’s some area of their interior life that is undisciplined.”
6. Community — The exorcism team provides support; Christians need fellowship.

The Pattern of Attack

Ripperger identifies a key pattern:

“The first two years of the exorcist is the worst. The demons are probably contesting every single area of your weakness, and they know your weaknesses because they’ve been watching you your whole life.”

This applies to any Christian who gets serious about spiritual warfare:

“You have to really shore up those areas in a hurry, because otherwise you’re going to get taken down.”

Part VIII: Connecting to Renaissance Ministries Themes

The CPP Connection

Conscious Point Physics posits that consciousness is the fundamental substrate of reality. In this framework, angels and demons are not bizarre add-ons to a materialist universe — they are perfectly intelligible as conscious beings without physical embodiment.

The materialist assumption that only physical things exist is what makes demonology seem “kooky.” Remove that assumption, and spiritual beings become entirely plausible.

Moreover, CPP’s understanding of the Nexus — the atemporal, non-local coordination of all Conscious Points — provides a framework for understanding how demons can:

• Know all created things (infused knowledge)
• Perceive events anywhere in the universe instantaneously
• Influence physical systems (since physics is consciousness at the bottom)

The Discernment Theme

Our recent essays have emphasized discernment:

• “The Kings You Cannot See” — discerning manufactured movements
• “What Is Truth?” — discerning motivated reasoning
• The Seismometer Principle — being microscopically perceptive of wrongness

Ripperger adds the spiritual dimension: some of what we’re discerning is not merely human error or malice, but demonic influence operating through psychologically compatible humans.

This does not excuse human responsibility. It does explain why:

• Certain movements have an almost supernatural coordination
• Certain lies are told with a complete absence of a normal human conscience
• Certain people seem “willing to sacrifice other people for the sake of even the most modest of gains”

The Christlike Remainder

In our essay on interfaith engagement, we argued that what is Godly in any religion is Christlike; what differs from Christ is not-God.

Ripperger’s framework adds depth: the “not-God” elements in false religions may not merely be human error but demonic influence. The demons have been active throughout history, seeding false religions with elements that lead people away from Christ while providing enough truth to be plausible.

The Christlike remainder is what remains when demonic distortion is stripped away.

The Voting Network

The Voting Network concept envisions every citizen informed, voting, and contributing to the ongoing conversation about how we live together.

Ripperger’s analysis suggests that this project has spiritual dimensions:

• The “principalities and powers” are actively working to corrupt public discourse
• Psychologically compatible people are being positioned in leadership
• The pattern of communism and demonic psychology being identical suggests that certain political movements are spiritually animated

The Voting Network, then, is not merely a political tool but a spiritual one — creating a network of Christians whose discernment is sharpened by prayer, fasting, and the Holy Spirit.

Part IX: Discussion Questions for the Fellowship

On the Nature of Demons

1. Were you aware that 23% of the Gospels involve Jesus dealing with demons? How does this change your reading of the Gospels?
2. Ripperger says demons are “one of the most regulated things in the universe.” Does this framing change how you think about spiritual warfare?
3. The idea that demons have been watching us from birth and know our weaknesses — how does this affect your understanding of temptation?

On Demonic Influence

4. Ripperger describes how demons “put a perspective” on our imagination, especially in marriage. Have you experienced sudden shifts in how you see someone that might have external causes?
5. The pattern of demonic obsession: switching on and off without external stimulus, no prior causation, resistance to normal intervention. Have you experienced anything like this?
6. Ripperger says people who hold power attract demonic attention. What does this mean for how we pray for leaders?

On Cultural Implications

7. The claim that communism and demonic psychology are identical — does this resonate with what you observe in current political movements?
8. Ripperger says the specific attack on Christianity (versus other religions) reveals a demonic strategy. Do you see this pattern?
9. He believes the country is “beyond human correction” but that God will intervene. How do you hold hope and realism together?

On Protection

10. What “undisciplined areas” in your life might make you vulnerable?
11. Are you maintaining a consistent prayer life and periodic fasting? If not, what stands in the way?
12. Have you been involved in any occult practices (even seemingly innocent ones like horoscopes or Ouija boards) that might need to be renounced?

On Integration

13. How does this interview change your understanding of the news, of politics, of cultural movements?
14. How should this understanding affect our fellowship’s prayer life?
15. What does “putting on the whole armor of God” (Ephesians 6) look like in light of this interview?

Key Insights Worth Preserving

On demonic regulation:

“Demons are one of the most regulated things in the universe… Christ has complete control over the spiritual landscape.”

On how demons attack:

“They put a perspective on an image in your imagination… The first thing they ever do in a marriage is try to psychologically divide the people.”

On psychological compatibility:

“From the very beginning of our lives, they’ll start tempting us with certain things… Their goal is to slowly build a psychological compatibility.”

On communism and demons:

“Communism and diabolic psychology are identical. The patterns of thinking are exactly the same.”

On the attack on Christianity:

“You can be any other religion you want, believe anything, do anything you want. But don’t, whatever you do, don’t be Christian.”

On protection:

“Every person the demons attack, there’s some area of their interior life that is undisciplined.”

On hope:

“I think Christ is going to correct it, probably fairly soon… God will let us be evil only for so long and then He gives us a spanking.”

A Closing Prayer

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, You came to destroy the works of the devil. You cast out demons throughout Your ministry. You gave Your disciples authority over unclean spirits.

We confess that we have neglected this dimension of Your work. We have been trained by a materialist culture to dismiss what You took seriously. We have left ourselves vulnerable by our ignorance and our undisciplined lives.

Open our eyes to see the spiritual battle around us. Give us the discernment to recognize demonic influence in our own thoughts, in our relationships, in our culture, and in our politics.

Protect us from the enemy. Shore up our weaknesses. Bring our bodies under subjection. Fill us with Your Holy Spirit so that we are sensitive to any demonic approach.

And use us as instruments of liberation for others who are oppressed, obsessed, or possessed. Let Your Kingdom come and Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

We pray in the Name that makes demons tremble — the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.”
— James 4:7

“And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.”
— Revelation 12:11

Source Material: Tucker Carlson interview with Fr. Chad Ripperger (2024); Scripture; Renaissance Ministries fellowship discussions.

Series: This is Part 1 of the Demonology Series. Upcoming essays:

• Part 2: Richard Gallagher, Demonic Foes — The psychiatrist’s perspective
• Part 3: Carlos Martins, The Exorcist Files — Case studies from the field
• Part 4: Synthesis — An integrated framework for spiritual warfare

Related Christos Content: Christos AI Theological Grammar; “The Kings You Cannot See”; “What Is Truth?”; CPP and the nature of consciousness.

The Kingdom Citizen

by Thomas Abshier | Apr 4, 2026 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

The Duty to Judge the Law

Birthright Citizenship, Citizen Responsibility, and the Voting Network

Renaissance Ministries | April 4, 2026

A Fellowship Discussion Essay

“We ought to obey God rather than men.”
— Acts 5:29

“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
— Marbury v. Madison (1803)

“Rebellion against tyranny is obedience to God.”
— Attributed to Benjamin Franklin

Introduction: The Citizen’s Burden

As a 508(c)(1)(a) church, Renaissance Ministries can — and must — engage with political topics. This is not because politics is ultimate (it is not), but because how we live life individually and as a group is shaped by policy and law. The public and private overlap in complex ways that cannot be neatly separated.

Each of us is obligated to decide what is true, right, and good in how we treat others as categories and as individuals in context. We cannot shirk that responsibility and blame the state, the dictator, or the oligarchs for our choices. We stand before God alone and are alone responsible for our choices.

This week’s essay examines a specific legal controversy — birthright citizenship — but the deeper topic is the citizen’s responsibility before God:

1. To know the law — both man’s law and God’s law
2. To judge the law — to assess whether human law conforms to moral law
3. To obey or disobey — to comply with righteous law and resist unrighteous law
4. To bear the cost — to accept the consequences of principled disobedience
5. To mobilize action — to work for the reform of unjust systems

This is the framework of the Christos Voting Network: every citizen informed, every citizen voting, every citizen contributing their argument to the ongoing conversation about how we shall live together.

Part I: The Birthright Citizenship Controversy

The Current Legal Framework

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The controversy centers on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The original purpose was clear: to grant citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War. As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in recent oral arguments: “How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?” The answer: very little, if any.

The Brennan Footnote

According to the research compiled by Margo Abshier, the current practice of granting automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil — regardless of parents’ legal status — traces not to the 14th Amendment itself, but to a footnote in a dissenting opinion by Justice Brennan in the 1980s.

This is remarkable:

• Not a majority opinion, but a dissent
• Not even the holding, but a footnote (dicta)
• In a case that was not about immigration

From this slender reed, a practice has grown that now grants citizenship to:

• Children of illegal immigrants
• Children of temporary visa holders
• Children of “birth tourists” who come specifically to obtain citizenship

The Numbers

The scope of the issue is staggering:

• 225,000-250,000 births to illegal immigrants in 2023 alone (nearly 7% of all U.S. births)
• 500,000 children born to temporary visa holders over the past decade
• Over 1,000 “birth tourism” businesses are operating in China alone
• One million Chinese babies born in the USA in the last 13 years — children of CCP elites who will soon be eligible to vote
• Projections of 50 million illegals becoming 125+ million new “citizens” through chain migration and high birth rates

The Constitutional Question

The Trump administration has challenged this practice, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was never meant to include:

• Foreign nationals present illegally
• Temporary visitors with no permanent allegiance
• Foreign agents or diplomats

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments recently. Justice Thomas appeared sympathetic to this view. Chief Justice Roberts appeared skeptical, asking about birth tourism’s prominence and responding: “It’s a new world, it’s the same Constitution.”

But as J.J. Carrell argues: if any country on earth can lay claim to American citizenship simply by sending enough people to give birth here, then citizenship has ceased to mean anything. It becomes “an accidental geographic perk instead of a sacred bond of loyalty and assimilation.”

Part II: The Duty to Judge the Law

Jury Nullification — The Forgotten Duty

The American legal system contains a safeguard that is rarely discussed: jury nullification.

A jury has the power — and arguably the duty — to acquit a defendant not only if the facts don’t support conviction, but also if the law itself is unjust. The jury judges not only the facts but the law itself in light of moral law.

This power derives from the fundamental principle that citizens are the ultimate check on government overreach. The jury stands between the individual and the state, with the authority to say: “This law is unjust, and we will not enforce it.”

John Adams wrote:

“It is not only [the juror’s] right, but his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

The Marbury Principle

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall established:

“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

And crucially, such a law is void ab initio (from the beginning), not merely after a court declares it so. Citizens need not wait for official permission to recognize that an unjust law has no moral authority.

As we discussed in our March 30 fellowship:

“You have to know the principles. You have to know the Constitution. And when a law repugnant to the Constitution presents itself for enforcement right in front of you, you treat it as if it’s void — it doesn’t exist.”

The Higher Standard

But the Christian adds another layer. We judge human law not only against the Constitution but against moral law — God’s standards of right and wrong.

A law may be constitutional and still be immoral. A law may be legal and still violate God’s commands. In such cases, the Christian must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).

This does not mean we become anarchists, rejecting all law. It means we hold all human law accountable to divine law — and we are willing to suffer for our refusal to comply with laws that violate God’s standards.

Part III: The Cost of Kingdom Citizenship

Two Citizenships

The Christian holds dual citizenship:

• Citizenship in an earthly nation — with its rights and responsibilities
• Citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven — with its higher allegiance

When these conflict, the Kingdom takes precedence. But this comes with a cost.

The Martyrdom Spectrum

As we discussed in our March 30 fellowship, martyrdom exists on a spectrum:

• Social martyrdom — the sneers, the disbelief, the looks
• Professional martyrdom — job loss, career damage, professional ostracism
• Legal martyrdom — fines, penalties, legal action
• Physical martyrdom — imprisonment, violence, death

The person who refuses to endure the small martyrdoms will eventually face the large ones. If you won’t speak up when the cost is social discomfort, you will not speak up when the cost is your head.

Standing Against Unjust Law

What does this look like practically?

If birthright citizenship as currently practiced is unconstitutional — based on a footnote in a dissent, never voted on by the American people, contrary to the original intent of the 14th Amendment — then citizens have a duty to:

1. Know the truth — understand the legal history and the arguments
2. Speak the truth — articulate the case to others
3. Vote accordingly — support candidates who will reform the law
4. Accept the cost — endure the social and professional consequences of holding unpopular positions
5. Mobilize action — work collectively to change the system

This is not insurrection. This is citizenship.

Part IV: The Voting Network — A Christos Implementation

The Vision

The Christos Voting Network is the public-facing projection of the Renaissance Ministries vision for bringing the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.

The concept is simple:

• Every citizen informed — studying the issues that affect our common life
• Every citizen voting — not just in elections, but in an ongoing way about everything they read
• Every citizen contributing — adding their argument to the conversation on particular topics

Your opinion/vote is a way of letting the rest of the country know how you feel about various issues. This matters because opinion begets consensus among those who are less informed.

How It Works

1. You study what interests you — You don’t have to be an expert on everything. Focus on the domains where you have knowledge, passion, or calling.
2. You form your opinion — Based on biblical principles, constitutional principles, sociological understanding, and practical wisdom.
3. You register your vote — Your position on a given topic becomes part of the aggregate.
4. You contribute your argument — Not just a vote, but the reasoning behind it. The argument is then out there for others to engage.
5. You influence your sphere — You talk with your fellowship group, your family, your neighbors, your colleagues. You enroll locally to affect the vote globally.

The Multiplication Effect

Each person who is passionate, interested, and informed argues according to their principles for their position. This creates a multiplication effect:

• One informed person influences their fellowship group
• One fellowship group influences their church and community
• One church influences their region
• Many churches influence the nation

This is how the Kingdom advances — not by political coercion, but by persuasion, one mind at a time, one heart at a time, one conversation at a time.

The Responsibility of Knowing

The Voting Network makes a claim: It makes a difference what you study and what you know.

The uninformed citizen defaults to the positions fed to them by media, academia, and culture. They become pawns of whatever narrative is most effectively promoted.

The informed citizen can evaluate claims, detect manipulation, and form independent judgments. They become participants in the conversation rather than objects of it.

This is why Christos emphasizes learning — not just spiritual formation, but education in all the domains of life: law, politics, economics, science, medicine, culture. The citizen of the Kingdom must be wise as a serpent in all these areas.

Part V: Applying the Framework to Birthright Citizenship

The Questions to Ask

Using the Christos framework, we ask:

1. What does Scripture teach?
   • Nations have borders (Acts 17:26: “He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place”)
   • Strangers are to be treated justly (Leviticus 19:34: “The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you”)
   • But this does not mean unlimited immigration or automatic citizenship
   • The stranger who “dwells among you” is one who has submitted to the laws and customs of the nation — not one who has invaded
2. What does the Constitution actually say?
   • “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — a phrase with specific meaning
   • The original intent was to grant citizenship to freed slaves
   • The current practice derives from a footnote in a dissenting opinion
   • This is not how law should be made in a republic
3. What are the consequences of the current practice?
   • Incentivizes illegal immigration
   • Creates “anchor babies” that chain entire families to welfare
   • Enables foreign powers (notably China) to plant citizens through birth tourism
   • Dilutes the meaning of citizenship
   • Drains public resources
   • Threatens national security
4. What is the just solution?
   • Clarify that “subject to the jurisdiction” requires permanent legal residence and allegiance
   • End automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and temporary visitors
   • Require Congress to define the terms, as the Constitution empowers them to do (Article 1, Section 8; 14th Amendment, Section 5)

The Action to Take

As citizens:

• Be informed — understand the legal and constitutional issues
• Speak clearly — articulate the case to others
• Vote accordingly — support candidates who will fix this
• Pressure representatives — demand action from Congress
• Accept the cost — endure being called names by those who disagree

As the Voting Network:

• Register your position — let your vote be counted in the aggregate
• Contribute your argument — add your reasoning to the public conversation
• Influence your sphere — enroll your fellowship, family, and community

Part VI: The Broader Principle

Every Issue, Every Domain

Birthright citizenship is one issue among many. The same framework applies to:

• Election integrity — Is the SAVE Act sufficient? How do we ensure fair elections?
• Immigration policy — What is a just approach to borders, visas, and naturalization?
• Economic policy — What does biblical stewardship require of taxation and spending?
• Medical freedom — What are the limits of government authority over the body?
• Parental rights — Who decides how children are raised and educated?
• Free speech — What protections are required against censorship?

In every domain, the citizen must:

1. Know the facts
2. Apply biblical and constitutional principles
3. Form a judgment
4. Register that judgment (vote)
5. Contribute to the argument
6. Influence their sphere
7. Accept the cost

The Kingdom Advance

This is how the Kingdom advances in the political realm. Not by theocracy — we do not seek to impose Christianity by law. But by participation — Christians engaging as citizens, bringing their values to the public square, persuading their neighbors, shaping public opinion.

The Voting Network is the infrastructure for this participation. It allows millions of Christians to:

• Coordinate their understanding
• Aggregate their opinions
• Amplify their arguments
• Influence their spheres

The result is not a political party but a movement — a movement of citizens who take their dual citizenship seriously, who judge human law against divine law, and who work peacefully but persistently for the reform of unjust systems.

Part VII: Discussion Questions for the Fellowship

On Birthright Citizenship

1. Were you aware that the current practice of automatic birthright citizenship derives from a footnote in a dissenting opinion, not from the text of the 14th Amendment? Does this change how you think about the issue?
2. The original purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to freed slaves. How should “original intent” factor into constitutional interpretation?
3. What do you think “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means? Who is and is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States?
4. How do you weigh the competing values of compassion for immigrants and the integrity of citizenship? Is there a way to honor both?

On Citizen Responsibility

5. Do you believe citizens have a duty to judge the law — not just obey it, but assess whether it conforms to moral law? What are the limits of this duty?
6. Jury nullification is rarely discussed. Should juries be informed of their power to nullify unjust laws? Why or why not?
7. What does it look like practically to “obey God rather than men” when human law conflicts with divine law? What are the risks? What are the costs?

On the Voting Network

8. The Voting Network concept suggests that every citizen should be informed, voting, and contributing to the argument. Is this realistic? How would it work practically?
9. The essay argues that “opinion begets consensus” — that the opinions of informed citizens shape the views of the less informed. Do you agree? How have you seen this work?
10. What issues are you most passionate about? Where would you want to focus your study, voting, and argumentation?

On Kingdom Citizenship

11. How do you navigate dual citizenship — in an earthly nation and in the Kingdom of Heaven? When do these come into conflict?
12. The essay describes a “martyrdom spectrum” from social discomfort to physical death. Where are you on this spectrum? What would it take to move you to the next level of cost?
13. How do you distinguish between Christian political engagement (appropriate) and theocracy (inappropriate)? Where is the line?

Key Principles Worth Preserving

On citizen responsibility:

Each of us is obligated to decide what is true, right, and good. We cannot shirk that responsibility and blame the state, the dictator, or the oligarchs for our choices. We stand before God alone and are alone responsible for our choices.

On judging the law:

The jury judges not only the facts but the law itself in light of moral law. This is the forgotten safeguard of the American system.

On the Marbury principle:

A law repugnant to the Constitution is void — ab initio, from the beginning. Citizens need not wait for official permission to recognize that an unjust law has no moral authority.

On the Voting Network:

Every citizen informed, every citizen voting, every citizen contributing their argument to the ongoing conversation about how we shall live together.

On Kingdom advance:

This is how the Kingdom advances in the political realm. Not by theocracy, but by participation — Christians engaging as citizens, bringing their values to the public square, persuading their neighbors, shaping public opinion.

On the cost:

The person who refuses to endure the small martyrdoms will eventually face the large ones. If you won’t speak up when the cost is social discomfort, you will not speak up when the cost is your head.

A Closing Prayer

Lord God, You are the King of kings and Lord of lords. Every earthly authority exists under Your sovereignty and will answer to Your judgment.

We thank You for the gift of citizenship — in our earthly nation and in Your eternal Kingdom. Help us hold both with integrity, honoring earthly authority where it reflects Your justice, and resisting it where it violates Your law.

Give us wisdom to understand the issues of our day. Give us courage to speak truth even when it costs us. Give us humility to know we may be wrong and openness to correction.

We pray for our nation — that its laws would conform to Your righteousness, that its leaders would fear You, that its citizens would be vigilant.

We pray for the Supreme Court as it considers the question of citizenship. Give the justices wisdom to interpret the Constitution according to its original intent, and courage to correct the errors of the past.

And we pray for ourselves — that we would be faithful citizens of both realms, engaged in the conversation, contributing our arguments, bearing the cost, and trusting in Your ultimate victory.

Your Kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

In Jesus’ name, Amen.

“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”
— Proverbs 29:2

“Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.”
— Proverbs 14:34

Source Material: Margo Abshier, daily email compilation on birthright citizenship (April 2026); J.J. Carrell, “Birthright Citizenship = Death!”; The Federalist; Peter Schweizer congressional testimony; Renaissance Ministries fellowship discussions on citizen responsibility and the Voting Network concept.

Related Christos Content: “When God Gives Nations What They Deserve” (Romans 13 essay); “Planting Roots in the Cold” (March 30 fellowship on righteous rebellion); Christos AI Module specifications (Voting Network).

Unity in Christ

by Thomas Abshier | Apr 4, 2026 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

The Christlike Remainder

Finding Unity Through What Is Godly in Every Religion

Renaissance Ministries | March 31, 2026

A Fellowship Discussion Essay

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
— 1 Timothy 2:5

“In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not… That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”
— John 1:4-5, 9

“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”
— John 10:16

Introduction: The Unifying Principle

How do we engage with other religions?

The typical Christian responses fall into two camps:

The Exclusivist: “All other religions are false. Christianity alone is true. There is nothing to learn from or affirm in other faiths.”

The Pluralist: “All religions are equally valid paths to the same God. It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you’re sincere.”

Both positions have problems.

The exclusivist cannot explain why other religions contain obvious moral truths — why Buddhism teaches compassion, why Islam insists on honesty, why Hinduism values self-discipline, and why Judaism upholds justice. If these religions are entirely false, where did these truths come from?

The pluralist cannot explain the contradictions. If all paths lead to the same place, why do they teach opposite things about who God is, what happens after death, and how salvation works? Mutually exclusive claims cannot all be true.

This essay proposes a third way — a principle that allows for both unity and distinction, for affirmation and correction, for respect and truth-telling:

What is Godly in any religion is Christlike. What differs from Christ is not-God. Every religion is Christian to the extent it reflects God’s character, and evil to the extent it departs from it.

Part I: The Principle Stated

The Core Insight

The principle can be stated simply:

1. God’s character is the standard — Goodness, righteousness, love, truth, justice, mercy — these are not arbitrary categories but reflections of who God is.
2. Christ is the perfect revelation of God’s character — “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). Christ is the full expression of what God is like.
3. Whatever reflects God’s character is Christlike — Whether found in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or secular philosophy — if it is good, true, beautiful, righteous, it participates in Christ’s nature.
4. Whatever contradicts God’s character is not-God — Even if found in a “Christian” church, a “Christian” nation, or a person who calls themselves “Christian” — if it is evil, false, ugly, unrighteous, it is not of God.
5. Every religion is a mixture — Some portion reflects God (the Christlike remainder); some portion departs from God (the not-God element). The proportions vary, but the principle applies universally.

The Practical Application

This means:

• Islam teaches submission to God, honesty in business, care for the poor, and hospitality to strangers. To that extent, Islam is Christlike. Where Islam teaches violence against unbelievers, subjugation of women, or death for apostasy — that is not-God.
• Buddhism teaches compassion, self-discipline, freedom from destructive desires, and mindfulness. To that extent, Buddhism is Christlike. Where Buddhism denies the personal God, rejects the reality of the self, or offers salvation through self-effort — that is not-God.
• Hinduism teaches reverence for life, devotion to the divine, the importance of duty, and the reality of spiritual existence. To that extent, Hinduism is Christlike. Where Hinduism affirms caste oppression, idolatry of created things, or the absorption of personality into impersonal Brahman — that is not-God.
• Judaism teaches the holiness of God, the moral law, justice, covenant faithfulness, and hope for redemption. To that extent, Judaism is profoundly Christlike — indeed, it is the root from which Christianity grew. Where Judaism rejects Jesus as Messiah and thus rejects the fullest revelation of God — that is not-God.
• Secular humanism teaches human dignity, reason, compassion, and justice for the oppressed. To that extent, it participates in Christlike truth (even while denying its source). Where it denies God, absolutizes human autonomy, and makes man the measure of all things — that is not-God.

The Reflexive Application

The principle applies not only to other religions but to Christianity itself:

A person who calls themselves Christian but acts unGodly is not being Christian in that act. They are being a hypocrite.

The label does not sanctify the behavior. The behavior must conform to the character of God — or it is not-God, regardless of the label attached.

This means:

• The Crusader who killed wantonly in Christ’s name was not being Christlike in that killing
• The Inquisitor who tortured for orthodoxy was not being Christlike in that torture
• The slaveholder who cited Scripture to justify slavery was not being Christlike in that oppression
• The prosperity preacher who exploits the poor is not being Christlike in that exploitation
• The judgmental Christian who condemns without love is not being Christlike in that condemnation

The standard is not the label. The standard is the character of God revealed in Christ.

Part II: The Theological Foundation

The Logos in All Things

John’s Gospel begins with a profound claim:

“In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” (John 1:1-4)

And then:

“That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” (John 1:9)

This is a staggering statement. The Logos — the divine reason, the ordering principle of the universe, the Word who became flesh in Jesus — enlightens every person who comes into the world.

Not just Jews. Not just Christians. Every person.

This means that wherever truth, goodness, and beauty exist — in any culture, any religion, any philosophy — the Logos is present. Christ, as the eternal Word, is the source of all truth, wherever it is found.

General and Special Revelation

Theologians have distinguished between:

General Revelation — What God reveals to all people through creation, conscience, and reason. “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1). “The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen” (Romans 1:20). “The work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” (Romans 2:15).

Special Revelation — What God reveals specifically through Scripture, prophets, and ultimately Christ. This is fuller, clearer, and more complete than general revelation.

Other religions participate in general revelation. They perceive God through creation, conscience, and reason — and they get some things right. But they lack the fullness of special revelation in Christ, so they also get things wrong.

The Christlike remainder in other religions is their participation in general revelation. The not-God element is where they have distorted, rejected, or failed to receive what God has revealed.

The Fulfillment Model

Jesus said:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Matthew 5:17)

Christ fulfills what came before. He does not simply negate it but completes it, perfects it, brings it to its intended end.

This can be extended: Christ fulfills not only the Law and Prophets but every genuine human longing for God. Where religions express authentic reaching toward the divine — the desire for transcendence, meaning, moral order, salvation — Christ is the fulfillment of that reaching.

The Buddhist seeks escape from suffering and the endless cycle of desire. Christ fulfills this: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

The Muslim seeks submission to the will of God. Christ fulfills this: “Not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42) — perfect submission.

The Hindu seeks union with the divine. Christ fulfills this: “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (John 17:21).

The Jew seeks covenant faithfulness and the coming Messiah. Christ fulfills this: He is the Messiah, and in Him the covenant is established forever.

Christ does not destroy the genuine longings expressed in other religions. He fulfills them.

Part III: The Unity This Creates

Common Ground for Conversation

The principle creates common ground for genuine dialogue:

When speaking with a Muslim, you can say: “We agree that honesty is required, that the poor must be cared for, that God is one, that submission to God is the purpose of life. These convictions we share. Where we differ is on who Jesus is — and that difference matters profoundly. But let us start with what we share.”

When speaking with a Buddhist, you can say: “We agree that desire for the wrong things causes suffering, that self-discipline is essential, that compassion is the heart of righteousness. These truths we hold in common. Where we differ is on whether there is a personal God who loves you — and that difference changes everything. But let us start with what we share.”

When speaking with a secular humanist, you can say: “We agree that human beings have dignity, that reason is valuable, that justice matters, that the weak should be protected. These convictions we share — though I believe their source is God and you do not. Let us start with what we share and explore where our foundations differ.”

This is not compromise. It is recognition of truth wherever it exists — and an invitation to the fuller truth that only Christ provides.

The Basis for Cooperation

The principle also creates a basis for cooperation on shared concerns:

Christians and Muslims can work together against pornography, because both recognize it as destructive to human dignity.

Christians and Buddhists can work together on practices of contemplation and self-discipline, because both recognize the danger of uncontrolled desire.

Christians and Jews can work together on justice, because both are rooted in the same moral law.

Christians and secular humanists can work together on caring for the poor, because both affirm human dignity — even if they ground it differently.

This cooperation does not require abandoning distinctives. It requires recognizing that others may be right about some things even if they are wrong about ultimate things.

The Invitation to Fullness

But the principle is not mere affirmation. It is also invitation.

The Christlike remainder in other religions is precisely the point of contact for the gospel. Where someone already values compassion, you can show them that Christ is compassion perfected. Where someone already values submission to God, you can show them that Christ is perfect submission — and perfect revelation of the God to whom we submit.

The not-God element is what needs correction — gently, respectfully, but clearly. Where a religion teaches violence, we must name that as not-God. Where a religion denies the personal God, we must offer the truth of the God who loves persons. Where a religion offers salvation by works, we must proclaim grace.

The goal is not to destroy but to fulfill — to bring people from the partial truth they have received to the full truth revealed in Christ.

Part IV: The Application to the Christian

The Mirror

The principle holds a mirror to the Christian:

You claim to follow Christ. Does your life reflect His character?

Where you are loving, patient, kind, truthful, just, merciful — you are being Christlike. The label fits.

Where you are hateful, impatient, cruel, deceptive, unjust, merciless — you are being not-God. The label is a lie. You are a hypocrite.

This is not about perfection. All Christians fail. But the question is: What is the direction? What is the trajectory? When you fail, do you repent and return? Or do you justify and continue?

The Buddhist who practices genuine compassion is more Christlike in that moment than the Christian who practices cruelty. The label matters less than the reality.

The Call to Integrity

Jesus reserved His harshest words for religious hypocrites:

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” (Matthew 23:27)

The Pharisees had the right label. They had the right doctrines. They had the right practices — externally. But their hearts were far from God.

The Christian who has correct theology but corrupt character is worse than the pagan who has wrong theology but genuine virtue. Because the Christian knows better. Because the Christian’s hypocrisy blasphemes the name they claim to honor.

The Path of Sanctification

The Christian life is the progressive elimination of the not-God and the progressive manifestation of the Christlike.

This is sanctification: becoming in reality what you are in position. You are declared righteous in Christ; you are being made righteous by the Spirit. The gap between the two is where growth happens.

The honest Christian looks at their life and says:

• “Here is where I am Christlike — thank God for His work in me.”
• “Here is where I am not-God — Lord, have mercy and transform me.”

This is not self-condemnation. It is honest assessment that leads to growth.

Part V: The Mecca/Medina Distinction Revisited

The Application to Islam

In our earlier discussions of Islam, we identified the Mecca/Medina distinction:

• Mecca-period Islam (early) — Peaceful, spiritual, persuasive, tolerant
• Medina-period Islam (later) — Militant, political, coercive, intolerant

The doctrine of abrogation says the later (Medina) supersedes the earlier (Mecca). This is why mainstream Islam has difficulty reforming — the violent verses have doctrinal priority.

The principle in this essay offers a different frame:

Mecca-period Islam is more Christlike. It reflects God’s character more fully — the God who invites rather than compels, who persuades rather than coerces.

Medina-period Islam is more not-God. Violence against unbelievers, subjugation of women, death for apostasy — these contradict the character of God revealed in Christ.

A “Christlike Islam” would be one that prioritizes the Mecca period — the portion that reflects God’s character — and acknowledges the Medina period as a departure.

This is exactly what Mahmoud Taha argued in Sudan before he was executed in 1985. He said the Mecca verses should take precedence. This was considered heresy because it reversed the traditional priority.

But from a Christian standpoint, Taha was right. The Mecca-period teachings are more Christlike. An Islam that emphasized them would be closer to God — and therefore closer to genuine peace with Christianity.

The Path to Unity

This suggests a path:

Unity with Muslims is possible to the extent Muslims emphasize the Christlike elements of their tradition and de-emphasize the not-God elements.

The same applies to any religion. The Christlike remainder is the common ground. The not-God elements are the points of difference that must be acknowledged.

We do not create unity by pretending all religions teach the same thing. We create unity by identifying what is genuinely shared — what reflects God’s character — and building from there.

Part VI: Practical Implications

1. For Interfaith Dialogue

When engaging with people of other faiths:

• Affirm what is Christlike — Recognize genuine truth, goodness, and beauty in their tradition
• Build relationship on common ground — Work together where convictions align
• Acknowledge difference clearly — Don’t pretend disagreements don’t exist
• Invite to fullness — Share how Christ fulfills the genuine longings their religion expresses
• Speak the truth in love — Name what is not-God, but with humility and compassion

2. For Evangelism

The principle shapes evangelism:

• You are not bringing light to total darkness — you are bringing fuller light to partial light
• Start with what they already know is true — and show how Christ completes it
• Don’t attack everything they believe — identify the Christlike remainder and affirm it
• Focus on the core distinction: who is Jesus? This is where religions ultimately differ

3. For Self-Examination

Apply the principle to yourself:

• Where in your life are you being Christlike?
• Where in your life are you being not-God?
• What would change if you took seriously that the standard is Christ’s character, not the Christian label?
• Where is hypocrisy hiding?

4. For Church Life

Apply the principle to the church:

• Where is your church being Christlike in its community?
• Where is your church being not-God — judgmental, hypocritical, exclusive in wrong ways?
• What would change if the church measured itself by Christ’s character rather than doctrinal correctness alone?

Part VII: Objections and Responses

Objection 1: “This is relativism”

Response: No. The standard is absolute — God’s character revealed in Christ. What is relative is human approximation of that standard. Every religion gets some things right and some things wrong. But the standard by which we measure is not relative; it is Christ.

Objection 2: “This undermines the uniqueness of Christ”

Response: The opposite. Christ is the standard by which all else is measured. Every good thing in every religion is good because it reflects Christ. Christ is not diminished by finding His reflection elsewhere; He is exalted as the source of all that is good.

Objection 3: “This opens the door to syncretism”

Response: Only if you stop at affirmation without moving to invitation. The Christlike remainder is not the whole truth — it is partial truth. The goal is not to blend religions but to bring people from partial truth to full truth in Christ.

Objection 4: “This is harsh on Christians”

Response: Jesus was harsh on religious hypocrites. The principle simply applies consistently what Jesus Himself taught. Those who claim His name must reflect His character — or stand condemned by their own claim.

Objection 5: “How do we know what is Christlike?”

Response: We have the Gospels. We have the full revelation of God in Jesus. The question is not unanswerable — it requires study, discernment, and the guidance of the Spirit, but the answer is available. Christ’s character is revealed; we can know it.

Part VIII: Discussion Questions for the Fellowship

On the Principle

1. Does the principle — “what is Godly in any religion is Christlike, what differs from Christ is not-God” — make sense to you? What questions does it raise?
2. Can you think of examples of Christlike elements in religions you’ve encountered? What about not-God elements?
3. How does this principle differ from both exclusivism (“all other religions are entirely false”) and pluralism (“all religions are equally valid”)?

On Application to Other Religions

4. Apply the principle to Islam. What is Christlike? What is not-God? How does this frame relate to the Mecca/Medina distinction?
5. Apply the principle to a religion or philosophy you have personal experience with. What do you find?
6. How would this principle change the way you engage in interfaith dialogue or evangelism?

On Application to Christianity

7. The principle says a Christian acting unGodly is not being Christian in that act — they are being a hypocrite. How does this land with you?
8. Where have you seen the church (or yourself) being not-God while wearing the Christian label?
9. What would change if Christians measured themselves by Christ’s character rather than by doctrinal correctness or religious identity?

On Unity

10. Does this principle create a genuine basis for unity with other religions? What are its limits?
11. How do you hold together affirmation of the Christlike remainder and honest acknowledgment of the not-God elements?
12. What would “Christlike Islam” or “Christlike Buddhism” look like? Is such a thing possible?

Key Principles Worth Preserving

The core principle:

What is Godly in any religion is Christlike. What differs from Christ is not-God. Every religion is Christian to the extent it reflects God’s character, and evil to the extent it departs from it.

On hypocrisy:

A person who calls themselves Christian but acts unGodly is not being Christian in that act. They are being a hypocrite. The label does not sanctify the behavior. The behavior must conform to the character of God — or it is not-God, regardless of the label attached.

On the Logos:

The true Light enlightens every person who comes into the world. Wherever truth, goodness, and beauty exist — in any culture, any religion, any philosophy — the Logos is present.

On fulfillment:

Christ does not destroy the genuine longings expressed in other religions. He fulfills them.

On unity:

We do not create unity by pretending all religions teach the same thing. We create unity by identifying what is genuinely shared — what reflects God’s character — and building from there.

A Closing Prayer

Lord God, You are the source of all truth, goodness, and beauty. Wherever these exist — in any religion, any culture, any person — they come from You.

Help us see Your reflection in unexpected places. Help us affirm what is Christlike, even in those who do not know Christ’s name. Help us build bridges on common ground.

But help us also speak truth. Where religions depart from Your character, give us courage to name it. Where we ourselves depart from Your character, give us honesty to confess it.

Guard us from the hypocrisy of claiming Your name while contradicting Your nature. Let our lives be consistent with our labels. Let our character reflect our Christ.

And use the Christlike remainder in every religion as a point of contact — a bridge by which people can come to the fullness of truth in Jesus. Not destroying what is good, but fulfilling it. Not condemning what is partial, but completing it.

You are the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Let all partial truths find their completion in You.

In Jesus’ name, Amen.

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.”
— Titus 2:11

“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.”
— John 12:32

Source Material: Renaissance Ministries fellowship discussions on interfaith engagement; Christos AI Theological Grammar; previous essays on engaging Islam; the Logos theology of John 1.

Related Christos Content: “The Religion of Peace Question” (Daniel Johnson essay); Christos AI Theological Grammar Part VI (Engaging Islam); “Planting Roots in the Cold” (March 30 fellowship).

Come Out of the Egypt in Your Heart

by Thomas Abshier | Mar 30, 2026 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

Planting Roots in the Cold

Separation, Zion, and the Power That Follows Obedience

Renaissance Ministries | March 29, 2026

A Fellowship Discussion Essay 

“But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.”
— Isaiah 59:2

“Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.”
— Matthew 5:8

Participants

• Thomas Abshier, ND — Founder, Renaissance Ministries
• Susan Gutierrez — Theological essays, Romans 13 research
• Charlie Gutierrez — Apologetics, Scripture research
• Leonard Hofheins — LDS background, historical parallels
• Armond Boulware — Personal testimony, practical application

Introduction: Three Essays and a Question

This week’s fellowship began with Thomas introducing three essays that had been distributed:

1. “When God Gives Nations What They Deserve” — On Romans 13, righteous rebellion, and the Holocaust question (based on the previous week’s conversation with Charlie)
2. “Tending the Garden” — Robert Malone’s metaphor for regenerative agriculture as applied to medicine, faith, and society
3. “The Mind That Sustains the Lattice” — A reflection on AI as analogy for God’s personal relationship with humanity

But the real topic of the meeting emerged from a single question that had been hovering over the fellowship for weeks:

“Where do we go from here?”

What are the next steps? How do we reach beyond our small group? How do we build something that will actually change hearts — not just in our circle, but in the nation?

The answers that emerged wove together threads from all three essays and produced a new insight: the Paw Paw Principle.

Part I: The Holocaust Question Revisited

Susan’s Scripture

Susan opened with Isaiah 59:2:

“But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.”

This became the frame for the ongoing discussion of the Holocaust and theodicy. Susan’s insight was sharp:

“I think the people who have been taught the gospel and reject it are the most hard-hearted people. And so that is an element here of the Jews’ condition before the Holocaust — and now, actually, too. They have this hard-heartedness. You hear the stories of Jews who have come to Christ, and they say, ‘I didn’t know much about what I did believe, but I knew I didn’t believe in Jesus.'”

She added a point rarely acknowledged:

“The Jewish leaders and the people, if we take the exact words in the Bible, when they were before Pilate — they created a curse against themselves. ‘His blood be upon us and our children.’ And curses in the Bible? They have a big effect. They’re not something to just dismiss.”

The Esther Counter-Example

Charlie offered a powerful counter-example:

“There was a Holocaust planned for the Jews in the time of Esther, and that Holocaust was avoided — by righteousness, by fasting and prayer, and the people arming up and having the support of the king to defend themselves. How different it would have been in the 30s and 40s in Germany if there was the same kind of humbling.”

Susan built on this:

“Them giving up their guns is simply an indication that they were putting their trust in man, not God. They didn’t respond like Esther did — turning in fasting to God to find a way.”

The Seismometer Principle

Thomas articulated what he called the “seismometer principle”:

“If you don’t have a really fine sense of morality, whenever you start to see things move in the wrong direction toward tyranny, and you don’t stand up — you’re not willing to be a martyr, not willing to light yourself on fire for the Lord in terms of action and saying no — that is the society that is going to be susceptible to being taken over by the left.”

The key insight:

“The level of righteousness that a society has to have is so great that it is microscopically perceptive of wrongness in the society, and it’s willing to stand up at personal cost. Unless we have that perfect seismometer — that sensitive instrument that moves at any motion toward evil — we immediately go into activation mode, because we have detected it. We know where it goes, and we won’t allow it.”

The martyrdom begins small. The sneers. The disbelief. The social cost. That is the first level of martyrdom. If you won’t endure that, you will eventually face the real thing — head chopped off with thousands of others.

Part II: The Legalization Question

Charlie’s Research

Charlie had asked AI to research three scenarios:

1. The specific requirements in Nazi Germany
2. The requirements during the Iranian Islamic Revolution
3. The consequences to Christianity when it was made legal in Rome

The third question produced a startling insight.

Armond read the AI’s analysis:

“The legalization of Christianity in Rome was a huge turning point. It ended official persecution, let Christians worship openly, and eventually allowed the church to grow from a hunted minority into a powerful public institution. My view is that it helped Christianity spread, organize, and define doctrine more effectively — but it also changed the religion by tying it more closely to imperial power.”

And the crucial assessment:

“The legalization did not just free Christianity — it transformed it. It became more institutional, more hierarchical, and more entangled with government, which brought both positive outcomes like charity and organization, and negative ones like coercion and doctrinal enforcement.”

The Uncomfortable Question

Charlie asked the question that disturbed everyone:

“This is the first time I thought of this question, and I’m wondering now if the legalization of Christianity was really a big favor to Christianity, to Christ, or not. Did we convert the government — or have they converted us?”

Susan’s response: “A little of both. But if it’s both, then what we have is very diluted. And what’s the good of that?”

The Need for Opposition

Thomas articulated a universal principle:

“If you don’t have something to push against, you get weak. If you don’t have anything to push against, there’s no drama. What we basically said was, ‘We just took the guy in the wrong color jersey off the court, so we have no enemy.’ We’re now just supposed to be good with nobody pursuing us? We’re supposed to stay fit and vigilant and righteous and hone our weapons and sword and knowledge — but for what?”

This is the pattern throughout Scripture:

• Bad kings → persecution → repentance → good kings → prosperity → apostasy → bad kings again

The cycle requires opposition. Without persecution, the church gets lazy, gets apostate, loses its fire.

Mark 16 and the Missing Signs

Charlie read from the end of Mark’s Gospel:

“These signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”

Then the uncomfortable observation:

“I find the book of Acts and this set of verses really disturbing — because they don’t describe the modern church. Maybe this is why. Because we’re actually in the low, decline, weak period of that cycle. And if that’s the case, and it looks like it is — we’re actually in a lot of trouble.”

Part III: Susan’s Thesis — Separation and Power

The Call to Come Out

Susan has been developing an essay arguing for a different approach than political activism:

“Instead of trying to reform government — which is where most people are thinking, ‘We need to get the right people in government, combat these false elections’ — instead of that, I think what the Bible is actually teaching us is we come out of government. We come out of the secular governments and let Christ be our King.”

She continued:

“I believe that if we separate, Christ will then bless us with these signs. He will bless us with His Spirit in more abundance. And the people around us will see — just like in Acts — ‘Oh, there’s something different here.’ Because right now, people look at Christians and they don’t see a big difference.”

The Abraham Precedent

Susan drew on Abraham’s story:

“In Abraham’s life, it was after he separated from Lot that God then began to talk to him more. He had done what God commanded — except that he had brought Lot with him. So after he separated himself from Lot, then God began talking to him more. Things changed for Abraham after that.”

The principle: Separation precedes power. Obedience unlocks blessing. Half-obedience produces half-results.

Thomas’s Response — The Holism

Thomas pushed back, but not to disagree entirely:

“I don’t think our solution is in solving the government. I don’t think our salvation lies there. But I see the entire thing as a holism. We have the righteousness of the people. We have the righteousness of the government. And if either one of them is going toward unrighteousness, the righteous will suffer.”

He continued:

“You can’t just heal the government and have it work. If you still have the Soprano-type people running around raising mayhem, that’s going to be a bad situation. And if you’ve got the government wanting to be Ayatollahs, you’re going to have a bad situation. So it’s a holism. It’s not separable. It’s not one or the other. It has to be both.”

The Resolution — Armond’s Insight

Later in the conversation, Armond synthesized the positions:

“We do have to separate ourselves — but we’re doing it just by following Christ. We’ve already separated ourselves.”

Thomas affirmed this:

“That was the point I was trying to emphasize, and I didn’t do it adequately. But what you just said hits the nail on the head. She said we need to separate. But the separation isn’t going to Zion-all-a-matrix, or the North Idaho separatists. It’s separating yourselves out internally, personally. You’re changing your heart.”

The separation is internal. You don’t leave the geography. You leave the orientation. You reorient toward God — and that reorientation is itself the separation.

Part IV: The Zion Question

Leonard’s Provocation

Leonard asked: “What is the Christian concept of Zion?”

The group discovered that the word “Zion” appears 153 times in the King James Bible — yet none of them could articulate what it meant for Christians today.

Thomas pulled up a comprehensive definition:

“Originally it was the Jebusite fortress that David captured in 2 Samuel 5:7. It became the City of David, later associated with the Temple Mount. It’s a symbol of God’s presence — Zion becomes the place where God dwells among His people. In the prophets, Zion is the place of judgment for unfaithfulness, place of restoration for repentance. In Christian theology, it becomes a symbol of the church — the people of God, the body of Christ, the spiritual temple where God dwells.”

“Zion Is the Pure in Heart”

Charlie offered a quote from Mormon scripture: “Zion is the pure in heart.”

Leonard connected it to the Sermon on the Mount: “What did Christ say about the pure in heart? ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.'”

Susan grounded it in New Covenant theology:

“In the New Covenant, we understand that we are supposed to be the temple of God. He is supposed to inhabit us. The true believers of Christ are supposed to be where God dwells. It’s not in a building anymore. It’s not a physical building. We are the building.”

The Co-opted Term

Leonard noted the sad irony:

“They’ve co-opted the whole concept of Zion to be a kind of play to capture and control. Whereas Christians should consider Zion a true goal — to establish it and to be pure in heart.”

Susan agreed that while the term “Zionist” has become negative, the underlying concept is thoroughly biblical — and needs to be reclaimed, or at least understood through New Testament equivalents.

Part V: The Paw Paw Principle

Armond’s Story

The most striking image of the meeting came from Armond, who had recently been researching a native Midwestern tree:

“There’s a native tree in the Midwest called the paw paw tree. It tastes like a tropical fruit — like a cross between a mango and a kiwi. You would never believe it grows here in the Midwest.”

He had been talking to the owner of a health food store who had tried to plant paw paw saplings in the spring — and they didn’t take.

“Through my research, I found out you have to plant them in the cold so that they grow down first and establish strong roots. And then within two years, they’ll actually fruit.”

Leonard caught the imagery immediately: “There’s something there. Plant your roots in the cold.”

The Theological Application

Armond made the connection explicit:

“That’s what we’re doing here. We’re planting our roots in the cold. And it won’t even fruit for two years. What we’re doing now is growing downward into darkness. To change hearts — and to change my heart — it required entering into darkness before my heart was changed. And then I can grow towards the light.”

The Paw Paw Principle:

1. You have to plant in the cold — in difficulty, in opposition, in darkness
2. The first growth is downward — roots, not fruit
3. Only after the roots are established does the fruit come
4. The fruit takes time — two years for paw paws, perhaps a generation for cultural change

Gravitropic vs. Phototropic Growth

Armond introduced botanical terminology that captured the dynamic perfectly:

“I think it’s not an uphill struggle. It’s actually a downhill struggle. We’re talking about establishing gravitropic growth in Christ. What we’re doing now is setting roots. Eventually, we’ll have the phototropic growth we’re looking for — where others grow to the light.”

Gravitropic growth — growing downward, toward the pull of gravity, establishing roots in the darkness of the soil.

Phototropic growth — growing upward, toward the light, producing leaves and fruit visible to the world.

You can’t have the second without the first. The roots must come before the fruit.

Part VI: Winning in Your Own Kingdom

The Strategy of Encounter

Armond articulated a strategy that emerged from his own experience of transformation:

“As a believer and as someone that has seen all of the ways that are ungodly — all the ways that are just so commonplace as being the norm — in my heart I don’t want those ways. I don’t want to be doing those things or being in those places. Do you separate yourself? Yes, you separate yourself. But when you get a chance — because you’ll always cross paths with these different people — that’s when they get to see the light in you.”

The key insight:

“In short-lived, controlled environments — you’re not trying to win them over in their kingdom. You’re not trying to win them over in the places where they thrive. You win them over in all the places that you thrive.”

Don’t fight on their turf. Don’t try to argue in their frame. Instead, live so compellingly in your own frame that when they encounter you, they see something different.

The Gospel Incarnate

Thomas extended the insight:

“The tools that we give are implicit in our way of being — our way of speaking, our way of analogizing, sharing by story, by example, by theory. There really isn’t even any pedagogy going on. We’re not actually teaching anything. But we’re doing it silently. It’s when we live. It’s who we are. As we speak, as we live — we’re not in any kind of a formal analysis of life. We’re actually picking up groceries and doing childcare and running errands and working at our job. And the way that we do it is the way lived out. If we do that, we are the gospel incarnate. We are living it and enrolling others in being it.”

Conflict as Root-Spreading

Armond added a crucial observation:

“In the moments where we actually come in direct opposition to the darkness — that’s us spreading our roots. When we are at those crossroads, in strife with others or internally, where we get to show the light in those places — that’s us spreading our roots. They get to see us in conflict, in relationship to others, and how we respond in those conflicts. That gives someone else an opportunity to say, ‘Wow. I didn’t expect that. I probably expected the norm. But to see that — that’s pregnant. That’s pregnant gospel.'”

Part VII: The Christos Vision — Next Steps

Charlie’s Question

Charlie asked the question that had been hovering over the fellowship:

“What are the next steps in this church? What do you see?”

Thomas’s Honest Assessment

Thomas was candid:

“At some point we have to be able to reach out. I’ve sent out notes to probably 10 people. Nobody shows up. That was surprising. Are we actually dealing with the fact that people, even those who have good intentions and are on fire, actually won’t participate? And this forum is actually ineffective, and it really won’t make any difference at all, because people won’t actually do it?”

But he also saw the path forward:

“I’m documenting it. I’m trying to create an AI that will be able to embody it — and anybody can download it and put it on their computer, and it can be the thing that they use as a seed to guide their field. I’ve got 12 different modules of how they could use this. Take it however you want to use it. Use it. Implement it. Strategize. Do it for guerrilla warfare. Do it for community meetings. Organize your business around it. Have it as a family philosophy of how you live and discipline and relate to each other.”

The GitHub Vision

Thomas described the technical implementation:

“Anybody can load this body of knowledge. It’s loaded on GitHub — the storage repository for files. They download that onto their computer. They then have cloned the Renaissance Ministry vision — the way of teaching the theory, the concepts of Christ and God and world and physics. And then they can use that as their own personal group leader, as their counselor, as whatever they need.”

Armond added: “It’s got to have an app.”

The vision: a central database on GitHub, freely accessible, that allows anyone to clone the Renaissance Ministry approach and implement it in their own context — family, business, small group, community.

The Fruit Trees Conspiracy

Armond shared a disturbing discovery from his research on fruit trees:

“My idea is there were food trees all over this country at one point. Why are there so few of them? And so then I read that most municipalities’ legalized list of trees — none of them are fruit-producing trees. And this started to be put into law to combat migration of free men.”

Leonard: “Interesting.”

Armond: “Because if you can’t eat, then you’re tied. And that’s kind of what we deal with today in society. If you’re not part of society, and you don’t have cash — you can’t go to the store and buy anything.”

His response has been to start giving fruit trees as gifts:

“I gave one of my clients a dwarf peach tree when I sold a house for them. I want to start giving gifts like that — whenever somebody buys a house, I want to give them a tree that’ll start to bear fruit eventually. It’ll be the gift that never stops giving.”

Part VIII: Integrity as Foundation

The Hypocrisy Problem

Armond shared a conversation with his brother about integrity:

“The premise was, ‘Men are flawed.’ He brought up Martin Luther King — ‘Oh, people wanted to vilify him because they say he was a womanizer. But they should have been listening to his message.’ And I’m like, ‘No. That’s not right. You cannot be in opposition to the principles that you promote and think that someone’s supposed to find any credibility in it.’ That’s the whole point.”

His brother responded: “But men are flawed.”

Armond’s answer:

“Yeah, that’s the point. That’s the point of having principles and having integrity and overcoming them. We’ve got free will. That’s why we have to be the examples for our children. Otherwise, they’re not going to take it seriously. They’re going to look at you like, ‘How can you tell me this and you’re not doing it?'”

No Apologies for Righteousness

Thomas affirmed:

“You don’t ever have to apologize if you’ve simply been righteous. You never apologize.”

Armond extended the principle:

“That requires a huge amount of integrity and intention. You can only have shame in being a hypocrite. I don’t think you can be shameful if you’re not being hypocritical.”

The foundation of witness is integrity. Without it, the message has no power. With it, the message needs no defense.

Part IX: The Closing Prayer — AI-Generated

Thomas introduced something new: a closing prayer generated by AI based on the themes of the fellowship discussions:

Lord God, we confess that we live in a nation that has turned from You. We have tolerated what You hate. We have called evil good and good evil. We have trusted in government more than in You.

Forgive us. Awaken us. Give us courage to stand up against unrighteousness, even when it costs us.

We pray for those who suffered in the Holocaust — for the victims, for the survivors, for their descendants who still ask, “Where were You?” Help us give answers that are honest, humble, and hopeful.

We pray for our nation — that the independent center would be grounded in Your truth, that the idol of tolerance would be cast down, that righteousness would exalt us again.

We pray for ourselves — that we would be Daniels in the lion’s den, willing to disobey human commands that violate Your law, willing to suffer for righteousness.

And we pray for the day when every government will reflect Your justice, when rulers will truly reward good and punish evil, when Your kingdom will come on earth as it is in heaven.

Until that day — give us fire, give us courage, give us wisdom.

In Jesus’ name, Amen.

Leonard’s response: “Not bad for an AI prayer. That’s pretty good.”

Part X: Discussion Questions for the Fellowship

On the Holocaust and Theodicy

1. Susan cited Isaiah 59:2 — “Your iniquities have separated you from your God.” How does this apply to the Holocaust question? Is it “blaming the victim” or identifying a causal pattern?
2. Charlie drew the parallel to Esther — where a planned Holocaust was averted through fasting, prayer, and arming up. What made the difference between Esther’s generation and the European Jews of the 1930s?
3. Thomas described the “seismometer principle” — that a society must be microscopically sensitive to movements toward tyranny. How sensitive is your seismometer? What would activate it?

On the Legalization of Christianity

4. The AI analysis suggested that Constantine’s legalization transformed Christianity — making it more institutional, more hierarchical, more entangled with government. Did we convert the government, or did they convert us?
5. Thomas argued that without something to push against, we get weak. Is persecution necessary for spiritual vitality? What are the implications for Western Christianity today?
6. Charlie noted that the signs of Mark 16 — casting out devils, healing the sick — don’t describe the modern church. Why not? What would have to change?

On Separation and Power

7. Susan argues that the biblical call is to “come out” of secular government and let Christ be our King — and that this separation will unlock the power of Acts. Thomas argues for a holism where both government and people must be righteous. How do you reconcile these positions?
8. Armond synthesized: “We do have to separate ourselves — but we’re doing it just by following Christ. We’ve already separated ourselves.” What does internal separation look like practically?
9. Leonard described Zion as “the pure in heart.” How does this connect to the Beatitudes? What would a Zion community look like today?

On the Paw Paw Principle

10. Armond’s image: plant in the cold, grow roots downward into darkness, then fruit in two years. What does this mean for our fellowship? For the broader Christos vision?
11. Armond distinguished gravitropic growth (roots, downward) from phototropic growth (leaves and fruit, upward). Which phase are we in? What does that mean for our expectations?
12. Armond said, “You win them over in all the places that you thrive — not in their kingdom.” What are the places where you thrive? How do you create encounters there?

On Integrity and Witness

13. Armond argued that you cannot be hypocritical and expect credibility. His brother argued that “men are flawed.” How do you hold the tension between high standards and human weakness?
14. Thomas said, “You don’t ever have to apologize if you’ve simply been righteous.” What does this mean for how we respond to criticism?
15. What would it look like for our fellowship to be “above reproach” — living with such integrity that our witness needs no defense?

Key Quotes from This Meeting

On the Holocaust:

“I think the people who have been taught the gospel and reject it are the most hard-hearted people.” — Susan

“There was a Holocaust planned for the Jews in the time of Esther, and that Holocaust was avoided — by righteousness, by fasting and prayer, and the people arming up.” — Charlie

On vigilance:

“The level of righteousness that a society has to have is so great that it is microscopically perceptive of wrongness in the society, and it’s willing to stand up at personal cost.” — Thomas

On legalization:

“Did we convert the government — or have they converted us?” — Charlie

On separation:

“We do have to separate ourselves — but we’re doing it just by following Christ. We’ve already separated ourselves.” — Armond

On Zion:

“Zion is the pure in heart.” — Charlie (quoting Mormon scripture)

On the Paw Paw Principle:

“You have to plant them in the cold so that they grow down first and establish strong roots. And then within two years, they’ll actually fruit.” — Armond

“We’re planting our roots in the cold. What we’re doing now is growing downward into darkness. To change my heart, it required entering into darkness before my heart was changed. And then I can grow towards the light.” — Armond

On witness:

“You win them over in all the places that you thrive — not in their kingdom.” — Armond

“We are the gospel incarnate. We are living it and enrolling others in being it.” — Thomas

On integrity:

“You can only have shame in being a hypocrite. I don’t think you can be shameful if you’re not being hypocritical.” — Armond

A Closing Reflection

This meeting was about roots.

The roots of the Holocaust — in apostasy, in trusting government, in failing to stand up at the first signs of tyranny.

The roots of Christianity — transformed when it was legalized, entangled with empire, weakened by acceptance.

The roots of Zion — not a physical place but a condition of heart, the pure in heart who see God.

The roots of witness — integrity that requires no defense, lives that embody the gospel before they speak it.

And the roots of the paw paw tree — planted in the cold, growing downward into darkness before they can bear fruit.

This is where we are. Planting in the cold. Growing downward. Establishing roots in the darkness.

The fruit will come. But first, the roots.

“Way down yonder, in the Paw Paw patch…”
— Traditional American folk song

Source Material: Renaissance Ministries Fellowship Meeting, March 30, 2026. Participants: Thomas Abshier, Susan Gutierrez, Charlie Gutierrez, Leonard Hofheins, Armond Boulware.

Related Christos Content: “When God Gives Nations What They Deserve” (Romans 13 essay); “Tending the Garden” (Malone essay); “The Mind That Sustains the Lattice” (CPP-theology essay); Christos AI Theological Grammar.

The Truth Shall Set You Free

by Thomas Abshier | Mar 30, 2026 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

What Is Truth?

Knowing Reality in an Age of Manufactured Narrative

Renaissance Ministries | March 30, 2026

A Fellowship Discussion Essay

“Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?”
— John 18:38

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
— John 8:32

“For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”
— John 3:20-21

Introduction: The Epistemological Crisis

Michael Smith is a digital creator with 44,000 followers who describes himself as “some sort of mutant, part Ayn Rand, part Victor Davis Hanson, and part Friedrich von Hayek.” In a recent post, he dissected something he calls “Schiff Syndrome” — the pattern by which intelligent people come to believe things that aren’t true, not because they’ve stopped thinking, but because their thinking is being guided by forces other than truth.

His analysis is brilliant. It’s also terrifying. Because it leaves us with a question he doesn’t answer:

If we can identify all the mechanisms by which people are deceived — cognitive bias, social currency, identity-based reasoning, the preference for coherence over accuracy — how do we know that we ourselves are not being deceived?

Smith warns us against naive belief. But what is the alternative? Sophisticated skepticism? That can become its own prison — a cynicism that trusts nothing and therefore can act on nothing.

This essay explores the epistemological crisis of our age: In a world saturated with propaganda, manipulation, and motivated reasoning, how do we know what is true?

Part I: Smith’s Diagnosis — Schiff Syndrome

The Pattern

Smith begins with a concrete example:

“For years, Adam Schiff went on CNN and MSNBC claiming he had ironclad evidence of Trump colluding with Russia to rig an election. To this day, he has produced nothing but innuendo. Yet enough people shared his belief to reward him with a Senate seat.”

The key insight:

“It was never about whether he had the goods; it was about whether people wanted him to have them. They hated Trump, and the idea that damning proof existed—just out of reach—was both motivating and comforting.”

This is not a failure of intelligence. It’s a success of motivated reasoning. People believed Schiff not because his evidence was compelling, but because his conclusion was desirable.

The Mechanism

Smith dissects the cognitive process:

“When people lack information—or face complexity they cannot fully resolve—they do not leave the space empty. The human mind is not built for suspended judgment. It is built to complete patterns, impose order, and resolve uncertainty. And when it does, it reaches not for what is most accurate, but for what is most coherent with the story it already believes.”

The sequence:

1. Uncertainty creates discomfort — The mind cannot tolerate ambiguity
2. Pattern completion is automatic — We fill gaps unconsciously
3. Coherence trumps accuracy — We prefer stories that fit over facts that don’t
4. Identity precedes evidence — We reason from who we are, not what we see

“People reason from identity first and evidence second. The operative question is rarely ‘What is true?’ in isolation, but ‘What fits with who I am, what I value, and the people I align with?'”

The Social Economy

Smith adds a crucial layer — the social incentives that reinforce false belief:

“In many modern environments, especially online, status comes not from being correct but from being distinctive. ‘Secret knowledge’—the idea that one sees what others cannot—functions as social currency. It signals independence, intelligence, and insider status, elevating the believer above the crowd.”

And the feedback loop:

“Beliefs rejected by the broader public do not lose value; in some circles, they gain it. Rejection becomes evidence of suppression, and suppression becomes evidence of truth. The cost of being wrong is replaced by the reward of being contrarian.”

The Mencken Conclusion

Smith lands on H.L. Mencken’s formulation:

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

Or as Smith puts it: solutions that are “neat, plausible, and wrong.”

Part II: The Problem Smith Doesn’t Solve

Knowing the Mechanism Doesn’t Give You the Truth

Here’s the difficulty: Smith’s analysis is hyper-astute. He understands exactly how propaganda works, how motivated reasoning operates, how social incentives corrupt epistemology.

But knowing all this doesn’t tell you what’s actually true.

You can be fully aware that:

• Your mind prefers coherence over accuracy
• You reason from identity first
• Social rewards can corrupt your judgment
• Ambiguity is psychologically uncomfortable
• Simple explanations are seductive

And still not know:

• Did Netanyahu actually influence Trump’s Iran policy?
• Was January 6th an insurrection or a protest that got out of hand?
• Is the 2020 election fraud story true, false, or partially true?
• What actually happened with Epstein?

Smith warns us against Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Megyn Kelly “drifting into something approaching madness.” But is he certain they’re wrong? Or is he certain that their conclusions are uncomfortable for his identity and social position?

The tools of critique cut both ways.

The Infinite Regress

This is the epistemological problem: once you recognize that all human knowing is filtered through bias, identity, social incentives, and the preference for coherence — how do you escape?

You can’t step outside your own cognitive apparatus. You can’t access reality unmediated. Every fact you encounter is:

• Selected by someone
• Framed by someone
• Interpreted through your existing categories
• Evaluated against your existing beliefs
• Accepted or rejected based partly on who told you

Is there any exit from this hall of mirrors?

Part III: The Practical Responses

1. News Aggregation — Ground.News and Its Limits

One response is to triangulate — to read sources from multiple perspectives and try to locate the truth somewhere in the middle.

Services like Ground.News explicitly show you how the same story is being covered by left, center, and right sources. The theory is that by seeing all perspectives, you can identify the common facts and discount the spin.

The strengths:

• Exposes you to perspectives you wouldn’t otherwise see
• Reveals the editorial choices different outlets make
• Helps identify which facts are disputed vs. agreed upon

The limits:

• Assumes the truth is somewhere in the middle (not always true)
• Still requires you to judge which sources are more reliable
• Can create false equivalence between strong and weak claims
• Doesn’t help with stories that all sides ignore or distort

2. Trusted Interpreters — Finding Honest Guides

Another response is to identify people who have demonstrated reliability over time — people who:

• Have been right when it was costly to be right
• Have admitted error when they were wrong
• Don’t shift their principles based on who benefits
• Show their work rather than demanding trust

Smith himself is doing this work — being the kind of thinker you can trust because he’s willing to criticize his own side (Owens, Carlson, Kelly).

The strengths:

• Outsources some of the cognitive load
• Benefits from another mind’s expertise
• Can learn the reasoning process, not just conclusions

The limits:

• Even reliable people are wrong sometimes
• Creates dependency rather than independent judgment
• The person you trust might be captured in ways you can’t see
• Still requires you to judge who is trustworthy

3. Sophisticated Skepticism — Knowing the Tricks

A third response is to become deeply educated in the mechanisms of manipulation:

• Logical fallacies
• Propaganda techniques
• Cognitive biases
• The tricks of man and Satan

The theory is that if you can identify when you’re being manipulated, you can resist it.

The strengths:

• Makes you a harder target
• Helps you see through obvious manipulation
• Creates intellectual humility about your own vulnerability

The limits:

• Knowledge of manipulation doesn’t tell you what’s true
• Can become a tool for dismissing everything
• Sophisticated skeptics can still be fooled (or fool themselves)
• Can lead to paralysis — unable to believe anything

4. Probabilistic Thinking — Degrees of Confidence

A fourth response is to abandon binary truth claims and think in probabilities:

• “I’m 70% confident that X is true”
• “The evidence for Y is stronger than for Z”
• “This claim has high uncertainty; I should hold it loosely”

The strengths:

• Matches the actual state of our knowledge
• Allows action without certainty
• Makes updating beliefs less threatening

The limits:

• Hard to maintain psychologically
• Doesn’t satisfy the human need for coherence
• Can become an excuse for never committing

Part IV: The Christian Response

The Pilate Question

Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?” — and did not wait for an answer.

The question was either rhetorical (expressing sophisticated cynicism) or genuine (but lacking the patience to receive the answer). Either way, Pilate represents the epistemological crisis of every age: standing in the presence of Truth itself and unable to recognize it.

Jesus’ Claim

Jesus made a claim that cuts through the epistemological maze:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)

This is not a claim that Jesus has information about truth. It is a claim that Jesus is truth — that truth is not primarily propositional but personal.

What does this mean for our epistemological crisis?

Truth as Personal, Not Just Propositional

The modern epistemological crisis assumes that truth is a matter of propositions — statements that correspond to reality. The question is how to verify which propositions are accurate.

But the biblical concept of truth is richer. In Hebrew, emet (truth) is related to emunah (faithfulness). Truth is not just accuracy but reliability, trustworthiness, integrity.

A person can “do truth” (John 3:21) — truth is something you live, not just something you know.

This suggests that the path to truth is not primarily intellectual but relational and moral:

• You come to know truth by being truthful
• You recognize truth by being aligned with the One who is Truth
• The person who “does evil hates the light” — moral corruption blinds

The Moral Prerequisite

Jesus said something that bears directly on Smith’s analysis:

“If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17)

The condition for knowing truth is willingness to do God’s will. Moral alignment precedes epistemic clarity.

This inverts the modern assumption. We think: first I need to know what’s true, then I can decide whether to obey. Jesus says: first commit to obedience, then you will be able to know.

Why would this be? Because, as Smith brilliantly documents, our knowing is corrupted by our wanting. We believe what serves our identity, our desires, our social position. The only way to purify knowing is to purify wanting.

The person who genuinely wants God’s will — who has subordinated personal desire to divine purpose — has removed the primary source of epistemic corruption.

The Holy Spirit as Guide

Jesus promised:

“When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” (John 16:13)

This is not a promise that Christians will have perfect knowledge about every political controversy. It is a promise that those who are indwelt by the Spirit have access to a guide who can lead them into truth.

What does this look like practically?

• Discernment — A spiritual sense for what is true and false, right and wrong
• Conviction — Inner witness when something is off, even if you can’t articulate why
• Community — The body of Christ providing multiple perspectives and accountability
• Scripture — A fixed reference point that doesn’t shift with cultural fashion

This doesn’t eliminate the need for the practical tools (aggregation, trusted interpreters, skepticism, probabilistic thinking). But it provides a foundation beneath them — a source of guidance that transcends human cognitive limitations.

Part V: A Framework for Truth-Seeking

1. Moral Purification First

Before asking “what is true?”, ask “what do I want to be true?”

Identify your motivated reasoning:

• What conclusion would serve my identity?
• What would be comfortable for my social position?
• What do I fear being true?
• What am I hoping is true?

Confess these biases. Bring them into the light. Ask God to purify your wanting so your knowing can follow.

2. Humility About Certainty

Hold most political and factual claims with appropriate uncertainty:

• What is the quality of the evidence?
• How much do I actually know vs. assume?
• What would change my mind?
• Am I willing to be wrong?

Reserve certainty for what Scripture clearly teaches. Hold human analysis — including your own — more loosely.

3. Test by Fruit

Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20).

This applies to truth claims as well as people:

• What happens when people believe this?
• Does this belief produce love, joy, peace — or fear, division, hatred?
• Does this narrative make people better or worse?
• What kind of person does this belief create?

This is not the only test — some truths are uncomfortable. But persistent bad fruit is a warning sign.

4. Consistency of Principle

Apply Smith’s test: would you believe this if the roles were reversed?

If Schiff had been a Republican claiming evidence against a Democratic president, would you evaluate the claim the same way? If the same tactics were used by your side, would you defend them?

Inconsistency is a sign of identity-based reasoning. Consistency is evidence (not proof) of principle-based reasoning.

5. Community Discernment

Don’t try to figure everything out alone. The body of Christ has many members:

• Different perspectives
• Different expertise
• Different blind spots

Iron sharpens iron. The fellowship exists partly for collective discernment — testing ideas against multiple minds, catching each other’s biases, praying together for wisdom.

6. Action in Uncertainty

Sometimes you must act without certainty. This is not failure — it is the human condition.

Act on the best information you have. Remain open to correction. Do not demand certainty before you can move.

But distinguish between:

• High-stakes moral decisions — where Scripture provides clear guidance
• Political/factual assessments — where uncertainty is inherent and humility appropriate

Don’t treat your political analysis with the same certainty you give to “thou shalt not murder.”

7. Fixed Points

Maintain fixed reference points that don’t shift:

• Scripture as the ultimate authority
• Christ as the embodiment of truth
• The moral law as non-negotiable
• The church as community of discernment

When everything seems uncertain, these remain. They are the bedrock beneath the shifting sand.

Part VI: What We Can and Cannot Know

What We Can Know with Confidence

• Moral truth — God’s standards of good and evil (revealed in Scripture)
• Spiritual truth — The gospel, the nature of God, the way of salvation
• Personal truth — What you have directly experienced and witnessed
• Relational truth — The character of people you know well over time

What We Hold with Appropriate Uncertainty

• Political narratives — Who is responsible for what, what are the real motivations
• Historical interpretations — What “really” happened and why
• Predictions — What will happen if X policy is enacted
• Institutional claims — What governments, media, experts tell us

What We Should Be Skeptical About

• Claims that align too perfectly with what we want to believe
• “Secret knowledge” that elevates the believer above the masses
• Simple explanations for complex events
• Narratives that demonize the other side completely
• Information from sources with obvious conflicts of interest

Part VII: The Mencken Trap and Its Escape

Smith quotes Mencken: solutions that are “neat, plausible, and wrong.”

This is the trap: the human mind craves neatness and plausibility. Reality is messy and often implausible. We will always be tempted to accept the satisfying story over the complicated truth.

The escape is not to stop wanting understanding. That would be intellectual death.

The escape is to want truth more than comfort. To be willing to live with uncertainty rather than false certainty. To prefer the uncomfortable truth to the satisfying lie.

This is a moral achievement, not just an intellectual one. It requires:

• Courage to face what you don’t want to see
• Humility to admit what you don’t know
• Faith that truth will ultimately vindicate itself
• Community to support you in the discomfort

And ultimately, it requires relationship with the One who is Truth — not just accurate propositions, but the Person who said “I am the truth” and who promises that “the truth shall make you free.”

Part VIII: Discussion Questions for the Fellowship

On Smith’s Analysis

1. Smith describes “Schiff Syndrome” — believing something because you want it to be true. Can you identify examples of this in your own thinking? On your own “side”?
2. He says, “People reason from identity first and evidence second.” How do you know when you’re doing this? How do you resist it?
3. Smith notes that “secret knowledge” functions as social currency. Have you experienced this — the temptation to believe something partly because it makes you feel smarter than the masses?
4. He criticizes Owens, Carlson, and Kelly — people on his own side. What does it take to criticize your own side? Why is it important?

On Epistemology

5. What practical methods do you use to determine what’s true about political/factual claims? How well do they work?
6. Is triangulation (reading multiple perspectives) sufficient? What are its limits?
7. How do you decide who to trust as an interpreter of events? What criteria do you use?
8. Smith’s analysis cuts both ways — the tools of critique apply to him too. How do we avoid the infinite regress of skepticism?

On the Christian Response

9. What does it mean that Jesus is “the truth” (John 14:6) — not just that He speaks truth, but that He is truth?
10. John 7:17 suggests that moral alignment precedes epistemic clarity. Have you experienced this? What does it look like practically?
11. How does the Holy Spirit guide into truth? What does this feel like? How do you distinguish it from your own preferences?
12. How should the fellowship function as a community of discernment? How do we help each other see past our blind spots?

On Application

13. What claims are you currently holding with too much certainty? What would it take to hold them more loosely?
14. What claims are you avoiding because they’re uncomfortable? What would it take to examine them honestly?
15. What are your fixed points — the truths you will not compromise regardless of what arguments are made?

Key Quotes Worth Preserving

On motivated reasoning:

“It was never about whether he had the goods; it was about whether people wanted him to have them.”

On pattern completion:

“The human mind is not built for suspended judgment. It is built to complete patterns, impose order, and resolve uncertainty.”

On identity-based reasoning:

“People reason from identity first and evidence second. The operative question is rarely ‘What is true?’ in isolation, but ‘What fits with who I am, what I value, and the people I align with?'”

On secret knowledge:

“‘Secret knowledge’—the idea that one sees what others cannot—functions as social currency.”

On the feedback loop:

“Rejection becomes evidence of suppression, and suppression becomes evidence of truth.”

On the function of false belief:

“Many beliefs that appear absurd from the outside are, from within, perfectly rational. They are doing exactly what they were designed to do: provide coherence, confer belonging, and—perhaps most importantly—make the believer feel like one of the few who truly understands what is going on.”

The Mencken formulation:

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

A Closing Prayer

Lord God, You are Truth. Not just accurate information, but Truth itself — faithful, reliable, trustworthy, whole.

We confess that our knowing is corrupted by our wanting. We believe what serves our identity, our comfort, our social position. We prefer coherence to accuracy, simplicity to complexity, certainty to humility.

Purify our wanting so our knowing can follow. Give us the courage to face truths we don’t want to see. Give us the humility to admit what we don’t know. Give us the faith to live with uncertainty rather than grasp at false certainty.

Send Your Spirit to guide us into truth. Help us discern between Your voice and our own preferences. Give us community that sharpens our thinking and catches our blind spots.

And fix our eyes on Jesus — the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In a world of manufactured narrative and motivated reasoning, He remains the fixed point that does not shift.

Make us people who do truth, not just believe it. Let our lives be wrought in God, manifest in the light.

In Jesus’ name, Amen.

“Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.”
— Proverbs 23:23

“The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment.”
— Proverbs 12:19

Source Material: Michael Smith (@utahprez), Facebook post on “Schiff Syndrome” and motivated reasoning (March 28, 2026); H.L. Mencken on simple solutions; Renaissance Ministries fellowship discussions on discernment.

Related Christos Content: “The Kings You Cannot See” (essay on manufactured movements); “Planting Roots in the Cold” (March 30 fellowship); Christos AI Theological Grammar (Part VI: Engaging Parasitic Ideas).