Elon Musk Thinks the West Needs Christianity - Why? With Vishal Mangalwadi - Ideas Have Consequences

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Scott Allen (00:00):
Well, welcome again , everybody to another episode
of Ideas have Consequences.
This is the podcast of theDisciple Nations Alliance.
My name is Scott Allen, I'm thepresident of the DNA and I'm
joined today by my colleaguesLuke Allen and Dwight Voet.
And our special guest today isour old friend, longtime friend,

(00:20):
vishal Mongolwadi.
It's so nice to have you backon Ideas have Consequences,
vishal, great to see you.

Vishal Mangalwadi (00:26):
Thank you for having me and thank you for
what you're doing around theworld.

Oh, it's a joy to have you back with us, and for
those of you who are unfamiliarwith Vishal if you've missed our
earlier podcasts just a briefintroduction.
Vishal is born and raised inIndia.
He's a Bible scholar,philosopher and just brilliant

(00:56):
thinker when it comes to thesubject of the impact that the
Bible has made on shapingculture around the world, I
really don't think there'sanyone that understands that
topic as clearly and deeply asVishal does.
He's the author of many books,probably most famously a book by

(01:20):
the title of the Book that Madeyour World how the Bible
created the soul of Westerncivilization an outstanding book
that I highly recommendeveryone get a hold of and read.
We had the privilege of workingwith Vishal on a couple of
other books Truth andTransformation, another
outstanding book that I wouldrecommend that you look at.

(01:42):
And then, of course, he's got anumber of new books that kind
of continue in these same themes.
But anyways, there's so muchmore I could say Vishal.
I just encourage you to learnmore about him and his writing,
his teaching, and anyway, it'sgreat to have you back with us
again, vishal.

Well, thank you again.
Yes, I've enjoyed the supportand publicity that DNA has given
me.

Well, we feel like we're team members, even though
we're not in the sameorganization.
We very much are working in thesame ministry, the same mission
, and you play such a vital rolein it.
Hey, I thought we'd get ourconversation started today with
something that Luke just broughtto my attention.
Before you came on.

(02:32):
I thought this was reallyfascinating, a little exchange
that happened on X, formerlyTwitter.
Luke, do you want to explainwhat you were seeing there?

Luke Allen (02:42):
Sure yeah, I thought this was really interesting.
I think this happened overChristmas on Twitter, on X, and
this was a tweet that I know,vishal, you saw Actually on your
Instagram is where I saw itbecause of the screenshot but
Zuby, who's a Christian rapper,he sent out a brief tweet Just
sounds like one, just a thoughtof his, and it says quote I

(03:07):
don't think I've ever said thispublicly and directly, but I
think the West is absolutelyscrewed if we lose Christianity.
Explaining this in full wouldrequire an entire book, but I've
thought about it a lot over theyears and I've reached this
conclusion.
So he sends out that tweet andthen, right there, elon Musk,
the owner of Twitter, justdecides to comment and he says I

(03:29):
think you are probably rightthat we're absolutely screwed if
the West loses Christianity.
And then I love this becauseyou screen-shotted this, Vishal,
and you said this is the bookyou're looking for and you
pointed to the book that changeseverything, which I would agree
with.
I think that book does anexcellent job explaining why the

(03:51):
West and the world at largeneeds Christianity.
And, yeah, so I heard that yousent Elon Musk the book and I
hope he reads it, because thistweet just it reminds.
It seems like a reoccurringevent that we're seeing right
now amongst a lot of criticalthinking people in the West, all

(04:14):
over the world, but people thatare recognizing the importance
that the Bible has played inshaping the culture and the
world that we live in, theimportance that the Bible has
played in defining right andwrong and morality and things
that we all agree are good andwe want to see continue in the
world.
But more and more people thataren't Christians are drawing

(04:36):
the line back to the Bible,which I think is really
encouraging.
Is that something that you'venoticed?

Yes, this is something which is amazing
because what Elon Musk is sayingis exactly what comes to mind.
It's crazy about this and it'sincredibly, truly incredible,
the place where Tom Holland, anatheist historian, science
fiction writer in Britain, hehad come to the same conclusion,

(05:06):
which he outlines in his bookthe Dominion, and Jordan
Peterson is perhaps the mostfamous public intellectual
around the world who has come tothe same conclusion.
Two years ago, I gave him thecopies of the book that made

(05:27):
your world, and this bookchanged everything, the two
books in which I developed thethesis.
I have four or five books aboutIndia, how the Bible created
modern India, but these arebooks about the Western
civilization.
And when I gave it to him, helooked at the book that made

(05:47):
your world, the book that youmentioned, and he asked me did
you write this as an Indian?
So I said yes, I wrote thesebooks before coming to the USA,
that particular book.
So he said, I'm looking for abook on this topic.
So two, three days later, myfriends, I had deliberately not

(06:12):
signed the book or put mycontact information because I
wanted him to engage with thethesis rather than with me.
So three days later, peoplebegan calling me from Africa,
from Germany, india, that JordanPeterson is looking for your
contact information.
So then he told me that he'sread the book.

(06:35):
He's now reading the secondbook.
This book changed everythingand he would like to interview
me.
Then he did that one hour 47minute interview which has had
almost 300,000 views.
But David Gress I'm lookingforward to a public dialogue
with him in Scandinavia in April.

(07:00):
He was one of the first in hisbook from Plato to NATO.
He's a proper professionalhistorian.
His book is most famous book iscalled from Plato to NATO,
where he was the first to exposethe modernist myth that the

(07:20):
enlightenment, rationalism,created the modern world.
So he has also moved very closeto the position which Elon Musk
is expressing, that it isChristianity which has created
the modern world and if the Westloses Christianity it will be

(07:42):
devastated.
You have Neil Nile Ferguson,another public intellectual.
It's very interesting thatNile's wife, ayan Ali Hersie she
is a Somali refugee who becamea member of parliament in
Holland Opposed Islam after 9-11, her one of her intellectual

(08:10):
partner, so political partner.
He was stabbed to death byMuslim terrorists and on the
knife which they left on herbody was a note that she will be
next.
So she had to flee Holland andcome to North America.
She became a public atheist, avery close friend with Richard

(08:36):
Dawkins, sam Harris and theother atheists.
But in London, during Ock, Igave her a copy of the book that
made your world.
She asked me to sign it, whichI did, and then four days later

(08:56):
she made a public statement thatshe is now a Christian.
So from a Muslim to an atheistand having become a Christian
was very interesting.
So you're right that there arenumber of these public
intellectuals who are admittingnow.
Most of them have not yetdeclared themselves to be

(09:20):
Christian, but they're declaringpublicly that the Christianity,
the Bible, is the force thathas created the modern world and
the only way to revive the Westis to return to the Bible.

(09:41):
So you're right and I'mgrateful that the Lord is using
these books.

Vichal, I wanna talk more about this.
I find this one of the mostfascinating things that's
happening in the world right now, this movement that you're
speaking of.
You mentioned many names IonHersey, lle, jordan Peterson,
douglas Murray, tom Holland andnow I didn't know this until
this morning apparently ElonMusk, right, is saying I think

(10:13):
you're right, we would bescrewed without the Bible.
I just find this fascinatingand I think I really was looking
forward to having you on to getyour perspective on this.
I call it maybe it's a movementI'm not quite sure what you
would call it.
It's a movement that, the way Ilook at it, it's a returning

(10:39):
and a valuing again of the rolethat the Bible and Christianity
has played in building the Westand particularly the parts of
the West that these publicintellectuals really treasure,
these things like free speech,freedom of religion, a lot of

(11:02):
these traditional liberal valuesthat they apparently are seeing
as under threat right now.
You're right.
In my lifetime you called it themodernist myth or the modernist
narrative that has held sway inthe West in my lifetime.

(11:23):
So you would expect people likethese folks to basically
reinforce that narrative thatthe West was a messed up dark
ages type of place with allsorts of religious wars, and it

(11:44):
wasn't until the Enlightenmentand kind of the age of reason,
when we got rid of the Bible andGod, that things started kind
of moving in a positivedirection.
I mean, you do a much betterjob, vishal, of kind of
describing the modernistnarrative than I would, but
that's kind of it in a nutshell.
I mean, that's all I've heardfrom people in kind of leading
intellectual circles in mylifetime and all of a sudden

(12:06):
here comes this group almost outof nowhere that are kind of
rejecting that and saying no, itturns out that the Bible really
is something that's essential.
I would love to hear your takeon why.
Why is this happening now?

Well, there are many factors.
One is the counter-culturalmovement of the 1960s, when the
students in Berkeley Universityand others places shouted
slogans hey, hey, ho, ho,western civ got to go.
The western civ that they weretalking about was in fact that

(12:45):
modernist myth that had beeninvented in the first decade of
the 20th century in New York andpromoted by people like Will
Durant.
Will Durant was a lapsed RomanCatholic.
Every Monday evening he gave alecture in a presbyterian church
across the main entrance to theNew York University and his

(13:10):
lectures were published as storyof civilization, story of
philosophy, et cetera.
So in those lectures he hadpromoted this myth.
And the sad thing was thatbecause the Christians in North
America and Europe had abandoneduniversities and moved into

(13:35):
Bible seminaries, the bestChristian minds were training
seminary students.
They were not traininghistorians and sociologists and
philosophers, thinkers.
So the Christian interpretationof the western history was

(13:58):
became unknown.
Average pastor didn't know.
Average theologian who hadstudied in seminary could be
very intelligent, could knowGreek and Hebrew, but he didn't
know how the modern world wascreated.
So the only voice that washeard there were a few

(14:18):
exceptions, such as FrancisSchaefer's.
How should we then live?
That was one of the series thathelped many of us, but it was
not a serious academic work butsince-.

If I could just interrupt really quick, michelle
, on that.
I have just my own personalstory just relates to this,
because I grew up here in thestate of Oregon, went to a very
liberal arts university andstudied history and I was a
young Christian at that time,but the portrayal of history
that I was taught in myundergraduate years was

(14:57):
uniformly shaped by themodernist myth.
And so, for example, especiallyin early American history, you
know, when you study thePuritans and the pilgrims that
settled here, I mean they werethese backwards people and they
were killing Native Americansand violent and they enslaved

(15:18):
people and this, and that it wasall uniformly negative and I
kind of absorbed that right.
And so even as a youngChristian I'm kind of ashamed to
be a Christian because of somuch negative things that have
happened in the past in the nameof Jesus.
And it wasn't until I got outof college.
I read a couple of books that,by the way, I never was

(15:40):
introduced to in college.
One of those books was WilliamBradford's book.
You know he was the governor ofthe Plymouth Plantation, very
famous.
You know biography and I wasstunned by you know just the
depth of his thinking, biblicalthinking, his compassion.
It wasn't at all like thisportrayal, the stereotype that

(16:02):
I'd learned.
And then I met UV Shall and youintroduced me to the work of
John Wesley and all that hadhappened in England during the
Wesleyan revivals, and I thoughtI never studied this Like I,
just it was completely wiped out, you know, and it wasn't until
after I got out of college thatI was first exposed to some of
these ideas.
But just, you know, my ownpersonal story intersects with

(16:26):
this so much and I remember justbeing I felt like I was ripped
off, like I was.
Yeah, I spent a lot of moneyand I was just had, you know, by
my education, right.

So you know, just go ahead.
Well, you're absolutely right.
And Tom Holland, for example,who has written now extensively
that the Bible, christianity,created the modern world, all
the best things in England,europe, come from Christianity.
He made a statement in one ofhis Zoom events that freedom and

(17:00):
democracy came from Greece andI wrote in the chat that no,
they didn't, they came from theBible.
So the organizer, Jeff Fountain, of his Zoom, he asked if I
would be willing to discuss thiswith Tom Holland.
I said sure.
So Tom Holland and I had a Zoomdialogue in which it is on

(17:26):
YouTube three times.
In that one hour Tom Holland'sacknowledges that he had never
studied the history of freedomand democracy and I gave him all
the reasons why modern freedomand democracy came from the
Bible, not from Greece.
The only political systemGreece ever exported was

(17:46):
totalitarian imperialism.
Through Alexander the Great, itbegan the empire in India.
The Greece never taught freedomand democracy because the
greatest of Greece.

As an Indian, you have a particular perspective on
this here as well.
That's right and the greatestof Greek thinkers Plato and
Aristotle.

They both condemned democracy as the worst
of all political systems.
So that was very interestingthat here is a professional
historian who has alreadywritten books saying that the
best features of the best camefrom Christianity.
But he has no idea that freedomand democracy came from
Christianity.

(18:27):
So that video is online.
But if I may mention a few morenames that your listeners might
take care of, I mean follow upOne is Rodney Stark.
He was a sociologist in theWashington State University,

(18:51):
then Baylor University.
He wrote a number of very goodbooks in which he helped
demolish the modernist myth andthe attack that you referred to
about slavery and this and thatthe birth of modern science.
So there are many good booksthat he wrote.

(19:13):
The best one is For the Gloryof God.
For the Glory of God, howmonotheism created a number of
features that he talks about.
The Victory of Reason isanother one.
Now there is a Australiansociologist, peter Harrison.

(19:34):
He spent seven years in Europestudying.
Why did modern science begin inEurope, not in China, not in
India, not in Japan, but inEurope?
And why did it begin in the16th, 17th century?
Why not in the 15th century?

(19:55):
What were the sociologicalfactors, and he has many books
on the topic published byCambridge University Press.
He's.
The best one that I love iscalled Protestantism Bible and
the Rise of Natural Science.
So there were many RomanCatholics involved in the birth

(20:18):
of modern science, but they hadaccepted a Protestant
hermeneutic which was inductivemethod of studying God's
revelation, both in the Word ofGod and in nature.
The God has written two booksthe Book of His Words, which is

(20:39):
the Bible, the Book of His Works, which is nature creation, and
both of them have to be studiedinductively, not imaginatively,
not allegorically.
So Peter Harrison has thiswhole thesis that the way
Protestant movement began tostudy the Bible, paying

(21:01):
attention to the data, therevealed data, the grammar, the
words, et cetera that was themost important factor, what he
calls the inductive method ofstudy being faithful to facts,
faithful to data.
Now David Lendis, amacroeconomist at Harvard, he is

(21:27):
one who, after 78 years of theuniversity world condemning Max
Weber's thesis that moderneconomic miracle happened
because of the ProtestantReformation.
So Max Weber is one of thefathers of social sciences and

(21:50):
he wrote during the first twodecades of the 20th century in
Germany.
His father was a Lutheran,mother was a Calvinist, so one
vacation they will go to theLutheran side of the family,
another vacation to theCalvinist side of the family.
And as he was growing up he wasnot a Christian but he noticed

(22:11):
that the Calvinist community,not just his immediate family,
but as a community, they weredoing better economically than
the Lutherans and Lutherans weredoing better than the Roman
Catholics and the Catholics weredoing better than the Orthodox
and the Orthodox were doingbetter than Muslims and Hindus.
A lot of information wasavailable about India through

(22:33):
the East India Company, theeconomic information.
So as he began to see, he sawthat religion plays important
role in economic development oras hindrance to progress, and he
wrote about it, that how, notall his ideas, the details, like

(22:57):
he said that faith andpredestination helped economic
progress, et cetera, but theoverall piece is that religion,
religious ideas, either hinderprogress or motivate progress.
So this, the whole of theuniversity movement for a

(23:19):
century, almost at least 80years, condemned this because
they were materialists who hadaccepted Karl Marx's
presupposition that economicsdetermined philosophy, morality,
ethics and sociology, that it'scalled economic determinism,

(23:42):
that life is shaped by economics, by matter.
And Max Weber was saying noideas come first, word come
first.
In the beginning was the word.
The word creates, the wordcommunicates ideas.
So it is the ideas, the belief,the values that that shape

(24:08):
society.
So for decades Max Weber wascondemned or ignored.
But David Lendis, this macrohistorian who wrote a book
called the wealth and poverty ofthe nations Adam Smith had
written in 1776 the wealth ofthe nations, david Lendis writes

(24:32):
the wealth and poverty of thenations why are some so rich and
some so poor?
And In that he argues that MaxWeber was right.
And since then he's publishedmany things, in which in one of
his as is, he Begins the as abluntly to for his Academic

(24:52):
colleagues that Max Weber wasright.
The university movement hasbeen wrong for that same
implication for almost a century.
So Peter Harrison on science,david Lendis on economics,
rodney Stark on sociology, youknow, are just a Some of the

(25:14):
examples that your question iswhy is this movement now
happening globally, that publicintellectuals are Saying that
Christianity is the reason forthe in whole progress of the
last 500 years, of the Westcoming out of the dark ages,

(25:38):
middle Ages and then blessingand transforming the world, like
DNA is trying to do in Africa,in in Asia, in South America,
making an impact to change thedestiny of the nations?

So, if I could summarize, you're saying, you
know, hey, there always has beensome faithful people in the
academic world, even through the, the heyday of the modernist
myth, that we're still trying tokeep alive the idea that, no,
you know, in these differentrealms of Economics and other
realms, it was really the Bibleand biblical ideas that were,
that were heavily influential in, in shaping the modern West.

(26:25):
I still, yeah, I have a theory.
I'd like to run it by youbecause as to why this, this new
movement, is bursting onto thescene right now, I I read a book
.
I'm sure you probably read itas well the madness of crowds by
Douglas Murray.
He's an Oxford professor, youknow, non-christian guy.

(26:48):
He wrote this in response to.
I read this when I wasresearching my book on on
Cultural Marxism and socialjustice.
You know my most recent bookand he was writing on the same
thing.
You know he was saying, wow,you know we're seeing this
Really radical move now back toa kind of a cultural Marxism.

(27:13):
You know that it's not new,right, it came out of the
Frankfurt school, you know,after World War two.
You know it led to the Marxistmovement in the United States
during the 1960s, but then itwas kind of squashed and now
it's kind of been reborn.
And it's Not only been reborn,it's been moving from strength

(27:36):
to strength to the point thatit's captured our institutions.
And I think that that you know,so that now when you look at you
know any of these majorinstitutions of the West
government, business, educationyou know they are all kind of
captured by this Radicalideology.
And Douglas Murray's writingabout that and he's going, he's

(27:57):
observing one facet of it and Ithought this was so fascinating.
He said this ideology is Basedon grievance right, that the
problems in the world Arebecause of a particular group
right, and in the new, in thenew iteration, there are white

(28:19):
Christian men or whatever it isyou know whiteness white
supremacy, you name it.
You know it's the problems inthe world or because of a
particular group.
We have to, you know theresponse to that is we have to,
you know, tear that group down.
You know it's a retributive,it's grievance oriented, it's

(28:44):
about taking back.
And he was looking at that andhe's observing that.
He got on to the, the, thetopic of forgiveness.
He said there's no forgivenessin this ideology, like there's
no sense of, for you know,there's no Reconciliation, no
forgiveness.
And then he was just reflectingon that.
What would that mean in aculture If you eliminated

(29:08):
forgiveness?
Right, you know, reconciliation, what would it mean in a family
?
What would it mean in in entirecivilization?
And he was alarmed like, oh mygosh, that you know everything
would fall apart and it.
And then you saw him go.
Oh, you know, he turned fromthat to oh, that comes from the

(29:28):
Bible, right, that idea, youknow, forgiveness and loving our
neighbor and you know, lovingour enemies, and he goes, that
just doesn't spread Fromanywhere.
That doesn't come from themodernist myth, that comes from
the Bible.
And here's this non-Christianguy, you know, you know,
homosexual guy, who startstalking very positively about

(29:49):
the Bible.
But what it did for me, v shall, was it?
It made me think it.
The reason, part of the reason,as you said, I'm sure there's
many reasons for it, but part ofthe reason that this movement
is coming on to the scene now Isbecause things have gotten to
the point in the West where youcan't take these for you.

(30:11):
All these good things that havecome out of the Bible and
Christianity cannot be taken forgranted anymore.
It looks like they literallycould go away and the threat,
you know, of this new ideologycoming on the scene is so
serious and I think, before youknow, they just there wasn't.
That's, you know, we, all ofthese good things forgiveness is

(30:31):
just one example could just betaken for granted, but they
can't be anymore.
Like we could lose these thingsand and it's causing great
alarm amongst these, thesefolks- Anyways, what are your
thoughts about my?
fear of what's kind of causingthis right now.
Yes, we should talk about themovement and how to respond to
it.

But if I mean , if I may add to what you've
just said, with two moreillustrations and the academic
work that DNA, particularlyDarrell Miller's books on family
, and marriage, wives, women,has been very important.

(31:16):
And and when Freud in early 20thcentury, sigmund Freud, father
of psychoanalysis, proposed thathe was an atheist.
So love was not a spiritualthing, love was a physical

(31:37):
instinct.
Sex was, and physical, chemicalinstinct for him.
A Repression of sexual urges,he said, causes all the mental
problems.
Schizophrenia, insanity, whatis called even possession,
everything is a result of Sexualrepression.

Everything that's wrong with the world basically
is is sexual repression, sexualrepression.

So sex should not, the sexual fantasies
should not be repressed, theyshould be expressed, which is at
the base of the modernpornography.
That if father and daughterhave Affection for each other,
that should not be repressed butexpressed.
And practice, practices yourfantasies, implement them now.

(32:28):
If this is true, if Freud'soverall thesis is true, then
Societies that had loose sexualethics should be better and
healthier.
So there was an Oxford, aprofessor.
He was teaching both in Oxfordand Cambridge.
Joseph Unwin hidden a massivesociological study of Are those

(32:55):
societies that have of free,free, merit, freedom for
pre-medical sex or extramaritalsex Are they better, stronger,
healthier?
Then Puritan societies,societies based on Puritan
ethics.
That even if you're personallynot a Puritan, you may be a

(33:19):
president of America who ishaving a face with other women,
women other than your wife, andAmerican culture would still
impeach a president who liesabout his private sex life.
So the American culture isstill Puritan, even if

(33:41):
Individuals don't believe that.
So so he looked at this was amassive study, something over a
hundred Society for whichanthropological data was
available of what exactly aretheir sexual norms and how is
their health as a society.

(34:02):
And Joseph Unwin concluded inhis massive book On sex and
civilization, that in fact theseSocieties, which are called
patriarchal, christian,puritanical, they have produced
the healthiest men, women,children, families, nations, now

(34:27):
the academic world.
So this was a proper academicanthropological research.
But for a hundred years theAnthropological I mean the
University world has suppressedthis study and kept on promoting
the Philips, the atheistphilosophical Outlook that the

(34:53):
spirit should not rule over theflesh, flesh should rule, which
is pornography, which ispermissiveness and which has
proven Disaster us that theCaucasian population in Europe
and and also in North America isdeclining.

(35:15):
The women do not want to getmarried and if they get married
they do abort their babies, theydo not want to have children.
Self-interest is above theinterest of sacrificing yourself
for your children, building upthe next generation.
So here is one area with Josephwhich for hundred years we have

(35:40):
had scientific evidence thatChristian sexual ethics Actually
creates the strongest men andwomen and children, families and
economy.
In politics I can give moreillustrations, but if the people
are turning Back to exploreChristianity, we, the.

(36:06):
The real question is what do wedo?
How should we as the Christiancommunity, as the church,
respond to this growingphenomenon, the?
If I may articulate whatexactly the movement is?

Yeah, please.

At the end of October, 30, 31st, november,
1st, george Peterson and otherinitiated a conference in London
called arc Alliance forresponsible citizenship.

And this really bright.
I'm familiar with this Vshallon.
I know you went, you were apart of that.
This was really the kind of thefirst gathering of this
movement, in a sense.
Right, I mean, yes, yeah, goahead, yeah, so yes the second
one is planned for 2025.

One of the key figures behind it is John
Anderson of the formervice-president Prime Minister, a
deputy prime minister ofAustralia, philip Stroud, who is
coming to the USA.
She's a baroness Lady, a memberof House of Lords in Britain.
She was the chair, so she wasreally moving, leading back the

(37:26):
overall thesis.
Oz Guinness was one of theimportant speakers from the
first day.

Just just on that, there wasn't a lot of you know
again, these folks, as you said,many of them are not Christians
or they haven't come out yetand said you know, I'm a
believer in Jesus Christ, or hadsome kind of confession.
Many of them are, I think,right on the cusp of doing that,
some of them have I on her, seeAli.
But even in her testimony,which I read, I thought it was
fascinating.

(37:54):
It was such a fascinatingtestimony because you didn't
talk about a personalrelationship with Jesus Christ.
It talked about the fact thatI've come to recognize that
without the Bible, you know, wecan't have all of these things
that I so treasure and cherishin the West.
Yeah, and so now I'm aChristian.
It was, it was very much acivilizational kind of testimony
.

Yes, that was yes.

I thought was very fascinating.

Yeah, yes, you're right.
So yeah, there was Fordevotions.
There was poetry in the morning.

Dwight Vogt (38:26):
No very good poet.

You know Christian very good Poetries.

Not like you would have if you get a bunch of
evangelicals together at a LosAngeles conference or something
like that, right yeah it was nota Christian conference.

In fact, the very big difference between Los
on and our and and many peopleare seeing Jordan Peterson as
Contemporary Baleigram that hecan fill the stadiums and he can
fill Mega halls wherever hegoes, and people would pay
hundreds of dollars to come andhear him.

(39:02):
It's so.
He is becoming, if you're not,but he wouldn't call himself a
Christian, though he's come veryclose and his wife and his
daughter are believers.
His wife is her own Catholicand she told me that she gets up
four o'clock every morning topray, find her rosary and pray,

(39:24):
but for a while and they shedoes organize special Mass
services for him.
So for Christmas, new Year,easter, etc.
He would go to some of thesemass.
But he has very good friendsboth amongst Roman Catholics,

(39:44):
orthodox and Protestantevangelicals, so which is
Interesting.

Yeah, I remember what I was gonna say, because
you, vichel, I think, had the,you were kind of honored and so
was Osgenis.
There weren't, there wasn't alot, but they kind of reached
out to you out of the kind ofthe.
You know, let's say our side,you know, you know the kind of
the evangelical group andbrought you in which I thought
was that's quite an honor, youknow well, to be a part of that.
Yeah, it was actually.

There were many Christians, many believing
Christians, in the conferencethat were a part of prominent
roles.
Paul Marshall was an importantfigure behind Philippa Stroud.
So amongst the organizers theywere more British evangelicals
with whom I do did not havepersonal relationship who were

(40:35):
really hot-touching and runningthe thing got it.
Both Peterson and John Andersonpersonally wrote inviting me
and I've just received theirrequest for input in planning
the next session.
But but the important point isthat overall thesis of Ark which

(41:00):
emerged Through Christian andnon-Christian speakers.
So these are publicintellectuals, poets,
politicians, who are speakingand they, as well as economists,
businessmen.
They agreed with the overallthesis that Western civilization

(41:21):
is a beautiful bouquet offlowers and these flowers have
been cut From their roots.
Therefore the flowers arefading.
So the Western civilization isfading, withering because it is
cut from their roots.

(41:41):
And To reconnect the West toits roots is the big challenge.
And they acknowledge that theroots is the Bible, even the
non-christians who would callthemselves atheists.
Now, this was a thesis thatPope who, before he became the

(42:02):
Pope, joseph Ratzinger, whobecame Pope Benedict 16.

Not the current Pope, but the previous one.

Right, not the current Pope previous one
and with an American RomanCatholic intellectual, marcelo
Perra.
They wrote this book WithoutRoots the West Relativism
Christianity in Islam.
That's the subtitle.
The West RelativismChristianity in Islam.

(42:30):
The book is called WithoutRoots.
So this was their thesis.
But Osginus has used thisthesis.
Osginus, for those who do notknow, is a Christian public
intellectual, sociologist, whois written in many books.
So he articulated this JosephRatzinger's thesis in ARC with

(42:53):
John.
We receive general consensusNobody challenged it that yes,
the western civilization is abeautiful bouquet of flowers.
These flowers are witheringfamilies, withering economies,
in debt, etc.
Etc.
Business is no longertrustworthy because the flowers

(43:15):
have been cut off from theirroots.
So the one important weaknessof ARC was not acknowledging
that the flowers don't flowersand fruits don't come directly
out of the root, they come outof stem.

(43:37):
So it is the connected.
Flowers are connected to theroots through the stem, through
the branches.
This is what Jesus says I amthe wine, you are the branches,
you bear fruit and leaves forthe healing of the nations.
And this has been a veryimportant point that Bob Moffitt

(43:59):
, the co-founder of DNA, hasbeen making consistently that it
is not just the worldview, theroots, which produce flowers,
but the church, which is thestem out of which has come.
So the impact that the Biblehas had is because of the church

(44:24):
, which preserves, translated,publishes, distributes, teaches
the Bible and established allthe colleges, universities,
schools, etc.
So this is a missing piece inthe ARC movement.
Yes, yes, davidson Hunter.

(44:47):
He makes that point in changingthe world that it's not just
ideas.
Ideas have consequences, butideas need institutions, groups,
networks of groups, which hasbeen a very strong point that
Bob Moffitt has kept emphasizingand that was missing in ARC.

(45:11):
And if ARC is not able toreally mobilize the church, then
it will be a movement that goesnowhere because, this is really
the key that you have greatideas, you have the truth, but

(45:32):
actually truth was downplayed.
Very few of the speakers couldutter the word truth.
Their emphasis was story.
They used the word story,particularly Jordan Peterson
himself and Philippa Strout.

(45:53):
They called Christianity abetter story, and by the word
story they meant worldview.
So what you and I would havecalled 20 years ago a worldview,
they are calling it the story.
The story is the lens.
Your worldview is the lens withwhich you even read the Bible.

(46:16):
So instead of the Bible shapingyour worldview, you impose your
unconscious worldview derivedfrom your own sociology, whether
that's your Hindu culture orMuslim culture or Western
secular culture.
You impose that upon the Bible.
So that would be anotherimportant thing to discuss,

(46:39):
unless you have something else.

No, I would any of these threads.
I'm just so fascinated in thismovement, vishal and I.
Yeah, I've heard JordanPeterson speak on on story in a
very moving way.
I think you know he's exactlyright.
He says that you know people asindividuals and whole
civilizations.
They can't live apart from astory.

(47:03):
We all live out of stories, andyou know he's speaking, I think
, as a psychologist.
They are the importance ofthese stories, with story lines
and heroes and villains, and youknow things like that and that
the story.
So you can't take story forgranted.
Everyone's living out of somestory, whether you know it's
Karl Marx's story or you knowit's in the Bible.

(47:26):
I mean, darrow's book is calledthe Transforming.
You know his famous talk iscalled the Transforming Story.
The Bible is a story, you know.
Now you're right, though, thatit's not just any story.
It is.
It's not just a better story,it's the true story, it's the
story that aligns with reality.

Luke Allen (47:47):
So that's a problem if we can't come around and
saying, hey, and, yeah, go aheadIf you can't use the word, if
you don't want to use the wordtruth, then you know.
That's where.
That's where the importance ofthe word truth comes in, because
there is a true story.
Right, well not just betterstories, but you know yeah, true
stories, the capital T truthstory.

Yes, Francis Schaefer would have disagreed
with both Jordan Peterson andDarrow Miller.
Because 50 years ago Schaefersaw that this Jungian category
of story why, if it is truestory, why can't you call it

(48:27):
true truth?
So he pleaded that let's usethe phrase if you have to
qualify, because the true storymeans that this is true for you,
something else is true for him,but true truth that this is
actually what it is, that God isa triune person, etc.

(48:51):
That Jesus died for us and roseagain from the dead, why can't
we use the phrase true truth?
This was very important forSchaefer.
Many other people picked it upDouglas Grooth house in truth,
decay Osgin is in time for truth, etc.

(49:14):
But as a culture, the Westernepistemology has definitely
accepted the Jungian JosephCampbell's perspective on.
So Peterson does not use thephrase story as a story but as a

(49:35):
worldview, but mostly at anunconscious level.
So in his specialized sense,it's okay, what he called story,
we will call it worldview.
But the real problem with thatis that last night was a

(49:56):
historic movement for India,where the Prime Minister
breathed life into an idol ofLord Rama in an attempt to make
India a Hindu nation,deliberately, consciously built
upon a myth, a Hindu story of ayoung prince, ram, who kills a

(50:25):
demon, god Ravan, who hadabducted his wife, and rescues
his wife, only to abandon herwhile she was pregnant with twin
boys.
So this is the temple.
The new temple has beendescribed as the national temple

(50:46):
, like the National Cathedral ofHinduism, which a secular state
is not supposed to be building,but enormous amount of money
was spent in building thismovement, the temple, etc.
So the Hindus will say that,okay, the Bible is your story,

(51:07):
ramayana is our story, and isthe Bible a story they would
acknowledge?
For them, the word story meansmyth, mythology.
So to go back to our when,jordan Peterson, particularly

(51:30):
Philippa Stroud, the baroness,she is very good, she's an
evangelical, she was the leaderof the three-day conference.
When she describes Christianityas a better story and she picks
some things of Christianity,such as the equal dignity of

(51:52):
male and female, which Islamdoes not believe.

It isn't really a better flowers that we were
speaking about.
We were talking about flowersand cut flowers and, yeah,
that's an example of one of thebeautiful flowers, right?

But is human, equal dignity of male and
female, husband and wife, is ita better story or is it a
disastrous story that has isdestroying the family in the
West?
Or is Islam a better story inthe sense that women are not

(52:29):
equal to husbands, they have tosubmit to their husbands.
So, pragmatically, islam issucceeding in Europe where women
can have eight, ten children.
The modernist idea that a manshould have only one wife and
the wife should be able to getrid of the husband as soon as

(52:50):
she's fed up with him and hassomeone better, and she should
not have children.
So the concept of human dignitywithout the concept of human
depravity and in a depraved withdepraved heart, rotten heart.
How do a man and women livetogether?

(53:11):
A man and a woman, his wife,how do they live together?
So, by turning Christianity intoa story and picking up few
themes such as equality andhuman dignity, actually has made
the Western European.

(53:32):
I'm thinking mostly of Europewhere Caucasian in any school in
Holland, in a city, populationmay still be 60% Caucasian, but
in the school 60, 70, 80% of thechildren would be Muslims and

(53:53):
Hindus and Africans, because thewhite population is not having
children, because the family isnot working without the rest of
the biblical ideas of how, theconcept of leadership, concept
of headship, etc.
But this is where you need notto pick a better story, because

(54:19):
a better story without the fullof biblical worldview becomes a
disastrous story, a destructivestory, which in fact then hurts
the women the most.
So feminism picked up a fewideas from the Bible and has
hurt women more than Islam ishurt.

So, vishal, just to summarize what we've been
saying here, if I could, justbecause I'm trying to track with
our, I think, really importantdiscussion.
We're talking about our the,the movement.
It's got a lot of promise, youknow, in the sense that these
are public intellectuals withlarge platforms that are saying,
hey, the Bible is reallyimportant and we, so much of

(55:07):
what has been good in the Westhas come from the Bible.
We need to recover that.
So that's good, but you'resaying there's some real dangers
with it as well.
One of them is picking andchoosing particular things that
they like about the Bible, butnot seeing it as a comprehensive
worldview in a kind of holisticand integrated way.

(55:28):
I think another thing that yousaid was a weakness is that it's
still, you know, it's kind ofin the realm of ideas.
These are biblical ideas thatare good ideas, but ideas
separated from the people right,the institution, the people of
God, or I might even say this iswhere I thought, you know, when

(55:49):
I read I on her see Ali'stestimony I thought, you know, I
really hope that she can getpast the point that she's at
right now.
It's great where she's atrecognizing that the Bible is
good and that Christianity hasgiven so many good fruits to
Western civilization.
But she needs to get to thepoint where she sees not just
biblical ideas but the person ofJesus and actually falls in

(56:10):
love with him and devotes herlife to him, right?
You know?
I mean there has to be thatlevel of commitment or this
isn't going to work.
And I that's kind of what I'mhearing you say when you were
talking about the church.
The church, the people of God,the people that you know have.
You know, you know we're inthis, not, I mean it's we love
the ideas, but it's not aboutthe ideas.

(56:32):
At the end of the day, you know, it's about the person of Jesus
, right?

any thoughts?
Yes, yes, I think you're makinga very important point and I
would like to actually go in twodifferent directions.
One is this practical issuethat you have said about the
relationships, humanrelationships, networks, but but

(56:59):
so how do we take this, theseideas, to the people, the
movement, the global movement,to?
actually change the future.
But let's let's take a fewminutes to talk about the
individuals themselves,individual such as I am Ali

(57:19):
Hirsi, jordan Peterson, tomHolland yeah, these people
represent what happened toAmerica's greatest philosopher
of the 20th century, mortimerEdler.
Edler was born in a liberalJewish home in New York.
At the age of 14 he wasdistributing newspapers.

(57:41):
He started reading Aristotle.
From Aristotle he went on toThomas Aquinas and began
mastering the great classics ofWestern civilization.
So when Chicago University,with the president Hutchins,

(58:01):
decided to have the great bookscurriculum in Chicago, he
invited Edler to create thegreat books curriculum.
The idea was that since theBible Bible has been rejected by
Western universities, how isthe West going to live?

(58:22):
So an alternative Bible whichis the great books of the West.
This curriculum was created byEdler and Cyclopedia Britannica
published the 50 initially.
These are 54, well volumes, or52 volumes, which grew to be 60

(58:42):
or so now at the.
So Edler is a liberal, jew andatheist, kind of a person,
agnostic at least.
But he was married twice.
His first wife died.
Both his wives were Anglicans,high Anglican's, episcopal.
So he became an Episcopal when,by the time, he was 70, 80.

(59:10):
But this was the phase ofAmerican Christianity of mass
evangelism by Billy Graham, kindof Crusades.
Here is a secular intellectualwho is struggling and realizing

(59:33):
that actually the great books ofwestern civilization contradict
each other much more thanso-called contradictions in the
Bible which Thomas Paine hadhighlighted in the Age of Reason
to discredit the Bible.
So, after his second wife died,finally Hitler converted to

(59:57):
Roman Catholicism because for 50, 60 years some very intelligent
Roman Catholics had become hisfriends and remained his friends
, not trying to impose theirreligion or Catholicism upon
them.
But the Protestants had notcared for this public

(01:00:19):
intellectual who was recognizedor acknowledged by many circles
as America's most importantphilosopher of the 20th century.
So he became a Roman Catholic.
Now, thankfully, these number ofnames that I have given,
including Elon Musk, that youhave given of people who are
recognizing that we have to getaway from the modernist myth of

(01:00:44):
enlightenment, creating themodern world back to the roots.
These individuals need thecommunity, the church, the
friendships, the relationships,and thankfully there are a
number of very good evangelicalthinkers.
Ozganis is just one who isbeing widely respected and

(01:01:06):
accepted by these people, butthey need a whole group of us to
pray for them, befriend them,minister to them which is
necessary for them to eventuallyenter into a relationship not
just with Jesus personally, butwith the body of Christ, which

(01:01:31):
is the church.
Now, this is one aspect where,on different social media, you
would see silly Christiansattacking Jordan Peterson
because he doesn't follow ourdetails of our theology.
He says this and he says thatOf course he is not a Christian

(01:01:54):
yet.
But while the evangelicalprotestant Christians are
condemning these individuals fornot accepting our vocabulary
and our ideology, but lovingthem, sticking with them,
supporting them withoutcompromising our faith, but

(01:02:17):
sharing openly the reality ofJesus in us, we in Jesus.
So the building of this sorrygo ahead.

Scott Allen (01:02:29):
Just on that.
I would again back to AyanHursiali.
When her testimony waspublished I think it was in the
Wall Street Journal- was it?

Vishal Mangalwadi (01:02:36):
Yes, several places, I saw it yes.

Okay anyways.
Yeah, I was kind of surprisedin the days following that that
a lot of evangelicals respondedcritically to it and they
recognized that, oh, she doesn'treally have a relationship with
Jesus.
She's talking about ideas andcivilizations, but she doesn't
really know Jesus, and I thoughtit was unfortunate, because

(01:03:00):
when I read her testimony Ithought, well, but she's seeing
things that you don't see right,she's seeing the power of these
biblical ideas to shape acivilization which we in the
church we kind of completelyhave forgotten.
It's just all about gettingpeople into the church and
getting them saved and we don'ttalk about culture and
civilization.

(01:03:20):
That's not important, right?
I mean, you know, and that'sbeen my great frustration, it's
like, no, we have to, you know,see our faith as something not
just personal and individual andpietistic, but as something
that actually shapes culturesfor the good, you know.
And she said that's what she'sseeing, you know, praise God for
that.
So it's kind of like could wehave some?

(01:03:42):
We, being evangelicals, havesome humility here.
Yes, she needs a personalrelationship with Christ.
We understand that.
Right, that's our side, we getthat and she needs that.
But we also need something.
We need to kind of recover whatshe's got, which is this bigger
picture of what Christianity is, that it's a powerful worldview
that shapes a flourishingcivilization.

(01:04:04):
Right, we need to recover that20 years ago, it's almost like
as Christians, we've over,complicated it.

Luke Allen (01:04:13):
In a way.
We get into the theologicaldebates and this and that, and
we've in a way, forgotten thethe true story or, as you said,
vishal, the true truth you know,and then these people from
outside the church see the truetruth and how absolutely
influential it's been in theworld and they're pointing to
that and as Christians we losesight of that and we get stuck

(01:04:36):
in our little arguments.

Yeah, 20 years ago, the same thing
happened with Jane Fonda, whenshe became a Christian, having
been married for the second timeto with Turner, the CNN, the
founder of CNN, and seeing theemptiness of the secular,

(01:04:59):
atheistic worldview, and sheturned to Christ.
But because she had taken astand against America in Vietnam
, the Christian community, theChristian right, would have
nothing to do with her except asa judgment, and so, yes, so the

(01:05:22):
good thing about ARC is that atleast 60 70% of the
participants identifiedthemselves as Christians
somewhere Roman Catholics,somewhere Orthodox, but vast
majority were evangelical.
And because there was such astrong Christian presence, the

(01:05:45):
good thing is that Christianshave the freedom to speak,
although not all the Christianswho got an opportunity to speak
spoke clearly, including abouttheir personal relationship with
Christ.
One of the best voices actuallywas the producer, director, of

(01:06:08):
the movie sound of music, asound of freedom.
He's running become thepresident of Mexico, so he's in
the race.
And if he's the.

If he wins that Mexican yeah, he's a.
He's the other yeah, really, ifhe wins.

Mexico.
You will suddenly have apresident in Argentina and a
president in Mexico who are veryclose to us, and in his case he
was the best Christian witnessfrom the platform in ARC isn't
that something?
yes, but he was only one.

(01:06:45):
There were a few others, butmany, many other people who
should have been clear in thetestimony were guarded,
unfortunately, and that's aproblem.
So, but the good thing is thatthese public intellectuals who

(01:07:05):
are realizing they would callthe Bible as the root of western
civilization, they will callChristianity as the root of the
West.
Now I prefer to insist on theBible because Christianity has
been so messed up, which whichthe Bible is under attack, was

(01:07:27):
under attack so, and people havelegitimate concerns about
promoting the Bible.
But I think if the Bible isGod's word, then defending the
Bible is easier than defendingthe so many mistakes that the
church has made.
But ultimately, of course,people would insist that, no, we

(01:07:52):
only talk about Jesus, buteverything you know about Jesus
comes from the Bible.
So, separating Jesus from theBible, then you have a Jesus
story rather than revelation.
That so.

Dwight Vogt (01:08:08):
But we shall, we have a jump in, hope my internet
works right you're.
I'm pushing back because about30 minutes ago, you said the
critical issue was the church,it wasn't just the story, and
you were relating to how BobMoffitt said it's the church
that holds the story, and andand and.
So now, yes, and I'm thinkingthat that's I thought of three

(01:08:31):
founders, all of whom believethe story yeah, well, you got
cut off all right, but I think Igot your question.
I'll go on you want to tryagain.
Do it no, I'm thinking of threefounders Thomas Jefferson
believed the story, sort of.
Benjamin Franklin, who signedthe Constitution, believed the

(01:08:55):
story sort of.
And John Adams.
But I think of those three,john Adams knew the story and
embraced the story, and andJesus, because he was the only
one that sold his life and saidthis is wrong.
So I think there's a place inWestern Civ where Christians
really have been salt and lightand have made a difference in

(01:09:19):
institutions as believers inJesus and with the spirit of
Jesus in them, and I thinkthat's that's the deepest route
there is yeah now I wish we hadhalf an hour to talk about it,
because that is a very importantpoint.

The problem they wouldn't have used the
phrase story at all.
They use the phrase commonsense or self-evident truth
because America's fundamentalmistake or intellectual fall of
America began on July 4th 1776in the Declaration of

(01:10:00):
Independence, where Jeffersonwrote we hold these truths to be
self-evident.
He didn't write we hold thestory to be self-evident.
We hold these truths to beself-evident.
So originally Jefferson wrotewe hold these truths to be
sacred, sacred meaning derivedfrom sacred scriptures.

(01:10:25):
Right, benjamin Franklin putpressure to change the language.
We hold these truths to besacred, to be.
Hold these truths to beself-evident, meaning derived
from common sense.
Uh and uh, jefferson agreed.
Now, irony of this was that allof them knew that the idea of

(01:10:49):
human equality had come to NorthAmerica, 13 colonies, through
George Whitfield.
Whitfield was the first whitepreacher in America who began to
preach to the blacks.
He had slaves and Jefferson,and everybody had Washington.
Everybody had slaves.
Uh, it was not self-evident toslaves and slave owners that

(01:11:14):
they are equal.
It was not self-evident to mostAmericans that male and female
husbands and wives are equal.
But these were not self-evidentideas, these were sacred ideas,
revealed ideas.
Truth must transform society.
We don't observe these truthsbeing practiced in society, but

(01:11:38):
these are the truths, revealtruth that must change society.
But the reason they said thatwe hold these truths to be
self-evident was because ofThomas Paine.
The epistemology of common sense, which is really epistemology
or the theory of knowledge, isthe heart of the problem.

(01:11:59):
The, the first great awakeningof, with Jonathan Edwards,
george Whitfield, etc.
Was built upon teaching thebible.
But because George Whitfielddied in 1770, 30 years earlier,

(01:12:20):
jonathan Edwards had died.
So the war began.
In 75, 76 the declaration isbeing written.
But then there is a new kid inthe block, thomas Paine, who is
a self-conscious deist whobelieves that god exists, but
god doesn't know how to speak.
The bible is not his words,it's full of contradictions.

(01:12:43):
So he insists.
And Benjamin Franklin, who usedto be a amplifier of George
Whitfield, he would.
He, he loved George Whitfield,he was a fan of George Whitfield
.
He became influenced by ThomasPaine, who brought this Scottish

(01:13:04):
.
Thomas Reed was an apologistwho invented the myth of common
sense and he wrote his bookcommon sense in America, which
was really a biblical defense ofrevolutionary war, why we must
get rid of the tyrant kingGeorge and why America should

(01:13:28):
become free and republican.
So on every page of his bookcommon sense, thomas Paine
quotes the bible left, right andcenter.
But he calls it common sense,not divine revelation.
And under that intellectualpressure Benjamin Franklin then
puts pressure on the draftingcommittee in the declaration

(01:13:51):
that we hold these truths to beself-evident.
So nobody at that time calledanything a story, they called it
truth.
Except that this was truthderived from common sense, not
from revelation.
But it's only after JosephCampbell, first Carl Jung,

(01:14:12):
because Joseph Campbell lived inAmerica and became a lot more
influential that the power ofmyth, the power of story has
taken over, and this is whereDaryl Miller has unconsciously
slipped into the language ofstory rather than in the

(01:14:33):
language of true truth, thatthese are not speculations of
the human mind.
These are revealed truths andthe firm foundation of true
truth.
But of course, that's not yourquestion.
Your question is the importanceof the church, which is where I

(01:14:59):
think that DNA, particularlythrough Bob Moffitt, has made a
tremendous contribution.
It's not yet implementedbecause DNA is itself a
parachurch group and the churchhas being a product of the
seminary.
Education has deep problemsover the last hundred years, but

(01:15:23):
at least in theory, to say thata great awakening of the church
is needed, a revival of thechurch, where church would see
itself as the stem, the brancheson which the flowers, the fruit

(01:15:43):
, the leaves grow for thehealing of the nations, giving
life to the nation, instead ofwaiting for a UFO called the New
Jerusalem to come with the treeof life that will have the
leaves for the healing of thenations, that the church exists.
The church has actually healedthe nations, which is what these

(01:16:05):
people are saying, people likeElon Musk.

That brings us back to Ark again, vichel, and I'm
glad we're going back there,because I do think I don't know
what God's doing, of course, butI do wonder if that's not part
of the reason that God hasraised up this group right now
is to kind of remind the churchof these things that we are to
be about the flourishing of thenations, the discipleship of the

(01:16:31):
nations with these powerfulbiblical ideas, and they're
seeing it, these folks from Ark,in a way that the church hasn't
or has lost sight of, andyou've been such a passionate
advocate for, you know, in yourcareer, vichel.
So I certainly hope that that'sthe case, and I really do.

(01:16:51):
I like your message that weneed to be building bridges and
reaching out, and not justbecause they need what we have,
meaning, you know, this kind ofdeep, intimate relationship with
Jesus Christ, the church, thebody, but we also need what they
have, and that is what I hopethat we can see realized through

(01:17:17):
this movement that's kind ofarisen here, the whole
discussion you're having aboutthe United States and our
founding I think is fascinating.
We probably should make that aseparate episode.
Yes, yes.

That's a really interesting.
If we do, we should talk aboutnation, because that's part of
your name, disciple, nation, dna, alliance and nation became
important in Ark.
So there was one principle ofone of the top schools in London

(01:17:52):
.
She spoke and she reallyemphasized nation and
nationalism, which wasinteresting and she wasn't
coming from the perspective ofAmerican Christian nationalism.
She was struggling with theissue that you are in London.
You have a Hindu prime ministerand a Muslim mayor of London

(01:18:12):
with such a powerful majority ofMuslims and Hindus, influential
, who are taking over theBritish economy and leadership.
What is going to hold publicschools together?
Are the values going?
What is going to unite?

(01:18:32):
And she was arguing in Ark thatshe emphasizes nation and
nationalism, that Hindus inLondon, muslims in London, Sikhs
, jains and Inch Christians theyshould all come together not
around truth but around nation.
So, nationalism, what is goingto hold these pluralistic

(01:18:57):
societies together?
So the question of nationbecame very important, although
they didn't pursue it very much,but there were voices like her.
She was the strongest and sheis a very influential
educationist, has won all thetop awards for running a

(01:19:19):
successful school in London fora multi-ethnic, pluralistic
community.
So the significance of yourname discipling nations, because
during Since Los Angeles, since1974, the dominant definition

(01:19:41):
of nation was coming fromPasadena, missiology, from
Fuller and US Center, wherenation was a people group, and
so if we do another discussionwe should talk about nation.
What is discipling nation andwhat is the significance of

(01:20:03):
nation?
I discussed it in my book.
This book changed everything,but I think that would be a good
45 discussion.

I would love to have that discussion, that we
just focus on this topic ofnations and, yeah, because
you're right, I mean we built inGod's movement.
I believe the movement of theDNA around that concept of
discipling nations and nationsis so important and it's become

(01:20:31):
there's such a revival, if youwill, of interest in that, for
good reasons and bad.
But, yeah, let's make a note ofthat.
Let's have Vishal back on, ifyou're willing, Vishal, and
we'll talk more about thatmovement, about the concept of
nations.
I do think, and we probablyneed to wrap up Vishal, but I

(01:20:55):
see ARC as well as kind of areaction against what just
wrapped up last week in Davos,Switzerland, the World Economic
Forum.
It's kind of an antidote tothat.
Did the founders?
or the movement leaders seethemselves as kind of an
alternative, Because the groupthat just met, they're

(01:21:16):
globalists, right.
They don't believe in nations,they want one world kind of
globalized government.
And they're also I think it'sjust an assumed thing God
doesn't exist.
They're secular, right.
They're not outspoken proudatheists, maybe, but it's just
an assumed thing, right.
There is no God, right.

(01:21:37):
So they would be very much inthe stream of the modernist myth
, if you will right.
And so you've got this group nowsaying, okay, we need other
intellectual and key kind ofleaders to get together that
have different ideas.
Any thoughts on that?

Just as we yes, you're absolutely right.
The nation is a veryself-conscious, deliberate part
of ARC and it isthey choseEngland to launch ARC because
England Brexit had rebelledagainst the globalist idea of EU

(01:22:17):
, the European.

Union, the European Union right.

The whole world is overshadowing the
nation's states.
England is a nation right, yes,so, yes, nation and nationalism
is a very important theme,which they did not confront head
on.
But since this is so muchbehind your name, the disciple

(01:22:44):
of nations, the healing of allthe nations, god's call to
Abraham, isaac and Jacob thatyou follow me, I will make you a
blessing to all the nations.
This is such an important themeand without the Bible they
cannot have a philosophy ofnation.

That's right.

And the evangelical movement in America,
because of the influence ofFuller and the US center of
World Mission, which no longerexists, has confused global
Christianity about what exactlyis a nation and therefore ARC is
trying to recover somethingwhich is a Christian idea of

(01:23:30):
nation which began in Europeonly in 1648.
And the piece of Westphalia waswhen Holland and Switzerland
became the first two nations inEurope.

Just quickly on that, vishal, because I know
we're kind of drifting into ournext conversation.
I was always taught that theTreaty of Westphalia was the
rise of modern nation states andbefore that we had empires and
there wasn't nations.
But then I read who's theJewish scholar?

Yes, yoram Murn, yoram Huzoni, yoram Huzoni.

Yeah, his great book.
He said no, it was because Ithought this was fascinating.
It wasn't a new idea with theTreaty of Westphalia.
It was a recovery of an oldJewish idea the nation of Israel
.
It got lost because the Biblewasn't opened.
And then it was opened afterthe Reformation and it was like
people opened the Bible.

(01:24:26):
The Bible was now in thevernacular of these different
languages.
People were reading the Bibleand they go oh, nation is
important.
Yes, yes.

So what happened in Holland when Holland
was fought?
80 years of war against theHoly Roman Empire.
The last 30 years everybody wasfighting, but before the 30
year war, for 50 years Hollandwas fighting against France and
Spain.
And then, in that study of theBible, the idea of the Jewish

(01:24:59):
idea of nation was accepted.
So the Peace of Westphalia wasthe climax of Reformation, of
the birth of nation state.
But Switzerland, which alreadyexisted as a confederacy of
three cantons.
They sent the mayor of Basel tothe Peace of Westphalia to

(01:25:24):
argue that Switzerland should berecognized as a sovereign
nation, not as a colony of theHoly Roman Empire.
So the two first nations, andboth of them impacted America,
the 13 colonies becoming anation, because America could
have become an empire, americacould have become 13 kingdoms

(01:25:46):
with 13 colonies, but Americabecoming one nation was a
biblical idea taken from Hollandand Switzerland.

So going way back to Israel.
Let's pick that up as a seconddiscussion.
Michelle, it's no problem totalk for hours with you.
I think we probably just needto wrap this up.
It's so helpful for me, though,and I just am so grateful to

(01:26:20):
kind of get your perspective onthis movement and the Alliance
for Responsible Citizenship ARCfrom your being there.
I'm excited by what I'm seeingthere and seeing what God's
doing, so God bless you for yourinfluence?

Sure, and if you wanted a third discussion,
we could discuss story andcommon sense and revelation, the
true truth.
That would be a very importantbecause there's a lot of
confusion in America whethershould we be talking about true

(01:26:58):
truth or should we be talkingabout story.
We cannot follow JordanPeterson and ARC in seeing
Christianity as a better story,is it true?

Exactly.

Yeah, no, if it's not true.

This is at the heart of our faith.
If these things, like Jesus'resurrection, didn't really
happen, if they weren't true,then our faith is worthless.
It's meaningless.
Yes, go ahead.
Luke.
Did you want to.
I'm disagreeing.

That was one of my favorite parts of the discussion
is that's going to be one of mytakeaways?
How can I not make the samemistake that John Adams did when
he was discussing the languagebehind the Declaration of
Independence?
There the language reallymatters.
When you say story, peoplethink myth.
They think Cinderella's nowhite.
When you say truth, you thinkof something fixed.

(01:27:57):
That's an important distinction.

Let's have two discussions then, vishal, we'll
talk about nations, and thenwe'll talk about story and truth
.

I think that will be very good.
Both will easily be.

Those are essential to what we're trying to do with
the Disciple Nations Alliance.
Those are really bedrock.
Great Vishal, keep up the goodwork.
Let us know how we can bepraying for you, and may God
continue to use you.
I know we didn't even touch onthe work that you're doing in
India right now Really importantwork.
You did touch on it briefly,but keep it up and we're behind

(01:28:32):
you.

Well, India now has, as of today, India now
has a Napoleon.

Yes, I'm looking at the very much on the outside in
barely so I'd love to talk toyou and learn more about what's
happening in India right now.
But anyway, listen, thanks,vishal, and thank you all as
well for listening to anotherdiscussion, or really great
discussion, on.
Ideas have consequences.

This is the podcast of the Disciple Nations
Alliance.
I'm sorry that we did not haveenough of Dwight, but thank you,
luke, for not just beingproviding the technology, but
also interaction.

My pleasure.
It was a great time, thank you.

I'm sure Dwight, and maybe Darryl, is on next
time too.

Thanks, Vishal Thank you so much God
bless Take care.

All Episodes

Elon Musk Thinks the West Needs Christianity - Why? With Vishal Mangalwadi

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Elon Musk Thinks the West Needs Christianity - Why? With Vishal Mangalwadi