New Persuasive Words

What happens when Jesus Christ and Genghis Khan get dragged into the same geopolitical argument? You get one wild quote from Benjamin Netanyahu—and one even wilder episode of New Persuasive Words. This week, Scott and Bill react to Netanyahu’s eyebrow-raising claim that history suggests goodness doesn’t really have an edge over ruthless power. In other words: nice guys…don’t finish first. Or second. Or maybe even at all. Naturally, the guys introduce a new moral framework for our troubled times: WWGD — What Would Genghis Do? (Spoiler: it’s not “turn the other cheek.”) Along the way, they wrestle with some uncomfortable questions: Is history just a scoreboard for the strong? Does moral goodness actually “win,” or does it just write better memoirs afterward? And are we supposed to take geopolitical advice from a 13th-century warlord now? It’s sharp, a little irreverent, and just self-aware enough to know that comparing Jesus and Genghis Khan might say more about us than about history itself. Come for the hot take. Stay for the existential crisis.

In this episode of New Persuasive Words, Bill and Scott dig into “Rod Dreher Thinks the Enlightenment Was a Mistake,” a provocative Atlantic feature that explores how one of today’s most influential conservative thinkers is challenging the very foundations of modernity. They unpack Read the full Atlantic article here, which profiles Rod Dreher’s journey from cultural critic to a leading voice in religious conservatism and the surprising influence his ideas now have on figures like Vice President J.D. Vance. Bill and Scott discuss Dreher’s critique of secularism, his call for a return to pre-Enlightenment Christian values, and what that philosophical shift means for American politics and public life. They also debate how Dreher’s worldview intersects with political movements that mix faith with nationalist and cultural concerns — and what it says about the fractures within conservatism today. Whether you’re intrigued by the role of faith in political identity or skeptical about the consequences of rejecting Enlightenment ideals, this conversation offers a thoughtful, critical take on one of the most talked-about ideas shaping the right. Tune in for a deep dive into culture, belief, and the future of persuasion.

In this week’s episode, Bill and Scott are joined by their Onbudsman Emily Acrigg to unpack one of the oddest culture-war moments yet: House Speaker Mike Johnson mansplaining religion to the Pope. We dive into a recent article from The Daily Beast detailing how Johnson responded to Pope Leo XIV’s critique of U.S. immigration policy by offering up his own theological interpretation of Scripture — arguing that borders, assimilation, and strict civil authority are actually biblical. Was this a sincere religious argument, a political power play, or just an overreach? We break down what Johnson actually said (and the longer 1,300-word follow-up he posted on X), how the Pope’s comments on Matthew 25 about welcoming the stranger sparked this back-and-forth, and what this clash tells us about religion’s role in public policy.

Is “fascism” finally the right word for American politics—or is it still a category mistake? In this episode of New Persuasive Words, Bill and Scott take on a provocative Atlantic essay that argues the U.S. has crossed a line. Longtime liberal skeptic Jonathan Rauch now says the evidence is undeniable: Trump, MAGA, and the use of state power—especially through agencies like ICE—fit the historical pattern of fascism. Bill and Scott debate whether this diagnosis clarifies our moment or dangerously inflates the rhetoric. What actually counts as fascism? Are we witnessing authoritarian drift, full-blown fascism, or something uniquely American? And does naming it sharpen moral clarity—or accelerate political paralysis? A fast-moving, unsparing conversation about power, language, fear, and what’s really happening to the American experiment.

In this episode of New Persuasive Words, Bill and Scott respond to a recent post by Neo-Baptist theologian Dave Fitch, taking up his critique of Protestant power, ecclesiology, and the legacy of the 16th-century Reformers. While appreciating Fitch’s concern for faithfulness, witness, and the dangers of Constantinian Christianity, Bill and Scott argue that his reading of Luther, Calvin, and the broader Reformation tradition collapses important distinctions—and ends up shadowboxing with a caricature. They explore how the Reformers understood authority, vocation, and the limits of political power, pushing back against the claim that magisterial Protestantism simply baptized coercion or state control. Drawing on theology, history, and contemporary church debates, the conversation probes whether Neo-Baptist critiques mistake tragic compromise for theological intent—and whether the Reformers’ insights might actually offer better resources for resisting domination than Fitch allows. Along the way, Bill and Scott reflect on the ongoing temptation to narrate church history as a morality play, the risks of flattening complex traditions into cautionary tales, and what it means to retrieve the Reformation without turning it into either a golden age or a villain. The episode closes with a larger question: does the future of the church require abandoning the Reformers—or reading them more carefully?

On this special Christmas episode of New Persuasive Words, Bill and Scott slow things down on the night before Christmas Eve to reflect on the mystery and miracle at the heart of the season. Stepping back from headlines and hot takes, they explore why Christmas continues to matter in a restless, disenchanted world—and what it means to speak of incarnation, hope, and divine interruption in a culture shaped by cynicism and spectacle. Together, they consider how the story of Christmas resists easy sentimentality, inviting instead wonder, humility, and a renewed imagination for what God is doing in and through ordinary human life. It’s a contemplative, warm, and quietly provocative conversation—an invitation to pause, listen, and rediscover the strange good news announced in the dark.

In this episode, Scott and Bill take a provocative historical detour, exploring whether there’s a meaningful connection between the ancient Arian theological heresy and today’s ascendant Aryan-inflected white nationalism. What happens when a 4th-century doctrinal struggle over the nature of Christ echoes—however faintly—into modern movements animated by racial mythmaking and pseudo-spiritual identity? We trace the parallels, interrogate the contrasts, and ask what lessons the past might offer a culture increasingly vulnerable to distorted stories of power and purity. We also welcome a new and very special addition to the NPW universe: Emily Acrigg, our freshly installed ombudsman. Emily joins us to help keep the show honest, sharp, and maybe even a little more civilized. It’s a lively, wide-ranging conversation—equal parts history, theology, and social diagnosis—that you won’t want to miss.

In this episode of New Persuasive Words, Scott and Bill dive into Chapter 4 of Tomáš Halík’s The Afternoon of Christianity, exploring Halík’s provocative vision for faith in a rapidly changing world. Drawing on Halík’s rich metaphors of spiritual maturation, they unpack what it means for Christianity to move beyond its “adolescent certainties” and into a deeper, more contemplative season. Scott and Bill wrestle with Halík’s challenge to embrace mystery over dogmatism, dialogue over defensiveness, and a renewed openness to the hidden work of God in unexpected places. Along the way, they connect Halík’s insights to the cultural, political, and ecclesial tensions of our moment—asking whether an “afternoon Christianity” might be exactly what our fractured world needs. Thoughtful, candid, and characteristically hopeful, this conversation invites listeners to ponder where faith is headed, and what kind of wisdom the afternoon light might yet reveal.

In this provocative episode of New Persuasive Words, Scott and Bill dig into the Reformation — not as a museum piece of church history, but as a radical, world-upending movement that redefined faith, authority, and freedom. Was it a holy revolt or a spiritual jailbreak gone wrong? They explore the passion and peril at the heart of the Reformation: a longing for authenticity that shattered Christendom and still shapes the modern soul. Five hundred years later, are we due for another reformation — or have we forgotten what one even looks like?

In this episode, Bill and Scott dig into a recent New York Times piece Something Is Stirring in Christian America, and It’s Making Me Nervous, by David French— a sharp look at how faith, politics, and power are fusing in post-Kirk America. The article argues that what many are calling a spiritual awakening might actually be a political uprising dressed in religious language. The hosts break down the rhetoric, the myth-making, and the media framing — asking what happens when “revival” becomes a rally cry, and belief turns into brand. A fast, provocative conversation about faith, persuasion, and the dangerous seduction of moral certainty in American life.

In this episode of New Persuasive Words, Scott and Bill dive into Kevin DeYoung’s review of Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism for The Gospel Coalition. They unpack Wolfe’s vision of a distinctly Christian nation—its emphasis on cultural Christianity, civil authority, and national identity—and weigh it against DeYoung’s sharp theological and historical critiques. Is Christian nationalism a faithful response to cultural decline, or a distortion of the gospel’s public implications? With wit and depth, the hosts explore what it really means to seek the common good in a pluralistic society and whether the church’s power should ever be political. You can find the article we reference by Kevin DeYoung.

In this episode, Bill and Scott dive deep into the provocative Wall Street Journal opinion piece “Candace Owens Is a Latter-Day Gnostic.” The article argues that today’s conspiratorial “truth seekers” echo the thinking of ancient Gnostics—believing that hidden, malevolent forces control the visible world—and places Candace Owens within that framework. They explore what it means to call someone a “latter-day Gnostic,” whether the analogy holds or stretches too far, and how modern conspiracy theories mirror the dualistic worldview of classical Gnosticism. They also wrestle with the way religion, metaphor, and symbolism shape political commentary. The article discussed on the show can be found here.