I am not claiming to know the future. I am suggesting that the pace and scale of change make it reasonable to expect that the church of 2035 will look substantially different from the church we knew at the beginning of this century. We are living through what I have called the Global Shaking. The letter to the Hebrews takes up the promise of Haggai, that God will once more shake not only the earth but also the heavens. We may draw a sober principle from this passage. The shaking is the removal of what can be shaken, that what cannot be shaken may remain.

For me, the present period can be dated from September 2008, with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the convulsions that followed. What began in the financial markets did not remain there. It moved through the political, the social, the technological and, not least, the ecclesial. Everything that can be shaken is being shaken. Much that we assumed to be solid is proving to be disturbingly liquid.

When we are living in the middle of an era, we tend to presuppose that everything will remain relatively stable. We plot a trajectory for the future that assumes history will continue along the same arc. We plot a few points on a grid and conclude that we will see continuity rather than discontinuity. Christians in the West seem especially prone to such assumptions. Because of this, we often fail to see not only what has been but also what may be coming. We do not consider or prepare for the twists and turns in our journey with God. We often do not realise that we are living through a passing moment.

In this essay, I want to look briefly at several ministries and churches that arose to prominence during the 1975-2005 period, see what has happened since 2005, and use those developments to consider where the church may be heading by 2035. I began my investigations with the Alpha Course, but the findings regarding Alpha spurred me to look wider.

The Alpha Course

In the middle of the 2000s, Alpha was not simply a course that churches ran. It was a cultural moment. In the early 2000s, Alpha was able to mount a national advertising campaign costing around £1 million, using extensive outdoor advertising and a national television presence. Its questions about whether there was more to life than this were being posed not simply to gathered congregations but to the wider public.

A measure of its cultural salience was the attention it attracted from critics of Christianity. In 2008-09 the British atheist bus campaign offered a strikingly different message on London’s buses. Ariane Sherine, who initiated the campaign, explicitly referred to the visibility of religious advertising, including Alpha advertising, as part of the context for her idea. It would therefore be too strong to describe the atheist campaign simply as an organised counter-campaign to Alpha, but the two campaigns clearly occupied the same public advertising space and represented competing visions of the religious question.

An institution has truly entered the culture when its message becomes sufficiently visible that opponents feel compelled to answer it.

Full disclosure: I want to affirm that my own church has used the Alpha Course. We have seen some wonderful fruit from it. We also know others who have used it fruitfully. We pray that the course will continue to reach people for Jesus into the future. I am not writing as a critic of Alpha, but as one who supports Alpha.

Alpha as a ministry tool persists. Many churches use Alpha in the UK and across the world, and it may well be used by many more churches in 2035 than it is today. Alpha as a cultural moment, however, is another matter. It no longer occupies the same place in the public imagination that it occupied twenty years ago, and there has been nothing comparable to the national controversy and counter-advertising of that period.

The course remains. The moment has passed.

This is exactly what the Global Shaking does, and exactly what it does not do. The Global Shaking is not annihilation. The Global Shaking often shifts a centrality that once seemed permanent. To read the persistence of the institution as evidence that nothing has changed is one mistake. To read the loss of the moment as evidence that the work was never real is the equal and opposite mistake.

Both miss the point.

Things made by human hands, however good, belong to the order of what can be shaken. Their season comes and their season passes. The question the Global Shaking presses upon us is not whether our monuments will endure, but whether we have built upon what cannot be shaken.

Empirical Studies of the Alpha Course

We might investigate that question about Alpha even at its zenith. Two serious studies of the course asked whether it was achieving all that its admirers claimed, and both studies raised significant questions.

Stephen Hunt, in his sociological study of Alpha, found that the course drew substantially upon people who were already within some orbit of Christianity - the nominal, the lapsed and those with previous Christian connections - rather than exclusively or predominantly upon people with no Christian background. The participants he termed “true guests”, those with no Christian background at all, were a minority, and Hunt raised questions about how well the course suited their expectations.[1]

James Heard, working from close qualitative observation of six Alpha courses, similarly distinguished between the de-churched and the genuinely unchurched. His study raised questions about how successfully Alpha combined evangelism with discipleship and about the extent to which guests were carried beyond the course into continuing spiritual maturity.[2]

Neither author denied that genuine conversions occurred. The point is more modest and more important: the evidence does not justify assuming that the remarkable growth and visibility of Alpha meant that it was turning back the tide of secularisation by reaching large numbers of previously unchurched people.

Andrew Atherstone’s history, a third study of Alpha, sharpens the point from another direction. His title, Repackaging Christianity, is taken from Nicky Gumbel himself, and the book traces with care how Alpha became a global brand, using many of the instruments of modern marketing and communications.[3]

The packaging of Alpha was skilful and profession, which led to the growth of Alpha. But this also led to an unease among some of Alpha’s sympathisers. A course deliberately designed to communicate Christianity in an accessible and attractive way inevitably raises questions about what happens when Christianity is presented within a consumer culture. While such accessibility may help people encounter Christ, may it also encourage a consumer mentality towards Christian faith?

Those are questions to be explored rather than conclusions to be assumed. A movement can enlarge its reach and still need to ask whether the depth of discipleship has kept pace with the breadth of its appeal.

Alpha from the View of 1975

Alpha reveals how much can change in thirty years. In 1975, Alpha did not exist in the form the world would later know. The evangelistic course that Holy Trinity Brompton would refine and release to the nations was still years away. Yet by 2005 it had become one of the defining artefacts of Western evangelical Christianity, a brand recognised well beyond the church.

By 2035, on present evidence, it is reasonable to expect that Alpha will still exist, while it may no longer occupy the cultural position it held in the mid-2000s. One resource, traced across three decades, embodies the whole premise. What was largely unimaginable in 1975 became central by 2005 and may, by 2035, be considerably more peripheral.

Beyond Alpha: The Ministries of an Age

Alpha is only one instance of a wider pattern in Western Christianity.

The evangelical world of 2005 had many characteristic ministries that have since changed significantly. Several of these ministries are older than 1975, so someone might object that they cannot illustrate a thirty-year period beginning in that year. However, I am not choosing these ministries because they began in 1975. I am choosing them because of their significance during the 1975-2005 period and because they represented some of the taken-for-granted ways by which Western evangelicalism did its work.

By 2005, many of these ministries appeared settled and highly influential. Since then, some have declined, some have decentralised, some have been questioned from within, and some have simply completed a particular historical arc. Some, like Alpha, were born within the span. Others reached their zenith or their terminus within it. Either way, they exemplify the same question: what happens when something that once seemed permanent is shown to be part of a passing moment (temporary)?

The Crusade: Billy Graham

Consider the mass crusade, a defining evangelistic form of the twentieth century.

Billy Graham preached his first campaign in 1947 and his final major crusade in 2005, his 417th, at Flushing Meadows in New York. He was eighty-six, and age and declining health were bringing his great stadium crusades to an end. Across his career he had preached personally to more than two hundred million people. He died in 2018.

His son continues the work of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and evangelistic festivals and missions continue in many parts of the world. But the great stadium crusade, as a phenomenon capable of commanding the attention of an entire society, effectively reached the end of its great twentieth-century arc with Graham.

This was not a ministry in decline. It was an evangelistic form completing its natural historical arc.

The instrument that had seemed almost synonymous with mass evangelism reached its mature form in Graham, and no successor of comparable worldwide prominence has emerged. That does not mean the evangelistic impulse has disappeared. It means the form has changed.

The Megachurch: Seeker-Sensitive and Purpose-Driven

Consider next the megachurch, using two notable American models.

Willow Creek, founded by Bill Hybels in 1975, became one of the most influential proponents of the seeker-oriented service: the Sunday gathering designed in substantial measure around the questions and expectations of people who were not yet committed Christians. Through its conferences and networks, Willow Creek exported this approach far beyond its own congregation.

Saddleback, under Rick Warren, gave the movement another expression through the purpose-driven model, set out initially in The Purpose Driven Church in 1995. This book profoundly influenced a generation of pastors and church leaders (myself included). The success of The Purpose Driven Church paved the way for The Purpose Driven Life in 2002, which sold tens of millions of copies and profoundly influenced Christians across the United States.

By 2005 these congregations were widely regarded as among the most innovative churches in the evangelical world, and their methods were copied in churches far beyond their original contexts. Yet, for various reasons, their moment in 2026 has passed.

What is striking is that some of the deepest questioning came from within.

In 2007 Willow Creek published the results of its multi-year Reveal research. The findings challenged the assumption that increasing participation in church programmes necessarily produced corresponding spiritual maturity. The research found that participation in activities did not reliably predict measures of spiritual growth, and Willow Creek’s leadership acknowledged that some of its assumptions about how people mature as disciples needed to change.[4]

The findings should not, however, be exaggerated into the claim that Willow Creek had proved its entire seeker-sensitive model to be a failure. The research was broader than Willow Creek itself, and subsequent discussion highlighted methodological and interpretive questions. Willow Creek also continued to describe itself as committed to reaching seekers, while changing its understanding of what a seeker-oriented ministry should look like.

The significance of Reveal therefore lies not in a simple confession that the megachurch model had failed. It lies in something more interesting: one of the flagship churches of the movement publicly acknowledging that programme participation and spiritual maturity were not the same thing. That is similar to the question raised by Hunt and Heard about Alpha, though the contexts are different.

Rick Warren handed over leadership of Saddleback in 2022. The purpose-driven model remains influential, but it now reads less like an inevitable blueprint for the future of the church and more like the signature of a particular historical moment.

The Global Agencies: Cru and YWAM

Consider two great parachurch mission agencies, Cru, known until 2011 as Campus Crusade for Christ, and Youth With A Mission. Both predate our span, and both remain substantial global movements. Yet two things mark them.

The first is a curiosity that belongs almost too neatly to our argument. In 1975 Loren Cunningham of YWAM and Bill Bright of Campus Crusade independently articulated a vision concerning several spheres of society - including the family, religion, education, government and the media - that Christians should seek to influence. That idea developed over subsequent decades and eventually became associated in some charismatic and apostolic circles with what came to be called the Seven Mountain Mandate. The idea remains controversial, particularly where it is connected with forms of dominion theology.

The significance for our purposes is not that the idea was universally accepted by 2005. It was not. Rather, it illustrates how an idea that existed as a relatively contained conviction in the 1970s could develop, mutate and become controversial in quite different ways by the twenty-first century.

The second point concerns the difficulty of measuring these organisations.

Youth With A Mission is deliberately decentralised. YWAM itself says that it has no headquarters and describes itself as a family of ministries with global networks of leaders and elders. Each location has its own characteristics and ministry focus. Its decentralised structure makes reliable global aggregation of missionary numbers difficult. YWAM’s own history reported more than 18,000 staff and more than 1,200 ministry locations in 2010, but those figures should not be treated as a continuously updated measure of organisational growth or decline.[5]

Cru presents a different difficulty. It is a large and active organisation, but its current tax status as a religious organisation means that it is not generally required to file the same public Form 990 returns that many American charitable organisations file. This makes some aspects of external financial and organisational analysis more difficult. It would be misleading, however, to suggest simply that Cru chose church status in order to conceal its finances.

In both cases, therefore, both insiders and outsiders have limitations in measuring trajectory from public data alone. We cannot demonstrate from those limitations that either organisation is declining. Nor should we infer decline simply because particular forms of reporting have changed.

What we can say with greater confidence is that the centre of gravity of global Christianity is no longer located where it was in the Western churches of the twentieth century. Christianity has experienced enormous growth in Africa, Asia and other parts of the Global South, and the demographic centre of the Christian world has moved southward.[6]

The old Western measurements of Christian influence therefore need to be interpreted within a much larger global picture.

The British New Church Networks

Consider, closer to home (I write from London), the British New Church networks that grew out of the house-church movement of the early 1970s, the very world in which our story begins.

Ichthus began in Roger Forster’s front room in September 1974 with fourteen people. Newfrontiers grew under Terry Virgo into a large apostolic network, filling its Bible Weeks with tens of thousands.

Here the Global Shaking has taken a particular form.

In 2011 Newfrontiers underwent a remarkable restructuring. Rather than preserving a single central structure around Terry Virgo, it became a network of autonomous apostolic spheres, with leadership responsibility passed to fifteen apostolic leaders.[7] This was a movement reading its season and choosing dispersal rather than waiting for decline or the passing of its leader.

More striking still is the passing of the other founders. These movements were strongly shaped by particular leaders, and that generation has now died in close succession: Bryn Jones in 2003, Barney Coombs in 2018, Gerald Coates in 2022 and Roger Forster in 2024.

The networks continue, but their structures and scales have changed. It would be too sweeping to claim that no successor of comparable stature has emerged, because stature is difficult to measure and the movements themselves have deliberately become less dependent upon a single centre. But the contrast with the founder-led model of the late twentieth century is unmistakable. The apostolic centre did not simply transfer intact from one individual to another. In the case of Newfrontiers, the movement deliberately chose a different model.

That too is a form of shaking.

The Bible Weeks: Spring Harvest and New Wine

Consider, finally, the great teaching festivals that were a fixture of the UK evangelical calendar.

Spring Harvest, begun in 1979, became one of the agenda-setting events of its kind, attracting more than seventy thousand people across its sites in the 1990s and around fifty-five thousand in 2005. It has since operated on a considerably smaller scale.[8]

Newfrontiers’ Stoneleigh Bible Week, which at its height drew around twenty-eight thousand people, was discontinued after 2001.

Soul Survivor, the youth festival that gathered a generation of young Christians, ran for the last time in 2019.

New Wine, founded by David and Mary Pytches in 1989 amid the charismatic and Vineyard renewal, has proved more durable and continues to gather thousands, but not at its former scale and impact.

The point is not that Christian festivals have disappeared. They have not. Nor is every reduction in attendance evidence of spiritual decline. Rather, the extraordinary mass-festival culture that characterised parts of British evangelicalism in the 1990s and early 2000s no longer has the same dominance. A form that once helped set the tone for a whole constituency now occupies a smaller and more varied place within the Christian landscape.

The Shape of the Shaking

Set these developments side by side and a shape begins to emerge.

The Global Shaking is not one thing. A form may simply complete its arc, as the great evangelistic crusade did. A ministry may remain fruitful while losing the cultural centrality it once enjoyed, as Alpha has. A movement may discover that the structures that made it strong in one season are not the structures required for the next. Or it may choose a more distributed form of leadership, as Newfrontiers did.

We must resist easy judgments. Decline in one setting is not proof of failure, and numerical growth elsewhere is not proof of faithfulness. The point is historical as much as theological: institutions, methods and cultural arrangements have seasons. They may be gifts of God for a time, but they are not the kingdom of God itself.

God does not ask the church to preserve every form that served the previous generation. The Holy Spirit leads God’s people to discern what is enduring, to release what is passing, and to remain faithful to Christ in a rapidly changing world. The Holy Spirit is leading us similarly in our present context, our present moment.

Looking Ahead to 2035

We cannot present the next decade as though its outline were already known. The future belongs to God, and history repeatedly surprises those who assume that present trajectories will continue without interruption.

Yet the evidence of the past sixty years should make us humble in our present passing moment. The forms that dominated the evangelical imagination in 2005 were not inevitable in 1975. Many of the forms that now seem settled and essential may therefore be far less central by 2035. New movements, new patterns of mission, and new forms of church may emerge in places we are not yet looking and in ways we do not expect.

That said, I am anticipating the advent of a genuine global awakening, somewhere between 2028 and 2035. I am not attempting to set a date by some private revelation, but I am reading the season, its trajectory and its rhythm. Out of that global awakening a recognisably different church will emerge, as different from the church of 2005 as that church was from the church of 1975. We cannot yet describe its contours and ministries. The arising church will certainly be biblical, authentic, and focussed on Jesus Christ. But it will not be what we know. We pray that such a church will be built, if it is built well, upon foundations the Global Shaking cannot move.

Such a hope can be a faithful prayer, but we cannot establish a timetable or make a solid prediction. What we can do is prepare: pray, plant, disciple, serve our neighbours and build communities capable of bearing witness when the cultural weather changes.

The prospect before us is not principally one of loss. It is an invitation to distinguish the life of God from the vehicles through which, for a season, that life has travelled. The Global Shaking removes what can be shaken so that what cannot be shaken may remain.

Our task in such a season is not to defend the monuments of the last moment. It is to discern what is being shaken and what will remain, to hold loosely the things made by human hands, and to give ourselves without reserve to the things that cannot be shaken. Alpha had its moment, and its moment was a gift. The other ministries mentioned had their moments as well, graces from God to His people. The temptation now is to mistake the moment for the foundation, and to spend our strength defending a centrality the Global Shaking has already withdrawn. The better path is to prepare. Something is coming that we cannot yet see. The church of 2035 is being formed, even now, in the shaking of everything that can be shaken.

[1]Stephen Hunt, The Alpha Enterprise: Evangelism in a Post-Christian Era (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), especially the chapters on guests and conversion.

[2]James Heard, Inside Alpha: Explorations in Evangelism (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009).

[3]Andrew Atherstone, Repackaging Christianity: Alpha and the Building of a Global Brand (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2022).

[4]Greg L. Hawkins and Cally Parkinson, Reveal: Where Are You? (Willow Creek Association, 2007).

[5]Youth With A Mission, historical and organisational information, including its reported 2010 global figures; figures are presented here as historical context rather than a current measure.

[6]See, for example, the demographic analysis collected by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, World Christian Database.

[7]Newfrontiers, “A Brief History of Newfrontiers”; Terry Virgo, The Spirit-Filled Church (Monarch, 2011), reflecting the 2011 restructuring.

[8]Contemporary Spring Harvest reports give approximately 55,000 expected attendees in 2005 and more than 70,000 in the mid-1990s; later attendance is described here without assigning an unsupported precise figure.

We live in a time when it is fashionable to denigrate the places where we live. We talk down about our history and heritage. We condemn our culture. We seek out what is wrong, instead of celebrating what is right. Some even want to tear everything down, as if starting from scratch would improve things. Ultimately, this approach is foolishness. We cannot make positive change without genuine love (in a biblical sense) for our places – whether homes, cities or nations. Without genuine love for our places, we cannot see or discern clearly our future there. It is no accident that God told the people through Jeremiah: “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7 ESV).

We also live in a time when it is fashionable to violate the Tenth Commandment: “You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbour’s” (Exodus 20:17 ESV). It is that old saying, “The grass is always greener on the other side.” We can spend so much time wanting what we perceive someone else has that we fail to appreciate the goodness all around us.

The germination of this essay arose from a survey in the United States reported back in June. I realise now that I missed my moment to publish this essay on 4 July. Sadly, I’ve been recovering from a neck injury that has made it really difficult for me to use the computer. Despite the delay, the topic remains relevant. And, I think the need to think deeply and clearly about our cities and nations applies to anywhere in the world that people live.

A Growing Discontent

A recent poll found that about four in ten — 44% — of American adults under the age of 30 believe that many other countries offer a better quality of life than the United States. Among Americans aged 60 and over, that figure drops to 22%. The gap between these two groups is not simply a matter of youthful idealism or inexperience. It reflects a genuine and growing unease about what life in America actually delivers — about healthcare, housing costs, economic opportunity, and the broader quality of daily life. And while it would be easy to dismiss this as the predictable discontent of a generation shaped by social media, that would be intellectually lazy. The question deserves an honest answer: are there, in fact, countries that genuinely outperform the United States across the measures that shape everyday life? And if so, how many, and which ones?

I am American by birth, and I have spent the past 25 years ministering in London. I have watched the United States from a distance long enough to see it without the distortion that both uncritical pride and fashionable criticism can produce. I love the United States. I also believe that honest analysis serves it better than sentimental defence or nihilistic attack. So I have set out to investigate the question the poll raises — not to vindicate the young Americans who answered it, nor to dismiss them, but to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I note that this essay was prepared in collaboration with Claude, Anthropic’s AI assistant, which helped me structure the analysis, gather current data from multiple sources, and test the conclusions at each stage. The result is much more objective and factual than I could have achieved alone. At the same time, this essay reflects my own values in terms of the categories that I considered.

Setting the Terms of the Question

Any honest comparison of countries must begin with a clear statement of what is being measured. “Better to live in” is not a single thing. It includes healthcare quality and accessibility, life expectancy, infant mortality, economic growth and stability, unemployment, housing affordability, energy costs, press freedom, social cohesion, diversity, religious freedom, and the general cost of living. We chose to examine all of these, applying them one by one as criteria in a cumulative analysis. We also chose to be rigorous about which countries were eligible for consideration in the first place.

We began with a field of 20 countries that, on initial analysis, may seem to outperform the United States on the majority of objective quality-of-life measures. These are predominantly Northern and Western European nations, alongside a few from the Asia-Pacific region. The initial field was:

Group One — Countries seemingly ahead on most measures: Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Canada, Japan, Austria, and New Zealand.

Group Two — Countries seemingly ahead on several measures and competitive on others: France, Belgium, Ireland, Spain, Singapore, South Korea, and Luxembourg.

From there, we applied a series of filters, each one grounded in the principle that “better to live in” must mean better on all the things that matter, not merely on a selected few. The choice of the “things that matter” was my own, and I did not intend this list to be comprehensive. However, I did try to include a few items that many of the surveys I have read seemed to overlook.

Narrowing the Field: The Filters We Applied

Press Freedom

Our first filter was freedom of the press. A country cannot be described as a better place to live if it suppresses or persecutes the press. This removed Singapore, which consistently ranks poorly on press freedom indices and actively restricts critical media, and South Korea which, despite being a free democracy, has had significant difficulties with defamation laws used against journalists and political interference in public broadcasting.

The remaining 18 countries are all genuine liberal democracies with free press environments. It is worth noting that the United States itself has been slipping in global press freedom rankings in recent years, currently sitting around 55th on the Reporters Without Borders index. So this issue alone did not advance the place of the US.

Social Cohesion and the Question of Islamisation

Our second filter addressed a phenomenon that is real but politically charged: the degree to which certain European countries have experienced significant social unrest connected to the non-integration of large Muslim immigrant populations. We applied this filter not as an ideological statement but as a practical one, since sustained public disorder, terrorist incidents connected to integration failures, and major political crises around parallel cultural norms all affect the lived experience of residents. We also consider the role of radical Islam (Islamism).

France and Belgium were the clearest cases for removal. France has experienced repeated jihadist attacks, persistent unrest in its outer suburbs, a recurring national crisis around the principles of secularism, and deep political polarisation over integration. Belgium’s difficulties are well-documented, including its role as a centre for jihadist recruitment in Europe and the 2016 Brussels attacks. France and Belgium have experienced significant policy challenges related to immigration, integration, social segregation, and Islamist extremism. Both countries have failed, in structural terms, to integrate large sections of their Muslim immigrant population into the broader civic fabric. We also considered Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany, but the case for removing them on this criterion alone was less clear-cut, and we decided to retain them for further analysis. After this filter, we had 18 countries remaining.

Unemployment

We then applied an unemployment filter, removing any country whose unemployment rate exceeded that of the United States, which stands at approximately 4.3%. This removed Spain (around 10-11%), Finland (around 8-9%), Canada (around 6.5-7%), Sweden (around 8-9%), Luxembourg (around 5-6%), and Austria (around 5-6%). This left us with ten countries: Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and Ireland.

Sovereign Debt

We next examined sovereign debt as a percentage of GDP. The United States itself carries a debt-to-GDP ratio of approximately 125%, which is already high. This made the filter relatively gentle, as most of our remaining countries are considerably more fiscally disciplined. Japan, however, carries a debt-to-GDP ratio of approximately 230% — by far the highest of any major economy in the world — and was removed. The remaining nine countries all have debt ratios below the United States.

Diversity and Cohesion

Here we introduced a more nuanced criterion, one that directly addresses the poll’s implicit question about whether these countries are genuinely accessible to Americans who might consider relocating. We asked: which countries combine genuine ethnic and cultural diversity with a high degree of social cohesion? This is an important practical question, because a country’s quality-of-life scores may be built precisely on the cultural homogeneity that makes it inhospitable to outsiders.

On honest assessment, most of the remaining nine countries achieved their social model through centuries of ethnic and cultural uniformity. Iceland is essentially monoethnic. Norway and Denmark are historically homogeneous, now navigating immigration with mixed results. Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and Ireland were removed at this stage, either because they lacked meaningful diversity or because their social fabric remained too closed to outsiders to represent a realistic option for an American relocating abroad.

Switzerland presented the most interesting case. Its four official languages, distinct cultural regions, and centuries-long history of managing deep internal difference through radical federalism give it a kind of diversity and cohesion that is qualitatively different from either the homogeneous Nordic model or the more recent and sometimes fragile multiculturalism of larger nations. We ranked it first on this criterion. Australia came second, as one of the most ethnically diverse nations on earth by immigration, with roughly 30% of its population born overseas and a deliberate, points-based immigration system that has maintained relatively high social cohesion. New Zealand’s bicultural constitutional foundation gave it third place. Germany and the Netherlands, while diverse, are showing signs of cohesion under strain.

After applying this filter, we retained five countries: Switzerland, Australia, Netherlands, Germany, and New Zealand. However, Germany was subsequently removed on economic growth grounds, which we turn to next.

Economic Growth and the Removal of Germany

We ranked the remaining countries by average annual real GDP growth over the decade 2015 to 2025. The results were as follows: the United States led at approximately 2.3% average annual growth; Australia followed at approximately 2.0%; Switzerland at 1.5%; the Netherlands at 1.4%; New Zealand at 1.3%; and Germany at approximately 0.7% — the weakest performer by a substantial margin. Germany had contracted in both 2023 and 2024, a reflection of its deepening structural problems: an energy model deeply dependent on Russian gas, an industrial model over-reliant on Chinese demand, and a political landscape increasingly fractured by the rise of the AfD. Germany was removed from the list at this stage, leaving four countries alongside the United States.

The Final Five: A Detailed Comparison

Having applied our qualitative filters, we were left with four countries — Switzerland, Australia, the Netherlands, and New Zealand — that could make a credible case for outperforming the United States across the majority of the criteria we had examined. We then added the United States back into the analysis to score all five countries against each other on 15 specific criteria, using a simple ranking system in which 1 represents the best performance and 5 the worst. Lower aggregate scores indicate better overall performance.

Before presenting the full table, it is worth summarising each country’s profile.

Switzerland leads consistently on healthcare outcomes, life expectancy, infant mortality, sovereign debt, and diversity and cohesion. It has the world’s third-highest GDP per capita, an exceptionally low unemployment rate, and a political system that has managed profound internal differences through federalism for centuries. Its weaknesses are its small population — around 9 million, smaller than Greater London — and its very high cost of living, which is approximately 34% above the United States on a like-for-like consumer basket.

Australia is the most well-rounded large nation on the list. With a population of approximately 27 million and an economy of $1.8 trillion, it is large enough to matter. It has consistently absorbed large numbers of immigrants while maintaining social cohesion, and its points-based immigration system has become a model for others. Its weaknesses include severe housing unaffordability in its major cities and a level of youth unemployment that has been rising.

The Netherlands is a high-performing small trading economy with excellent press freedom, low unemployment, and a strong tradition of civic pluralism. However, it is suffering from an entrenched housing crisis, with home prices exceeding ten times the median salary in some areas, and its energy costs have nearly doubled since 2020, pushing over half a million households into energy stress. It also scores poorly on our diversity and cohesion criterion, given the political tensions of recent years.

New Zealand has an enviable reputation as a pleasant and well-governed country, and in many respects that reputation is deserved. However, its objective performance across our criteria is considerably weaker than its image suggests. Its housing crisis is among the most severe in the OECD, its youth unemployment reached 14.4% in 2025 — a sharp deterioration — and its economy grew by only 0.5% in 2024. Its small population of 5.1 million limits its economic scale and diversity.

The United States presents a paradox. It performs poorly on healthcare outcomes, infant mortality, life expectancy, and sovereign debt, and it has significant housing affordability problems in many states. However, it leads or performs strongly on economic scale and growth, religious freedom, energy costs, youth unemployment, population and scale, and — as we shall argue in the conclusion — the vitality of its Christian community.

The Full Scoring Table

The aggregate scores, with lower scores representing better performance, produce the following final ranking.

What the Numbers Suggest

My review has admittedly not been a comprehensive data-driven view across every measurable category. Such a review is not possible in a short essay. I have chosen several categories because they are important yet do not appear on many surveys or in many persons’ considerations of these matters. I have not spent time trying to justify each choice I have made.

Yet, all things considered, several findings in this table deserve particular comment.

First, Switzerland wins convincingly. Across 15 criteria, it consistently performs at or near the top of the field. Its fiscal discipline is extraordinary — a debt-to-GDP ratio of approximately 16%, compared with 125% for the United States. Its healthcare system delivers universal access with outstanding outcomes. Its federal model has turned cultural diversity into a strength rather than a source of conflict. If one is asking which single country has the best combined prosperity, stability, and social health, the answer is Switzerland. Its weakness is practical: it is small, expensive, and not particularly easy for outsiders to relocate to and feel at home in, particularly outside the major urban centres.

Second, Australia is the strongest realistic challenger to the United States. It is large enough to offer genuine economic opportunity and cultural depth. It is ethnically diverse and socially open. Its economy has grown consistently. It sits closer to the United States on most economic criteria than Switzerland does, but outperforms the US substantially on healthcare and life expectancy. For an American considering where else in the world to live, Australia represents the most credible alternative.

Third, the United States and Australia are separated by only two points, with the Netherlands 11 points behind, creating a meaningful distance between the top three and the final two. The Netherlands outperforms the US on press freedom, unemployment, and sovereign debt. The US outperforms on economic scale, growth, religious freedom, energy costs, and youth unemployment. The Netherlands’ housing and energy crises are serious ongoing structural problems that its political system has so far failed to resolve.

Fourth, New Zealand’s score of 60 is a significant finding. It is a distance last on a list of only five countries. The gap between New Zealand’s lifestyle reputation and its measurable objective performance is one of the most striking results of this analysis. New Zealand is a beautiful and generally well-governed country. But it has deep structural problems in housing, a rising youth unemployment rate, and a small economy that limits opportunities. Americans who have romanticised New Zealand as an alternative should look carefully at the data before acting on that sentiment.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, the perception that America is comprehensively outperformed by a long list of better nations simply does not survive rigorous analysis. When you apply all the criteria that matter — not just the ones that make the United States look bad — only a small number of countries compete with the United States, and even those claims are partial and context-dependent.

The Question of Scale

One of the most important observations in this entire analysis is one that rarely appears in public discussions about comparative quality of life: the question of scale. Consider that Greater London alone, with a population of approximately 9 million people and a GDP of approximately $780-800 billion, is larger in both population and economic output than Norway, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, and Iceland. In addition, London is larger in population and close to the economic output of Switzerland. Six of the countries most commonly cited as “better than America” have smaller populations than a single British city.

This matters enormously when people draw policy conclusions from international comparisons. Norway’s social model works extraordinarily well for 5.6 million Norwegians — roughly the population of the state of Indiana — who share a centuries-old culture, a common Lutheran social ethic, very high institutional trust, and no significant external defence burden to carry (sheltering, as they do, under the NATO umbrella that the United States largely funds and maintains). Denmark is roughly the size of Wisconsin. Switzerland is roughly the size of New Jersey in population.

The fairer comparison, if one insists on making international comparisons, should perhaps be between individual American states and comparable nations. Texas alone has a GDP larger than all but a handful of countries on earth. California’s economy rivals Germany’s. Minnesota and Massachusetts perform comparably to Northern European countries on health outcomes and education when disaggregated from the national average.

The young Americans in the poll are not wrong that something is broken in the United States — particularly on healthcare access, housing affordability in certain markets, and the disorienting sense that the social contract is fraying. But the conclusion that other countries have simply “figured it out” and that the United States should follow their lead rests on a comparison that does not survive scrutiny. You cannot take the civic operating system of a small, culturally homogeneous, high-trust city-state and install it on a continent of 340 million people, spanning a dozen distinct regional cultures, vast economic and geographic diversity, a federal constitutional architecture built to resist central control, and the global responsibilities of the world’s leading military and economic power.

Where the United States Genuinely Trails

Of course, the United States is far from perfect, trailing other nations in numerous ways. The United States spends more on healthcare per person than any comparable nation — approximately $14,885 per capita in 2024 — and yet consistently achieves worse outcomes. Its life expectancy of 79.0 years, while the highest ever recorded for the United States, is 3.7 years below the average for comparable wealthy countries. Its infant mortality rate is significantly higher than the OECD average. These are not marginal differences. They represent real suffering and shortened lives.

The United States also carries a sovereign debt burden of approximately 125% of GDP, which represents a genuine long-term constraint on the country’s freedom of action and a real risk to its economic future. Housing affordability has deteriorated sharply, and in 2025 homeownership was considered unaffordable in 17 states. These are serious problems that deserve serious political attention, and the fact that other countries’ solutions may not be directly transferable does not mean that no solutions exist.

The case I am making is not that the United States has no problems. It clearly does. The case is that those problems need to be understood and addressed on their own terms, within the actual context of America’s size, diversity, and constitutional structure — not through the importation of policy frameworks designed for nations that bear almost no structural resemblance to the United States. The final ranking is not an objective measure of national superiority, nor does it intend to be. It reflects a particular weighting of selective economic, social, institutional, and cultural factors that many Americans might reasonably consider when evaluating where they would prefer to live.

A Final Word: The Church, Christianity, and the Edge That Data Cannot Fully Capture

There is one dimension of this analysis where the United States does not merely lead the field but does so by a margin that no other country on our list comes close to matching, and it is a dimension that matters deeply to many of the Americans who are asking these questions: the vitality of Christian faith and church life.

The United States remains by far the most religiously observant wealthy democracy on earth. Church attendance, while declining, remains substantially higher than in any European comparator. Faith is woven into public discourse, community life, and civil society in ways that have no parallel in Switzerland, Australia, the Netherlands, or New Zealand. Religious organisations in the United States play a massive role in healthcare, education, social welfare, disaster relief, and community building. Religious identity carries positive social capital across most of the country. A practising Christian in the United States is not an oddity; in many parts of the country, they are simply a normal member of their community.

Contrast this with the countries that score ahead of the United States in our rankings. Switzerland retains institutional religious presence, but active church attendance has declined substantially. The Netherlands is among the most secularised societies in the developed world, and overt religious observance carries a mild but real social stigma in mainstream professional and urban culture. Australia is secularising rapidly, with faith communities retaining legal protection but diminishing social visibility. New Zealand has retreated significantly from its Christian heritage, with mainstream Christianity now a private matter with limited public affirmation.

This is not a trivial difference for someone considering where to build a life. A person for whom the local church is the centre of their community, for whom faith shapes the rhythms of the week and the anchors of meaning, for whom their children’s formation in the Christian faith is a priority, and for whom working alongside other believers is part of a coherent life — that person will find the United States, for all its measurable problems, a more hospitable environment than any of the countries near it in our table.

The Global Shaking, which I have written about at length on this Substack, is testing every institution, every assumed framework, every anchor of meaning in Western society. In a season of shaking, the question of where genuine community, transcendent hope, and a shared moral framework can be found becomes more urgent, not less. The United States, for all the very real problems that a rigorous 15-criterion analysis reveals, remains a place where that community is alive, where churches still fill their buildings on a Sunday morning, where faith still speaks publicly and without shame into the social fabric.

The young Americans who told pollsters that other countries are better places to live are responding to something real. They are right that American healthcare is struggling, that housing has become unaffordable for many of them, and that the civic narrative feels frayed. They deserve honest engagement with those concerns, not dismissal. But the data, examined rigorously and without the distortions of either American exceptionalism or fashionable self-criticism, tells a more complex story. The United States, in a rigorous multi-criterion analysis, finishes third out of five — behind Switzerland and Australia, and well ahead of the next two countries. It is not the worst. It is not even close to the worst. And when the full measure of human flourishing is brought into the reckoning — including the health of its churches, the depth of its community life in Christ, and the freedom with which faith can be lived and proclaimed — the case for the United States becomes stronger still.

America has always been at its best when it has been honestly self-critical and stubbornly self-improving. The poll that gave rise to this essay is not a cause for despair. It is a call to do better on the things that the data shows are broken, while refusing to abandon what the data shows is still strong.

In the year of its 250^th anniversary, I thank God for the land of my birth. I live in London and I love London because of God’s call on my life, not because of any alienation from my homeland. I urge everyone everywhere to pray for the United States with open eyes and hearts full of faith. But, wherever you live, I encourage you to seek the welfare of the city or nation to which God has sent you, because in its welfare you will find your welfare.

I felt that anger too. It is hard to watch a young man die like that and feel anything else. Something in us recoils, and rightly so. A good God made us to care about life, and the loss of a life in such a way ought to move us.

We live in an angry age. Anger has become one of the defining features of our public life. It fills our news, our politics, and above all our screens. The platforms we use every day are built to reward it, because anger holds our attention and keeps us scrolling. We have learned to be angry quickly, to be angry loudly, and to be angry in public. Anger drives people to the streets in protest, while blinding people to the nuances of reality and the inconvenient truths that might otherwise moderate the anger.

When we are angry, we always assume that we are right to be angry. In the heat of anger, we never think deeply about what is really happening. Instead, we reach for a particular word to describe what we feel. We call it “righteous” anger.

I have been saying something for several years that many people find uncomfortable. When I say it, I often receive angry stares or looks of incredulity. Your own instinct might be to recoil in disbelief. But this is true and relevant for our age: There is no such thing as “righteous anger”. It is a myth. Righteous anger, at least for us as sinful humans, does not exist. Not for you, and not for me. Very often, when we call our anger “righteous”, we are simply searching for a respectable name for anger that is not even close to being righteous – at least as the Bible would define “righteous”.

In this essay, I am not writing to settle the arguments surrounding Henry Nowak’s death, nor am I taking a side in the political storm that has followed it. Others are doing that, loudly enough. I am writing about something more basic and, I think, more important for those of us who lead, especially if we want to take purposeful action that might lead to a civic reality where tragedies like this murder are less likely to occur. I am writing about what we do with the anger we feel, and about the danger of assuming that because our anger feels reasonable, it must therefore be righteous.

Understanding Anger

Before we can think well about anger, we need to understand where it comes from. Anger is an emotion. Emotions are instinctive or intuitive feelings that arise in reaction to our perceptions of internal or external realities. In particular, anger is an intense feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility that indicates there is something that we must notice, examine, or pay attention to. Anger acts like a red light on a car’s dashboard, pointing to something that we must respond to appropriately.

To understand anger, we must understand why it arises in us, why we feel anger. First, and most importantly, anger rises in us in response to how we perceive a situation. Anger is not a response to reality. It is a response to our perception of reality. As finite beings, no one has a perfect view of reality at any given moment. How we perceive reality is always limited because we are limited. This is why we can be utterly convinced that our anger is justified and still be completely wrong. Anger tells us to examine our perceptions, realise their limitations, and choose an appropriate response.

I remember warmly greeting a colleague while passing him in the hallway. Instead of returning the greeting, the colleague seemingly ignored me and dismissed me. I felt disrespected and mistreated. The failure even to acknowledge me felt dehumanising. I felt hurt and anger rising up in me. However, I chose to forgive the colleague and release my anger. Later, I saw the colleague and asked whether he had been upset with me. My colleague was horrified. I learned that the colleague had received very distressing news and he had been completely unaware of my presence. Not only was I pleased that I had not reacted out of anger, but any residual anger totally dissipated and I had an opportunity to bless my colleague. My anger had come from an inaccurate perception of the situation.

Most people I talk with have had the experience of becoming furious about something, only to discover a few minutes later that they had misread the situation entirely. The moment they understood the truth, the anger drained away. Nothing about the situation had changed except their perception. The anger was real, but it was built on something that was not. Sadly, many of them had reacted out of anger instead of checking their perceptions, damaging their relationships unnecessarily.

Knowing anger arises in response to our perceptions leads us to one of the great dangers of anger, if we do not resolve it appropriately. Our anger itself may distort our perceptions, leading us to lock into those perceptions as “truth” and blinding us to what is really happening. We might quickly become deceived. Unresolved anger will harden our minds against a comprehensive view of a situation, very often leading us away from the truth and from God’s will and causing us to fixate on the aspects of the situation that seem to reinforce our anger.

Second, anger may come from unmet expectations. Someone gives us their word and then fails to keep it, and we feel the heat rise. We expect someone to show up to the meeting on time, but they are late. We anticipate that a shop might be open but find that it is closed. We have many expectations every day, some of which are fulfilled and some of which are not. When they are not fulfilled, we feel annoyed. This feeling is normal, but anger in the face of an unmet expectation should lead us to examine the expectation and determine whether or not the expectation was fair or legitimate.

A legitimate expectation must be realistic, measurable, time-bound and, most importantly, agreed. If I agree with a colleague that he will send me a report by Friday, and Friday comes and goes with nothing, my expectation was legitimate and my frustration is understandable. But if I simply assumed he would read my mind, or that he would respond to my demands without his agreement, then my expectation was never fair to begin with. Anger that grows out of an illegitimate expectation is not fair, however strongly we feel it. When we feel anger because of an unmet expectation, we must first re-examine the expectation and determine its legitimacy.

Third, anger may come from blocked goals. We are pursuing something, and something gets in the way. Occasionally, we know exactly what goal has been blocked. Most often we have never identified the goal, even to ourselves. Throughout the day, we set many goals for ourselves, most of which are unexamined or unexpressed. We set goals about when we might wake up, shower, eat breakfast, have coffee, arrive at work, accomplish certain tasks, how long tasks might take, and how we might travel – along with many others. If any one of these goals is blocked, then we might feel anger. Feeling the anger calls us to investigate the goal.

I will confess that I can become surprisingly angry at my computer when a program refuses to do what I think it should do. My goal is a machine that obeys me, and that goal is being blocked. The same thing happens when I am rushing to an appointment and the traffic crawls to a halt. My goal of an easy journey has been blocked, and the anger follows. These goals are often perfectly ordinary, and so is the anger. But the anger leads us to identify the goal and determine a proper course of action in response to the blockage. Sometimes, even shifting the goal slightly resolves the anger and leads to a more productive outcome.

Fourth, anger may come from a perceived violation of our personal morals and values, the violation of what we perceive to be right and true. Such violations would include situations that we perceive are causing pain or harm. Such things may lead to our deepest experiences of anger. This is the kind of anger many of us felt as we watched the reports from Southampton. However, this feeling of anger is the easiest for other people and organisations to generate and to manipulate. The plainest manipulation in the Nowak case was the killer’s lie to the police, which corrupted their perception and cost Henry his life. Yet such manipulation is not a one-off event. I see this almost every day in my interactions with people, and I certainly see it online and in the media.

When we see something we perceive to be deeply wrong, anger signals that one of our personal values may have been crossed. This is good and God-given. Our anger is telling us that something matters to us. Our anger indicates that we must examine the situation and choose an appropriate response. Some of those values are little more than personal preference. Others are shared widely across a society and reach down to the moral order God has written into His world. The anger we feel at genuine injustice is a sign that we are not indifferent, and indifference would be far worse.

This anger is what leads us to respond when we see someone being robbed or beaten. This anger motivates us to address systemic injustice. This anger leads us to take action for the wellbeing of others. Yet this anger is also based on our perceptions. As we learned in the situation in Southampton, sometimes these perceptions may be tragically wrong, even malevolently manipulated by others. This is why we must not ever assume that our anger is “righteous”, for it may motivate us to do radically unrighteous things.

Anger Is Not Sin

Growing up, I learned to think of anger as something wrong or inappropriate. If I became angry – or others in our home got angry – we seemed to consider it wrong and sinful. I suspect most Christians have been taught some version of the “anger is sinful” theme. Despite feelings to the contrary, anger in itself is not sinful. Anger itself is neither righteous nor unrighteous. It is simply an emotional signal. It is the automatic reaction of our minds telling us that something has happened which we need to address.

The Apostle Paul puts it plainly. “Be angry and do not sin,” he writes in Ephesians 4. Notice that he does not say, “Do not be angry.” He assumes that we will feel anger, and he tells us not to let that anger carry us into sin. Anger is a fork in the road. It urges us to act, and that action can go one of two ways. We can act in righteous ways or we can act in sinful ways. However, we always have a choice. We can always choose not to sin. The sin is not in feeling anger; the sin is in acting wrongly.

Paul adds a second instruction in the same breath: “Do not let the sun go down on your anger.” God does not tell us to deny our anger or to pretend it is not there. He tells us to resolve it – to deal with it quickly – before the day is out. Again, the sin is not in the feeling. The sin is in nursing the feeling, feeding it, and refusing to resolve it. Anger that is held onto festers. What begins as a signal may become resident, and then a master.

Why “Righteous Anger” Is a Myth

Now we can return to the claim I made at the beginning. If anger is a morally neutral signal based on our limited perceptions that moves us to act, then our anger itself can never be righteous. No matter how accurate, our perceptions are never perfect. Our experience of anger never fully reflects reality. Because of this, our anger will never be righteous and neither will it accomplish God’s righteousness. And this is exactly what James tells us.

“Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” (James 1:19–20 ESV)

We must train ourselves to become slow to anger because our human anger does not produce the righteousness of God. The righteousness, or the sin, lies in what we do next. James is not saying that feeling angry is wrong. He is saying that the anger we feel does not achieve what God is after. It cannot, because our anger is built on perceptions that are never complete, expectations that are not always fair, and values that are still being shaped and corrected. Our anger never reflects the whole of reality. It always carries our blind spots along with it.

This is why I say that righteous anger is a myth for us humans. To have genuinely righteous anger, a person would need to see a situation exactly as it is, weigh it perfectly, feel precisely the right measure of anger, and respond without a trace of pride, fear, or self-interest. None of us can do that. Our anger is always tangled up with ourselves. When we baptise this emotion with the word “righteous,” we are usually trying to place our own reactions beyond question. We are saying, in effect, that because we feel strongly, we must be right. But strong feeling and clear sight are not the same thing.

But What About Jesus?

At this point someone will almost always raise the same objection I have heard many times: What about Jesus in the temple? Did he not turn over the tables of the money changers in anger? Is that not righteous anger, and if it was righteous for him, why not for us?

Jesus’ anger was indeed righteous, and that points to a fundamental difference between Jesus and every other human who has ever lived. Jesus was a sinless man. His perception of every situation was perfect and complete. He saw the temple, and the men exploiting the poor within it, exactly as the Father saw them. His anger matched reality without distortion, and so His response matched it too. His righteous anger flowed into righteous action, because there was nothing in Jesus to bend it the wrong way.

That is the difference between Jesus and us. He alone has ever had righteous anger, because he alone has ever had a heart pure enough and eyes clear enough to feel anger and act on it perfectly. When we point to Jesus in the temple as a justification for our own outbursts, we are claiming a clarity and a holiness that belong to Jesus alone. We are not nearly as much like Jesus in our anger as we would like to imagine. Righteous anger was so real in Jesus that the counterfeit is irresistibly attractive to us.

Turning Anger Into Righteous Action

If all of this were the whole story, we might conclude that anger is simply a problem to be suppressed. But that is not what Scripture teaches, and it is not what I would suggest. Although there is no such thing as righteous anger, there is such a thing as righteous action that begins with anger. Our anger, rightly handled, can drive us toward good.

Let me suggest five steps.

First, resolve to be slow to anger. Although anger is an automatic emotional response, we can choose to restrain it until we have examined the situation and chosen an appropriate course of action. James gives us the essential insight here. If we are quick to listen and slow to speak, then we can become slow to get angry.

Second, take your anger to God in prayer. Before you say a word to anyone else, say it to your Father. Tell Him honestly what you feel and why. The Psalms are full of this kind of raw, honest prayer. God is not shocked by your anger, and He would far rather you bring it to Him than carry it alone.

Third, resist reacting out of anger. Take a beat (or two or three). Examine the situation and your perceptions carefully. If your anger is quite strong, then talk your anger through with a trusted friend or counsellor, without venting. Venting simply discharges our anger onto another person, and it often makes things worse. I am suggesting processing our anger with someone. It is sitting with someone wise who can help us understand what we are feeling, test our perceptions, and begin to see the situation more clearly than we can on our own.

Fourth, choose your response carefully and prayerfully. This is the moment the signal has been pointing toward all along. Go to the Scriptures. Ask for the leading of the Holy Spirit. Let the anger drive you to seek God’s mind for action rather than acting on your own. Think and pray carefully.

Finally, take wise and righteous action. Anger that has been brought to God, processed with care, and shaped by Scripture does not have to end in regret. It can end in something good. Injustice should be opposed. Wrongs should be addressed. The goal is not to feel nothing but to do the right thing well.

There are two ditches to avoid on either side of this road. On the one side, we must not swallow our anger, burying it and pretending it is not there. Buried anger does not die. It goes underground and does its damage in the dark. On the other side, we must not vent our anger, using it as a weapon to wound others or to take revenge. Either way, the anger has mastered us. The path between the ditches is the harder and better way of facing our anger honestly and bringing it to God, so that He can turn it into something useful.

By the power of the Holy Spirit and in accordance with the Bible, we can disciple our minds to deal with anger righteously. At first, following the process above might seem difficult, unnatural, or cumbersome. But the process will help anger achieve its purposes in us. Over time, we will find ourselves more disciplined to pray, pause, choose action, and then act appropriately. We will begin to experience more righteous outcomes for our anger.

Conclusion

We need to stop using the myth of righteous anger to excuse the reality of our sinful reactions. By all means, feel your anger. Anger is part of what it means to be human, made in the image of a God who is Himself moved by injustice. Our God does get angry, but always righteously so. God’s anger is perfect and just, always motivated by God’s love.

The people of Southampton were right to feel that something terrible had happened. And so was everyone else who witnessed what happened that night, including perhaps you and me. But feeling is not the same as righteousness, and reasonable is not the same as holy. The question is never whether our anger feels justified to us. It almost always does. The real question is what we will do with it. Will we let it run, convinced of our own rightness, and call the result righteousness? Or will we let it drive us to the Scriptures and to the Holy Spirit, who can take our imperfect, partial, and all-too-human anger and turn it into action that truly serves the glory of Jesus?

That is the better way. It is the harder way. And for those of us who lead, it is the only way worth modelling.

This is why the question of God’s favour matters now more than ever. If we can identify where God’s special favour rests—on which individuals, which churches, which communities—and if we can understand how to connect with that favour, then we position ourselves not merely to survive the disruption but to thrive within it. The question “Where is God’s favour?” becomes as important as “What is doctrinally correct?” or “What is strategically wise?”

In this article, I want to reflect on the nature of God’s favour, particularly God’s special favour: what it is, how it relates to grace, what qualities characterise those on whom it rests, what marks indicate its presence, and—crucially—how others might connect with favoured individuals and communities to share in the benefits of that favour. My hope is that this reflection will help Christians flourish with wisdom and discernment.

The Grace of God

Before we can understand God’s special favour, we must first understand the broader category of God’s grace. The Hebrew word for favour (chen) and the Greek word for grace (charis) are cognate concepts with substantially overlapping semantic ranges. The Septuagint regularly translates chen with charis. When Noah “found favour in the eyes of the LORD” (Genesis 6:8), and when Mary “found favour with God” (Luke 1:30), the same Greek word renders both. The Hebrew and Greek words both carry the sense of unearned pleasing disposition, undeserved kindness, and unmerited benevolence.

Grace, broadly defined, is free, unmerited, undeserved kindness and compassion, especially that of God toward people, which leads to salvation and blessing. However, Scripture presents this grace operating in different ways and toward different ends. We can discern four “types” of grace in Scripture, each representing a different operation of God’s unmerited kindness.

The Four Types of Grace

1. God’s Common Grace. God’s common grace is the undeserved kindness and compassion he shows to all people, sustaining creation and restraining sin, apart from salvation. This grace extends to every human being regardless of their relationship with God. It is why the rain falls on the just and the unjust, why unbelievers can still create beautiful art and govern with some measure of justice, and why human society does not collapse entirely into chaos. Common grace does not save, but it sustains creation.

2. God’s Saving Grace. God’s saving grace is the undeserved kindness and compassion by which he redeems, transforms, and brings people into eternal life through Christ. This is the grace that every Christian possesses equally and fully. The newest convert has it as completely as the most mature saint. It cannot be earned, diminished, or forfeited. “By grace you have been saved through faith” (Ephesians 2:8). Saving grace is universal to all who are in Christ, irreversible, and constitutive of salvation itself.

3. God’s Flourishing Grace. God’s flourishing grace is the undeserved kindness and compassion by which he equips, strengthens, and empowers believers to live faithfully, serve effectively, and bear spiritual fruit. This includes the spiritual gifts (charismata—grace-gifts) that Paul describes as “gifts that differ according to the grace given to us” (Romans 12:6). Flourishing grace enables believers to fulfil their callings, to grow in Christlikeness, and to contribute to the building up of the body of Christ.

4. God’s Relational Grace. God’s relational grace is the undeserved favour by which he draws people into fellowship with himself, establishing covenantal relationship and mutual love. While the other three types of grace emphasise what God gives or does, relational grace emphasises how God regards us—his disposition toward us as persons in relationship with him.

Relational Grace as Favour

The fourth type of grace—relational grace—is what Scripture and common English usage often call “favour.” We use the term “favour” here because relational grace emphasises God’s relational closeness and covenantal stance, whereas the other definitions focus more on God’s kindness and compassion as experienced or lived.

In contemporary English usage, the words “grace” and “favour” have acquired more nuanced meanings, yet both remain within the semantic range of their Greek and Hebrew equivalents. Grace carries a heavier theological load. It has become almost a technical term in Christian discourse, immediately evoking soteriology: salvation by grace, the means of grace, the doctrines of grace. When English-speaking Christians hear “grace,” they instinctively think of God’s action toward sinners—unmerited, saving, transformative. Grace also carries connotations of gift (something bestowed) and power (something that enables). Grace names a quality or disposition that then expresses itself in concrete actions.

Favour is more relational and personal. It suggests being looked upon well, being regarded with pleasure, being preferred or chosen. Favour implies a relationship between persons—one who favours and one who is favoured. Favour names not merely a disposition but an active regard directed toward a particular object. To say someone “has favour” with another suggests standing, access, and preferential treatment. The phrase “in favour with” implies relationship and position rather than mere benefit received.

Grace answers the question: On what basis am I accepted? (Not works, but gift.) Favour answers the question: How does God regard me? (With pleasure, with delight, but again not based on works.) In English, grace has become the word for what God gives us as sinners, while favour has retained more of its sense of how God regards us as persons. Grace is remedial; favour is relational. Grace addresses guilt; favour addresses standing. Grace is what the prodigal receives when welcomed home; favour is what the Father shows when he runs to meet him.

God’s Special Favour

Within the category of relational grace (or favour), we can discern a particular subset that we will call “special favour.” God’s special favour is the relational grace that he shows toward particular individuals or groups, establishing a lifelong disposition of undeserved kindness and compassion, often within covenant, for his sovereign purposes.

I am not claiming that Scripture presents two different divine attributes. Rather, I am distinguishing different operations of the same divine disposition. Relational grace (favour) is God’s general disposition of kindness toward those in relationship with him. Special favour is that same relational grace concentrated or intensified upon specific individuals or communities for specific purposes.

Christians have long operated with analogous distinctions. The doctrine of “common grace” distinguishes between God’s kindness extended to all humanity (restraining sin, enabling civil good) and God’s “saving grace” extended only to the redeemed (effecting salvation). If we can distinguish grace toward all humans from grace toward the saved, then we can distinguish favour toward all believers from particular favour resting on specific believers for God’s sovereign purposes.

Summary of Definitions

This framework helps us understand both the breadth of God’s grace and the depth of God’s favour:

Common grace — for all people; sustains creation and restrains sin.

Saving grace — redeems and transforms; brings eternal life.

Flourishing grace — empowers believers for faithful living and service.

Relational grace (favour) — draws people into fellowship and covenantal relationship.

Special favour — specific, enduring relational grace for particular individuals or groups, often tied to God’s covenant purposes.

Looking at these definitions gives us a sense of God’s variety of grace, something Peter noted in 1 Peter 4:10.

Biblical Evidence for Special Favour

Scripture clearly presents differential divine pleasure within the covenant community—not merely between the saved and unsaved, but among the saved themselves. Moses received a word spoken to him alone: “You have found favour (chen) in my sight, and I know you by name” (Exodus 33:17). All Israel was redeemed from Egypt, but this was said to Moses specifically. David was chosen not for birth order or appearance but because “the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). His brothers were also sons of Jesse, also members of the covenant community, but the oil was poured on David. Daniel was addressed as “greatly beloved” three times (Daniel 9:23; 10:11, 19)—language not applied to other faithful Jews in Babylon. The church at Philadelphia received commendation—”You have kept my word… I have loved you” (Revelation 3:8-10)—in ways other churches in the same book did not receive.

The New Testament explicitly teaches differential gifting, calling, and fruitfulness within the body of Christ. Paul’s teaching presents charismata (grace-gifts) as differentially distributed: “Having gifts that differ according to the grace (charis) given to us” (Romans 12:6). Some receive more, some less, some different. This is not about salvation—all are equally in the body—but about vocation and equipping. The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) shows a master distributing “to each according to his ability”—differential distribution within the household, with differential expectation and differential outcome.

The language of “finding favour” in Scripture typically implies something beyond baseline covenant membership. When Scripture says someone “found favour (chen)” in God’s eyes, it almost always marks them out for particular notice, particular assignment, particular relationship. It is not the language used for ordinary covenant standing. The finding implies something sought and obtained, something not automatically possessed by virtue of membership in the redeemed community.

The emphasis on God’s sovereignty actually supports this distinction. If God is sovereign in our salvation, then there is no theological difficulty in affirming that God is sovereign in our vocation—choosing some for particular favour, particular assignment, particular intimacy within the saved community. John Calvin affirmed that God’s “special providence watches over the safety of believers” but, in “governing” the church, God “gives singular manifestations of his paternal care” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter 17, Section 6). The God who differentiates in salvation also differentiates in sanctification and service.

A Necessary Clarification

A potential objection must be addressed directly: Does recognising “special favour” create a two-tier Christianity that undermines the sufficiency of Christ and the equality of believers before God? The answer is no, provided we maintain three clarifications.

First, ontological equality is preserved. All believers are equally justified, equally adopted, equally united to Christ. No one is “more saved” than another. The ground of our standing before God is identical for every Christian: the imputed righteousness of Christ received by grace through faith. Special favour does not alter this standing. The newest convert is as secure in Christ as Paul was.

Second, relational differentiation is biblical. Not all believers have the same gifts, calling, fruitfulness, or intimacy with God. The body has many members with differing functions (1 Corinthians 12:12-27). Some are apostles, some prophets, some teachers (1 Corinthians 12:28-29). Some bear fruit thirtyfold, some sixty, some a hundred (Mark 4:20). This differentiation is grace all the way down—the favoured did not earn their position—but it remains differentiated grace, nonetheless.

Third, the qualities I will identify in persons with special favour are themselves graces. When I observe that favour produces faithfulness, humility, wisdom, and other qualities, I am not suggesting these are human achievements that earn divine favour. I am saying that God’s favour produces them, and they in turn attract more favour—a cycle initiated and sustained entirely by God’s sovereign, grace-filled action. The favoured have nothing they did not receive.

What we are describing, then, is not a separate category from grace but a particular intensity or concentration of grace on certain individuals or communities for certain purposes. It is not that some believers have “grace” while others have something lesser. All believers have grace. But some have grace resting on them in ways that produce unusual qualities and unusual outcomes—not because they merited this distinction, but because it pleased God, in his sovereign freedom, to bestow it.

Another way to say it is: saving grace is universal to all believers, irreversible, and brings salvation. Special favour is particular pleasure resting on some believers, producing particular qualities and particular marks, sovereignly bestowed for particular purposes. Both are expressions of the same divine grace. The distinction is not lexical but functional. And recognising this distinction equips Christians to discern where God’s favour rests and to position themselves accordingly—not to earn what cannot be earned, but to receive what is freely given to those who seek it in the right posture.

The Sovereignty of Special Favour

Why God’s special favour rests on one person or community rather than another is ultimately inscrutable. Calvin, commenting on Psalm 44:3, insists that God’s favour toward Israel was merely the good pleasure of God: “The prophet does not suppose any worthiness in the person of Abraham, nor imagine any desert in his posterity, on account of which God dealt so bountifully with them, but ascribes the whole to the good pleasure of God” (Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries). The cause of favour lies entirely in God’s sovereign will, not in the recipient.

Ezekiel 16 portrays this vividly. Israel is depicted as an abandoned infant—unwashed, umbilical cord uncut, thrown in a field to die—upon whom God looked and said “Live!” There was nothing in the recipient to commend her. She was at her lowest, most helpless, most abhorrent. God’s favour preceded any quality or response in the one favoured. This is sovereign, gratuitous favour.

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy” (Romans 9:15). Paul’s answer to the question of why God favours one and not another is not really an answer at all in the sense of giving reasons. It is a refusal to answer. The cause lies entirely in God, not in the recipient. And when we press further, we hit the wall of divine inscrutability.

And yet—this is not the same as randomness. God is not capricious. His favour is not arbitrary in the sense of being meaningless. It is purposeful, even if the purpose is not disclosed to us. Moses had extraordinary favour, and it was bound up with his calling to lead Israel out of Egypt. The church at Philadelphia had favour—the open door no one could shut—and it was connected to their faithfulness in a moment when faithfulness was costly. God often shows favour to the one for the benefit or blessing of the many. Favour has a divine purpose.

The Qualities of Special Favour

Since discerning God’s favour is essential for living through a time of Global Shaking, we must learn how to recognise persons who have God’s special favour. People typically look for visible indicators of “success”—normally as defined by our culture (numbers, money, “followers”, etc.) more than as defined by the Bible—and assume that the outwardly successful are people on whom God’s favour rests. However, “success” as typically understood is an obviously unreliable indicator of God’s favour. Many worldly techniques can produce “success”, even successes like large churches and thousands of “followers”.

Instead of looking for worldly indicators, the Bible suggests that certain qualities characterise those on whom special favour rests. God graciously develops these qualities in his favoured people, but God also encourages his people to pursue these qualities. For example, Proverbs 3:3-4 indicates that those who bind covenant love (hesed) and faithfulness to themselves “will find favour.” How do we reconcile the fact that God’s favour is a sovereign gift with the command to pursue qualities that attract God’s favour?

The resolution lies in understanding favour as initiating a cycle. God’s sovereign favour rests on people (Ezekiel 16—entirely gratuitous, nothing in the recipient to commend them). That favour produces in them certain qualities. Those qualities then attract increasing measures of favour (Proverbs 3:3-4). Which produces more of the qualities. Which attracts yet more favour. Sovereign favour initiates; responsive favour multiplies.

Throughout the Bible, seven qualities consistently appear in those on whom God’s special favour rests:

1. Covenant Love

Covenant love is unwavering loyal love toward God and toward those to whom one is bound by covenant, maintained regardless of cost or circumstance. Noah “did everything just as God commanded him” when the entire world had abandoned God (Genesis 6:22). David showed covenant love to Saul, to Jonathan’s house, and to his followers, even when betrayed. Joseph wept over his brothers and provided for them despite their treachery (Genesis 45:4-15). Mary remained loyal to God from the annunciation to the cross and beyond.

2. Faithfulness

Faithfulness is steadfast constancy and consistency—the quality of remaining firm in character, commitment, and devotion regardless of changing circumstances. It is not primarily about completing tasks but about not wavering: being the same person today as yesterday, maintaining the same convictions in adversity as in prosperity, continuing in the same practices whether results are visible or not. The faithful person is dependable not because they achieve but because they do not change. “Abraham believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). Daniel “was faithful, and no negligence or corruption was found in him” (Daniel 6:4). Moses “was faithful in all God’s house” (Hebrews 3:2, 5). Job “did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing” despite losing everything (Job 1:22).

3. Humility

Humility is living and responding truthfully and confidently, without vanity, self-regard, or pretension. The verb, to humble, means to remove vanity, self-regard, or pretension so that one lives and responds truthfully and confidently. Self-regard is a broad term that includes self-protection, self-defence, self-will, and stubbornness. People do not call someone humble because they talk down about themselves. They call them humble because nothing in them needs to win, impress, control, or protect. So humility is not “less self,” but a self rightly oriented and therefore unoccupied with itself. “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3). The church at Philadelphia had “little strength” yet received the open door (Revelation 3:8). Mary sang of God looking “on the humble estate of his servant” (Luke 1:48). Joseph, after years of suffering, told Pharaoh, “It is not in me; God will give Pharaoh an answer” (Genesis 41:16).

4. Patient Endurance

“You have heard of the patience of Job” (James 5:11). Patient endurance is the capacity to remain steadfast through prolonged trial, delay, or opposition without abandoning one’s calling. Abraham waited decades for the promised son. Joseph endured thirteen years from slavery to elevation. Moses spent forty years in Midian and forty years leading a rebellious people. Daniel remained faithful through multiple regime changes over decades of service in hostile Babylon. Unfortunately, patient endurance implies suffering and struggling. Ironically, people who experience God’s special favour often experience intense suffering or struggling, instead of the ease and pleasure the world might expect. Even so, people with God’s special favour seem patiently to endure.

5. Extraordinary Wisdom

Extraordinary wisdom is divinely granted insight and discernment that exceeds our natural capacity, enabling right judgment in complex situations. Joseph was recognised as one “in whom is the Spirit of God,” able to interpret what none of Egypt’s wise men could discern (Genesis 41:38-39). Daniel and his companions were “ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters” in Babylon (Daniel 1:20). Solomon asked for wisdom and received it as a sign of divine favour (1 Kings 3:9-12).

6. Intimacy with God

“The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend” (Exodus 33:11). Intimacy with God involves a life oriented toward engagement with God, marked by direct communion with and personal knowledge of God. Daniel was addressed as one “greatly beloved” (Daniel 10:11, 19). Abraham was called “the friend of God” (James 2:23; Isaiah 41:8). John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” reclining on Jesus’ breast (John 13:23). David was “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22).

7. Integrity

Integrity is wholeness of heart toward God—an undivided internal life that aligns private reality with public profession. Job was “blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil”—God’s own testimony (Job 1:1, 8). “Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself” (Daniel 1:8). Joseph fled from Potiphar’s wife, asking, “How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9). God testified of Abraham: “Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions” (Genesis 26:5).

When we see a person, group, or church embodying these seven qualities, then we might recognise people on whom God’s special favour is resting. Of course, all Christians should strive for all these qualities in cooperation with the Holy Spirit by God’s grace. However, people who exhibit all seven in observable measure often have God’s special favour in their lives.

The Marks of Special Favour

Not only do people who receive God’s special favour have discernible character qualities, but also the Bible reveals seven identifiable marks (indicators) that God’s special favour rests on an individual or community. While the qualities are intrinsic, the marks are extrinsic. These marks do not represent “prosperity” in the worldly sense, but they reveal God’s active involvement on behalf of his favoured ones producing outcomes that cannot be explained by human effort alone.

1. Divine Protection

“For you bless the righteous, O LORD; you cover him with favour as with a shield” (Psalm 5:12). Divine protection occurs where God covers the favoured one as with a shield, turning back what should destroy. David was preserved through Saul’s repeated attempts on his life. Daniel was protected in the lions’ den (Daniel 6:22). The infant Moses was preserved in the Nile (Exodus 2:1-10).

2. Open Doors That No One Can Shut

“I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut” (Revelation 3:8). Open doors are contexts and situations where God grants access, opportunity, and effectiveness that cannot be explained by human effort or blocked by human opposition. Joseph rose from prison to Pharaoh’s court in a single day (Genesis 41:14, 41). Daniel was elevated under successive foreign rulers despite being an exile (Daniel 2:48; 6:28). Esther, a Jewish orphan, became queen of Persia: “the king loved Esther more than all the women, and she won grace and favour in his sight” (Esther 2:17).

3. Vindication Before Enemies

“I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you” (Revelation 3:9). Vindication occurs when God demonstrates that God’s hand was upon the favoured even though people had opposed, dismissed, or rejected them. Joseph’s brothers bowed before him as his dreams foretold (Genesis 42:6). Daniel’s accusers were thrown into the den they had prepared for him (Daniel 6:24). David was vindicated before Saul, who confessed, “You are more righteous than I” (1 Samuel 24:17).

4. Victory Against Overwhelming Odds

“For not by their own sword did they win the land, nor did their own arm save them, but your right hand and your arm, and the light of your face, for you delighted in them” (Psalm 44:3). When God gives his special favour, God grants outcomes that human resources could never achieve, making clear that the victory belongs to him. David defeated Goliath with a sling and stone, declaring, “The battle is the LORD’s” (1 Samuel 17:47). Gideon’s three hundred routed the Midianite army (Judges 7:22).

5. Preservation Through Trial

“When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; when you walk through fire you shall not be burned” (Isaiah 43:2). God preserves those on whom his favour rests. God sustains the favoured ones through adversity that should have destroyed them, bringing them through fire and flood rather than removing them from it. Noah and his household were preserved through the flood: “Noah found favour in the eyes of the LORD” (Genesis 6:8). Joseph was sustained through slavery and imprisonment: “The LORD was with Joseph and showed him steadfast love and gave him favour in the sight of the keeper of the prison” (Genesis 39:21).

6. Prophetic Insight

“For the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants” (Amos 3:7). People with special favour often have unusual prophetic insight, especially regarding the times and the seasons. God reveals to the favoured one things hidden from others, granting understanding of his purposes and timing. God revealed to Noah the coming flood and the means of deliverance (Genesis 6:13-21). Joseph received dreams of future events and the ability to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams (Genesis 37:5-9; 41:25-36). Daniel received visions of world history and the end times (Daniel 2, 7-12). John received the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:1).

7. Sustaining Provision

“My God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:19). In situations of special favour, God supplies resources, strength, or capacity beyond what natural circumstances could produce, often appearing precisely when needed. Ravens fed Elijah, and the widow’s flour and oil did not fail (1 Kings 17:6, 16). Moses’ eye was undimmed and his vigour unabated at 120 years (Deuteronomy 34:7). Joseph was given authority over all Egypt’s resources to preserve life through famine (Genesis 41:41-43). Manna appeared daily for Israel in the wilderness (Exodus 16:35).

Biblical Examples of God’s Special Favour

When we examine the Bible, we can see several people who experienced God’s special favour. These people are examples, not an exclusive list of everyone on whom God’s special favour might rest. Among those on whom God’s special favour most clearly rested are nine individuals whose favour demonstrably lasted a lifetime:

Noah: The first in Scripture to “find favour in the eyes of the LORD” (Genesis 6:8), preserved with his household through universal destruction.

Abraham: Called “the friend of God” (James 2:23; Isaiah 41:8), given promises that shaped all subsequent history.

Joseph: “The LORD was with Joseph and showed him steadfast love and gave him favour” (Genesis 39:21), preserved through slavery and imprisonment to save nations.

Moses: Who spoke with God “face to face, as one speaks to a friend” (Exodus 33:11), entrusted with the Law and the structure of Israel’s worship.

Samuel: Who “continued to grow in stature and in favour with the LORD and with men” (1 Samuel 2:26), and of whom it is written that “the LORD let none of Samuel’s words fall to the ground” (1 Samuel 3:19).

David: “A man after God’s own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14), given an eternal covenant and covered with favour “as with a shield” (Psalm 5:12).

Daniel: Addressed as one “greatly beloved” (Daniel 10:11, 19), protected through exile and granted extraordinary visions.

Mary: Greeted by the angel as one who had “found favour with God” (Luke 1:30), chosen to bear the Son of God.

John: “The disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23), granted extraordinary intimacy and entrusted with the Revelation.

None of these achieved favour—it was entirely bestowed. Several were morally flawed (Moses murdered, David committed adultery and murder), yet favour persisted through discipline and repentance. What marked them was not moral perfection but, in God’s sovereignty, intimacy with God and a capacity to be known by God in their weakness.

Favour for a Moment or a Season

Not all God’s favour persists for a lifetime. Scripture suggests that some individuals experience genuine favour for a season that is later forfeited or diminished, often through unfaithfulness, disobedience, or foolishness. Occasionally, people might experience favour for a moment, often to provide for them in a time of need or empower them for an instant of victory.

Gideon explicitly asked for a sign “If now I have found favour in your eyes” (Judges 6:17), and God granted it. He demonstrated humility, faithfulness, and was used mightily in delivering Israel. Yet his later construction of an ephod that “became a snare to Gideon and his family” (Judges 8:27), combined with the silence about his ongoing relationship with God and the disastrous aftermath in his household, suggests something was forfeited.

Solomon was named Jedidiah, meaning “loved by the LORD” (2 Samuel 12:25)—explicit favour language. God appeared to him twice. Yet his end is described in terms of divine anger: “The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD” (1 Kings 11:9). The one loved by the LORD provoked the LORD to anger through persistent unfaithfulness.

“The LORD was with Hezekiah; he was successful in whatever he undertook” (2 Kings 18:7). Hezekiah experienced extraordinary divine intervention—the angel of the LORD struck down 185,000 Assyrians (2 Kings 19:35), and God added fifteen years to his life. Yet his latter days were marked by pride and foolishness with the Babylonian envoys.

These examples provide important insights regarding God’s favour. Favour in a season must be stewarded carefully lest it be forfeited. The pattern of pride emerging from strength—”when he was strong, he grew proud” (2 Chronicles 26:16, of Uzziah)—recurs as a warning. We must maintain God’s favour in an ongoing relationship with God, even if it is for a short time.

Sins Against Special Favour

Having special favour is not a license to do whatever someone wants to do. Those on whom God’s special favour rests have a very high responsibility before God for obedience and faithfulness. For favoured persons, some sins are deadly serious: violations which presume upon, flaunt, misuse, or treat casually the unique position favour has granted. These sins are particularly grievous precisely because of the favour resting on the one who commits them, and their consequences tend to be proportionately severe—not because God is capricious, but because “from everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded” (Luke 12:48).

Haughty pride and arrogance: Joseph, as a young man, flaunted the favour shown him, recounting his dreams of his brothers’ obeisance to those who had received no such favour. His haughty pride brought the consequence of slavery and imprisonment—years of apparent abandonment (Genesis 37:5-11).

Failing to honour God in obedience: Moses, who had been granted face-to-face intimacy with God, struck the rock in anger rather than speaking to it as commanded. God’s judgment was explicit: “Because you did not trust in me enough to honour me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them” (Numbers 20:12). The consequence was exclusion from the very goal his entire ministry had been oriented toward.

Self-dependence or self-promotion: This represents situations where people fail to honour God’s favour regarding all that they have achieved. David, whose kingship was built entirely on God’s favour, took an unholy and unauthorised census and numbered Israel’s fighting men—shifting from dependence on God’s favour to confidence in his measurable military resources. This was a sin against favour: appropriating as one’s own what favour had given. Joab, hardly a paragon of piety, recognised something deeply wrong (2 Samuel 24:3). The consequence—seventy thousand dead (2 Samuel 24:15)—far exceeded the discipline for his sins of adultery and murder. David’s entire theology had been expressed in Psalm 44:3: “It was not by their sword that they won the land, nor did their arm bring them victory; it was your right hand, your arm, and the light of your face, for you loved them.” To count his fighting men was to deny the very basis of his kingship.

The pattern that emerges from these incidents is sins against favour represent a failure to steward the weight of what has been given. They are a turning from the Giver to the gift, from dependence to presumption, from humble reception to proud possession.

Shared Favour

Special favour is not only identifiable but in some sense extended to those close by and connected with the one who has that special favour. Those who attach themselves to individuals or communities on whom God’s favour rests may share in the benefits of that favour.

Laban recognised he had been blessed because of Jacob’s presence: “The LORD has blessed me because of you” (Genesis 30:27). Potiphar’s house was blessed for Joseph’s sake: “The LORD blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake; the blessing of the LORD was on all that he had, in house and field” (Genesis 39:5). Obed-Edom’s household was blessed when the Ark rested there: “The LORD blessed Obed-Edom and all his household” (2 Samuel 6:11).

The Benjaminites who joined David in the cave—when he was rejected, hunted, and apparently cursed—attached themselves to God’s favoured one before his vindication and shared in his rise (1 Chronicles 12:16-18). They came in peace. They came to help. They united their hearts fully with David and his cause when it was costly to do so.

Third John indicates that those who support a faithful ministry share in its work: “We ought therefore to show hospitality to such people so that we may work together for the truth” (3 John 8). The inverse is also warned: “Anyone who welcomes [the wicked] shares in their wicked work” (2 John 11).

Seeking the Favoured

If special favour is identifiable by its marks and qualities, and if that favour extends to those who attach themselves to the favoured, then wisdom commends actively seeking out individuals and churches on whom God’s favour demonstrably rests.

This is not spiritual consumerism—shopping for the most successful or impressive ministry. It is discernment. It requires looking for the seven marks of special favour (divine protection, open doors, vindication, victory against odds, preservation through trial, prophetic insight, sustaining provision) and for the seven qualities that favour produces (covenant love, faithfulness, humility, patient endurance, wisdom, intimacy with God, integrity). Both must be present. Marks without qualities may indicate temporary blessing rather than settled favour.

The model is the Benjaminites who came to David at the cave of Adullam. David’s response to them is instructive: “If you have come to me in peace to help me, my heart will be united with you” (1 Chronicles 12:17). David effectively asks three questions:

Have you come in peace? The person must be coming to promote God’s shalom, his peace and well-being, in the life and context of the one who has favour. Not to manipulate, not to extract benefit cynically, not with hidden agendas. The heart-posture matters. Those who come to exploit favour rather than to genuinely connect will not receive what they seek.

Have you come to help? Not merely to receive but to contribute. The Benjaminites brought their strength—such as it was—to David’s cause. They were not spectators but participants. They shared in the risk as well as the reward.

Are you willing to unite your heart fully to mine? Such a connection requires a union at the heart level, the level of vision, values, and commitments. It requires full commitment, not hedged bets. The Benjaminites burned their bridges with Saul when they joined David. They cast their lot entirely with him. Partial attachment yields no benefit. In fact, according to David, it will yield God’s judgment and rebuke.

Those who connect with favoured individuals and communities in this way position themselves to receive the shared benefits of favour. The shield that covers the favoured one extends to those who stand with him. The open door that no one can shut admits those who have joined themselves to the community for whom it was opened. The sustaining provision supplies those who have cast their lot with the one God is supplying.

Moreover, those who connect in this way may be formed by proximity to favour. Being around those on whom favour rests may produce in them the same qualities, which then attracts favour to them in turn. The Benjaminites who joined David in the cave were not simply betting on his eventual victory. By casting their lot with him, by sharing his hardship, by aligning themselves with God’s favoured one, they were being formed into the kind of men who could rule with him when the kingdom came. This has implications beyond shelter—it concerns transformation.

Living in Babylon: Why This Matters for the Present Hour

We are living through a period of global disruption, the Global Shaking. The structures that once supported Christian life and ministry—cultural Christianity, institutional credibility, social approval—have largely crumbled. Many churches and Christian organisations that flourished in Jerusalem will not survive in Babylon. They were built for a context that no longer exists.

In such times, discerning where God’s favour rests becomes not merely an interesting theological exercise but a matter of practical urgency. The disruption will expose which leaders and which churches have been operating in their own strength and which have been sustained by God’s special favour. When the props are removed, only what God is holding up will remain standing.

This is why the biblical pattern of seeking out and connecting with favoured individuals and communities matters now. As the disruption continues, as familiar institutions fail, as the cultural supports for Christianity continue to erode, Christians will need to find the people and churches where God’s favour demonstrably rests—and attach themselves there, fully, in peace, to help, with hearts united.

The alternative is to drift—to remain loosely connected to institutions that may not survive, to hedge one’s bets, to keep options open. But the Benjaminites did not hedge their bets. They joined David in the cave when his cause looked hopeless. They shared his rejection before they shared his throne.

So the practical counsel emerging from this theological reflection is this: Look for the marks. Look for the qualities. When you find an individual or a church where both are present—where God’s special favour demonstrably rests—consider seriously whether God is calling you to attach yourself there. Come in peace. Come to help. Unite your heart. Share in the risk as well as the reward. Position yourself under the shelter of favour for the time of disruption through which we are travelling and the unknown destination that lies ahead.

And if you recognise that God’s special favour has rested on you—on your life, on your ministry, on your church—then receive that recognition not with pride but with trembling. The weight is heavy. The responsibility is great. The potential for sin against favour is real. Steward what you have been given with gratitude and humility, knowing that you walk under a shelter you did not build and cannot explain.

The Unanswered Question

Why God’s special favour rests on one and not another remains a mystery. David did not know why he was chosen over his brothers. Moses did not know why the bush burned for him. Jacob did not know why he was loved and Esau hated.

The appropriate response to recognising favour on one’s own life or ministry is not explanation but posture: gratitude, faithful stewardship, and a holy unsettledness that maintains dependence on the One whose favour cannot be earned, only received.

Perhaps the niggling question does not need resolution. Perhaps it needs to remain as a kind of holy unsettledness that keeps the favoured one dependent and wondering—knowing that they walk under a shelter they did not build, sustained by a provision they did not earn, protected by a shield they did not forge. “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy.” That is the final word. And it is enough.

I encountered this zeitgeist yet again while reading a recommended book dealing with some of Paul’s more troubling passages for the modern reader, passages dealing with women, sexuality, and slavery, among others. While I found many helpful insights, I also found the author’s casual and flippant affirmations of biblical critical scholarship as settled fact deeply annoying – and somewhat irresponsible.

Much that circulates under the guise of biblical “scholarship” today (and for the past several decades at least) is worse than worthless. It is a poison that demonically undermines the average Christian’s (and Christian leader’s) confidence in the reliability and authority of the Bible. While I would not dispute that there are questions to raise and answers to seek, the basic orientation of much academic scholarship seeks to predetermine both the question and the answer, with the basic disposition that the Bible must be false unless it is proven true – quite the opposite of “innocent until proven guilty”. With almost anything in history, if you try hard enough you can create doubt and scepticism that undermines truth, even settled truth.

In this article, I want to focus on just one aspect of biblical critical scholarship – the authorship of the Pauline letters in the New Testament. The question of who wrote Paul’s letters is not merely an academic puzzle. For ordinary Christians who encounter these arguments, often for the first time in a college class or a sceptical conversation, the stakes feel high. If scholars are right that Paul did not write Ephesians or 1 Timothy or Titus, what does that mean for the trustworthiness of Scripture?

The answer is considerably less than is usually implied. The arguments against Pauline authorship, while presented with great confidence in many academic circles, are far weaker than they appear. It is worth understanding what those arguments are, and why they do not hold up nearly as well as their proponents suggest.

The Letters in Question

Scholars who doubt Pauline authorship typically divide the thirteen letters into two groups. Seven are accepted by almost everyone as genuinely Pauline: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. The remaining six — Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and the three Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) — are disputed to varying degrees. The technical term for a letter written in someone else’s name is pseudepigrapha, and scholars who doubt authenticity often argue that these six were composed by disciples of Paul after his death, using his name to give their writings authority. They often present one or more of five categories of “evidence” that Paul did not write all thirteen letters.

The Argument from Vocabulary and Style

The most frequently cited argument is that the disputed letters contain vocabulary and writing patterns significantly different from the undisputed seven. Words appear in Ephesians or the Pastoral Epistles that do not appear elsewhere in Paul’s letters — or even elsewhere in the New Testament. The sentences in Ephesians tend to be longer and more elaborate. The argument is that the same person would not write so differently.

This is genuinely one of the weakest arguments in the critical arsenal, and it has drawn criticism from scholars who are otherwise sympathetic to critical methods. Consider the range of any major writer’s work. The two parts of Goethe’s Faust differ enormously in style, vocabulary, and register — and they were written by the same man across decades of his life. Any responsible writer naturally writes differently for different audiences, in different circumstances, and at different stages of life.

There is an additional factor specific to Paul. We know from Romans 16:22 that Paul used a secretary named Tertius, who wrote down the letter at Paul’s dictation or direction. Ancient secretaries had considerable latitude in shaping the language of letters. The variation in vocabulary and style across the Pauline corpus is entirely consistent with Paul working with different secretaries, addressing different audiences, and writing at different points in his ministry. None of this requires a change of author. Using such a secretary does not invalidate Paul’s authorship either.

The Argument from Theological Differences

Critics also argue that the theology of the disputed letters differs from that of the undisputed ones. Ephesians, it is said, presents a more elevated, universal conception of the church as the body of Christ spanning all creation, whereas Paul’s earlier letters speak of local congregations. The Pastoral Epistles are said to reflect a concern with preserving established doctrine — “sound teaching” — that seems more characteristic of a second-generation church than of Paul’s urgent, pioneering mission.

These arguments, on close examination, reflect interpretive choices more than neutral observation. The church in Ephesians is not less local or less concrete than the church in 1 Corinthians; it is the same gathering of real people in real places, described with greater theological depth. Paul’s description of the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12 is already breathtaking in its scope. Ephesians develops that theology — it does not contradict it.

The concern for sound doctrine in the Pastorals is likewise fully consistent with Paul’s other letters. In Philippians, Paul exhorts the church: “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you” (Philippians 4:9 ESV). 1 Corinthians 11 insists on the faithful transmission of what Paul himself received concerning the Lord’s Supper. The Pastorals’ concern that Timothy and Titus guard the deposit of faith is not a departure from Paul’s theology — it is the natural application of it to the leaders that he was training to carry on his work.

The deeper problem with the theological argument is that it assumes Paul’s thought could not develop. Theologians develop. Paul was converted on the Damascus road, spent three years in Arabia, conducted three major missionary journeys, and wrote his letters across at least fifteen years of extraordinary ministry. It would be far stranger if his thinking did not deepen and develop across that span. The development of Paul’s thought does not invalidate the inspiration of the Holy Spirit either. The Spirit inspired Paul to write authoritatively and accurately even as the Holy Spirit led Paul in the development of his theology.

The Question of Church Structure

Another argument asserts that the Pastoral Epistles reflect a settled institutional church — with bishops, elders, deacons, and lists of widows — that could only have emerged well after Paul’s lifetime. Paul, the argument goes, was planting churches on the frontier; this kind of ordered structure belongs to a later generation.

This argument is historically weak. Elders appear in Paul’s churches from the very beginning of his recorded ministry: Acts 14 describes him appointing elders in the newly planted churches of southern Asia Minor on his first missionary journey. The Jerusalem church had structured leadership from its earliest days. The assumption that church order is inherently a late development owes more to nineteenth-century scholarly theories — particularly those of the German critic F. C. Baur, who imposed a Hegelian framework of conflict and synthesis onto early Christian history — than to the actual evidence. By the time Paul wrote the Pastorals, if he wrote them toward the end of his life, he had been planting and building churches for thirty years. Of course those churches would have developed recognisable structures and ordered leadership.

The Travel Problem

Perhaps the most substantive difficulty raised by critics involves the biographical details in the Pastoral Epistles. References to Paul leaving Trophimus sick at Miletus, planning to winter at Nicopolis, and having worked in Crete are difficult to fit into the travels recorded in the book of Acts or the other Pauline letters. Critics take this as evidence that someone invented these details to make the letters sound authentic. However, other scholars have provided multiple credible explanations for these details that do not require the fictionalisation of biographical details.

One simpler and historically more credible explanation is that Paul was released from the Roman imprisonment described at the end of Acts, conducted further travels in the eastern Mediterranean and possibly as far west as Spain, and was subsequently re-arrested and executed under Nero. Both 1 Clement, written from Rome at the end of the first century, and the Muratorian Fragment, an early list of canonical books, hint at Paul reaching the western reaches of the empire — which would require exactly this kind of post-Acts release. Such a reconstruction does not require special pleading. It is a historically plausible reading of the available evidence, and it resolves the travel problem without resorting to theories of fiction or forgery.

The Pseudepigraphy Argument

Critics sometimes invoke the broader practice of pseudonymous writing in the ancient world. Writing in a revered teacher’s name was, they argue, an accepted literary convention — a way of applying a master’s teaching to new circumstances rather than a dishonest act. Therefore, it is suggested, we should not be troubled if some of Paul’s letters were written by his disciples in his name.

There are two problems with this argument. The first is logical: the existence of a practice does not establish that the practice was used in any particular case. The fact that pseudepigraphy existed in antiquity is not evidence that these specific letters are pseudonymous. The burden of proof remains with those making the claim, and that burden has not been met.

The second problem is that the acceptability of pseudepigraphy in the early church is itself more contested than critics typically acknowledge. When the early church did discover that a letter was pseudonymous — as happened with the Acts of Paul and Thecla — it rejected the work, even when its theology was orthodox. The early church took apostolic authorship seriously as a criterion for inclusion in the canon. To argue that the church knowingly accepted pseudonymous letters into the canon while simultaneously treating those letters as apostolic authority requires a degree of collective self-deception that strains credibility. To assume that those closest to the time of writing were unaware of pseudepigraphy is equally incredulous.

The Sociology of Scholarly Scepticism

It is worth pausing to ask why these arguments, which are individually contestable and collectively less than conclusive, have achieved such prominence in academic biblical critical scholarship. The honest answer involves the sociology of academic life as much as the weight of evidence.

Scholarly recognition is not typically won by confirming received tradition. It is won by challenging it. A doctoral thesis that concludes Paul wrote all thirteen letters attributed to him will not attract the same attention as one that argues, with statistical vocabulary analysis and form-critical methodology, that the Pastoral Epistles were composed by a pseudonymous author in Ephesus circa AD 100. Academic journals, tenure committees, and conference invitations reward novelty. This does not mean that critical scholars are dishonest — most are not. But it does mean that the incentive structures of academic life consistently push in one direction, and that direction is away from traditional authorship.

In addition to scholarly recognition, we need to acknowledge a further dynamic at work. Some scholars who have written most influentially against traditional authorship did so not from a position of neutral enquiry but from one of prior disbelief. Schleiermacher, who was among the first to dispute that Paul wrote 1 Timothy, worked within a theological framework that had already substantially recast the nature of Christian faith. The pattern continues. Several scholars working today have publicly abandoned the claims of the Gospel, and they have subsequently devoted considerable energy to undermining confidence in the New Testament text. This is not a conspiracy theory — some of these scholars have been candid about the relationship between their loss of faith and their critical agenda. We must note that scepticism about Pauline authorship is not always the disinterested conclusion of careful research. The loss of faith is sometimes the starting point, dressed in the language of scholarship.

The overall result is a body of scholarship in which sceptical conclusions have accumulated over generations, each new study building on the previous round of doubts, until the doubts themselves come to seem like settled conclusions. Ordinary Christians who encounter the phrase “most scholars believe” should understand that this consensus was not built on neutral assessment of the evidence. It was built in an environment where scepticism is professionally rewarded, traditional conclusions are professionally unremarkable, and disbelief is promoted.

What Ordinary Christians Should Think

None of this means that the questions raised by critical scholarship should be ignored or dismissed. Careful engagement with the text, serious attention to history and language, and willingness to ask hard questions are all marks of faithful scholarship – and faithful Christian witness. The problems raised by critics deserve considered responses, not defensive dismissal.

But ordinary Christians who feel unsettled by hearing that “scholars believe Paul did not write these letters” are entitled to know that the case against Pauline authorship is considerably weaker than it is often presented. The style variations are explicable. The theological differences reflect development, not contradiction. The institutional structures are historically appropriate. The travel references fit a plausible reconstruction of Paul’s final years. The pseudepigraphy argument proves nothing specific. And the confident tone in which these arguments are often advanced owes more to the dynamics of academic culture than to the strength of the evidence.

The church has read these letters as Paul’s for two thousand years, has been formed by them, has suffered and died for the faith they articulate. The weight of that history does not settle every scholarly question. But it deserves rather more respect than it tends to receive in the seminar room. As Christians living in perilous times, we need to have confidence that God continues to speak with authority, clarity, and accuracy through the Bible, so that we might continue living faithfully in accordance with the Bible.

Although I have ministered in London for almost 25 years, I am from the United States of America. I am immensely grateful to God for my upbringing in the USA. America has given me opportunities that, based on my background, I would not have received had I been born in almost any other country in the world – including the United Kingdom. I believe that the USA is among the most remarkable nations in the history of the world. She certainly has served as a major force in global Christian missions the past two centuries. American-style capitalism, exported and adapted to many different contexts (such as China’s “capitalism with Chinese characters”) has lifted billions out of poverty since the end of WWII. Many spend time and energy denigrating Western civilization, including the US and the UK, but I am not one of those people. I genuinely love the United States, and I genuinely love the United Kingdom as well.

I write this prologue because I am aware that my two Substack series, Living in Babylon and The Global Shaking, might seem critical of the US and the UK, or even of Western societies generally. However, to understand these as critiques would be to mistake them entirely. Perhaps the more biblical name for these articles would be “lamentation”. These lamentations seek to raise awareness and call people to action. These lamentations seek to alert Christian leaders to significant shifts in our contexts so that we can lead our people fruitfully and faithfully. The present article continues this strain of lamentation and fits within both my series noted above. These two sets of articles provide frameworks from which we might understand our world presently and choose faithfulness as part of God’s Kingdom.

Introduction

On 11 September 2001, the world watched two towers fall in lower Manhattan. The immediate death toll was nearly three thousand. The physical damage, though catastrophic, was geographically contained. Yet something far larger than two buildings collapsed that morning — a psychological architecture that had stood for more than half a century: the assumption that America was invulnerable on her own soil.

That assumption was the cornerstone of what some historians now call the Pax Americana — the long peace underwritten by American military dominance, economic power, and cultural reach that shaped the post-war world. When it broke on that September morning, something structural shifted in the foundations of the Western order.

Students of ancient history will recognise the shape of this moment. In AD 410, the Visigoth king Alaric led his forces through the gates of Rome. He held the city for only three days. The physical damage was significant but limited. But the psychological shock was total. Jerome, writing from Bethlehem, said he was speechless with grief. Augustine began writing The City of God partly in response. The eternal city — the symbol of civilisational permanence — had been violated. The unthinkable had happened.

The parallel between 410 and 2001 is more than rhetorical. It raises a serious question that Christian leaders in the Western world need to consider: are we watching the decline of the Pax Americana^[1] unfold along lines disturbingly similar to the fall of Rome? And if so, what does faithfulness look like for the church in such a time?

What Rome Was — and What America Is

Rome was not simply a city or even a nation-state. At its height it was a civilisational system — held together not only by legions but by roads, law, currency, trade networks, and a shared cultural identity that stretched from Britain to Mesopotamia. When we speak of the fall of Rome, we mean the collapse of that entire interlocking system.

America is not a territorial empire in the Roman sense. There are no American governors administering foreign provinces, no tribute flowing to Washington from conquered peoples. But it would be a mistake to conclude from this that America has not exercised imperial power. The form is different; the substance is real.

America has exercised what we might call systemic power or infrastructure power — power exercised not through direct administration but through the systems other nations depend upon: the US dollar as global reserve currency; the SWIFT financial clearing system; carrier groups projecting military reach across every ocean. NATO provides American military bases across dozens of nations — the equivalent of Rome’s frontier outposts and legionary forts. The export of American culture through film, music, technology, and social media, reshapes the imagination of populations worldwide. To live in the modern world is, in significant ways, to live within American-built infrastructure, whether or not one is American.

This is empire — genuinely, structurally — even if it wears a different face from the Roman version. And like Rome, it is showing signs of systemic strain.

The Signs of Strain: A Parallel Reading

The Shock That Exposed the Foundations

The sack of Rome in 410 was not the cause of Rome’s decline. The decline had been underway for generations. But it was the moment that made the decline undeniable — that shattered the psychological confidence which had itself been a form of structural support. Confidence in Rome’s permanence had been a self-fulfilling prophecy; its loss became a self-fulfilling prophecy of a different kind.

9/11 functioned similarly. It did not cause American decline. But it exposed vulnerabilities that confidence had concealed, and it triggered a cascade of responses — military, political, economic, cultural — that accelerated processes already underway. The invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq simultaneously, at a cost now estimated at over eight trillion dollars across two decades, with neither achieving clean resolution, echoes Rome’s pattern of reactive military overstretch across multiple frontiers — consuming resources faster than they could be replenished, while producing diminishing strategic returns.

Revolving Leadership and Hollowed Institutions

Between 455 and 476 AD, the Western Roman Empire cycled through nine emperors, most removed by violence or military coup. Real power had long since migrated from the nominal emperor to the powerful military commanders — often themselves of barbarian origin — who installed and deposed rulers at will. The Senate continued to meet. The forms of republican and imperial governance were maintained. But the substance had gone.

The Western democratic equivalent is not identical but carries a disturbing structural resonance. Legislative bodies that were designed for deliberation have become performance venues, permanently in campaign mode, cycling through electoral cycles too rapidly for long-term governance. The American Congress, the British Parliament, and most Western equivalents have been changing in composition every two to four years — a churn that, combined with the dominance of short-term electoral calculation, has made strategic, multi-generational thinking nearly impossible.

Meanwhile, real power has migrated. Where late Roman power drifted to barbarian military commanders operating behind the facade of imperial authority, contemporary power has drifted to concentrations of private wealth and corporate influence operating behind the facade of democratic accountability. Individuals of extraordinary wealth and corporations of extraordinary reach — in technology, finance, and the infrastructure of the digital economy — now negotiate with governments rather than being regulated by them. Although governments continue to exercise regulatory power, such power has diminished. This is not a party-political observation; it is a structural one.

Beyond the political, the institutional decay is broader. Trust in legislatures, courts, media, universities, churches, and denominations has declined precipitously across the Western world in the post-9/11 decades. These institutions continue to exist; their buildings stand, their bureaucracies function. But their authority — the willing deference of populations to their judgments — has quietly haemorrhaged. Late Rome experienced a similar loss of trust in its institutions.

The Economy and the Currency

Roman currency debasement was chronic and accelerated through the empire’s final century. The silver content of the denarius, nearly pure in the early empire, had fallen to a thin coating over base metal by the third century (similar to what has happened with American coinage). Inflation was structural, not episodic. The tax base shrank as territory was lost and agricultural land depopulated. The wealthy retreated to self-sufficient rural estates, effectively seceding from the civic economy.

The American parallel is not precise but is suggestive. Since 2001, US national debt has grown from six trillion to over thirty-four trillion dollars. Quantitative easing and monetary expansion have been the default response to every crisis. The dollar’s status as global reserve currency — the foundation of American financial power — is now the subject of active strategic challenge through de-dollarisation projects among major economies. Many wealthy have retreated into private enclaves, private security, and international tax structures that place them increasingly outside the civic order they nominally inhabit.

The Frontier Powers and the New Huns

In the mid-fifth century, the Hunnic confederation under Attila pressed from the East, devastating Gaul and northern Italy. The Huns did not need to conquer Rome directly. They destabilised the frontier, forced cascading population movements among the Gothic and Germanic peoples, and drove military expenditure that the empire could not sustain. Their power was leveraged rather than direct.

China’s challenge to American global order follows a structurally similar logic, though far more sophisticated in execution. The South China Sea represents territorial creep in the traditional sense — the gradual establishment of physical facts on the ground, island by island, base by base. But the deeper challenge is infrastructural: technology dependency through semiconductors, telecommunications hardware, and digital platforms; economic entanglement through the Belt and Road Initiative across dozens of nations; the capture of institutional influence through universities, international bodies, and financial institutions. China does not need to invade. It simply needs to displace — to make the systems that run through Beijing more essential than the systems that run through Washington.

The Barbarians Within and the Frontier Peoples

Late Rome’s military problem was not simply external threat. The Roman army had become substantially dependent on the very peoples pressing at its frontiers — commanders of Vandal, Gothic, and Hunnic origin held the highest military offices of the empire. The integration that had once been Rome’s great strength — absorbing peoples and making them Roman — had ceased to function. Large populations were present within the imperial system without shared loyalty to its values or institutions.

The Western world faces a version of this challenge in the twenty-first century. The question is not the presence of newcomers — Western societies have always absorbed migration — but whether the integrative mechanisms are still functioning. Civic education, shared narrative, cultural expectation, economic mobility: where these are working, integration continues. Where they have broken down, parallel communities with parallel moral and legal frameworks develop within the body politic.^[2] The pattern is visible across Western Europe and, differently, in the United States. The most honest assessment is that the integrative machinery is under serious strain, and that the institutional failures — including the reluctance of authorities to acknowledge and address the strain — mirror the administrative paralysis of the late Roman empire with uncomfortable precision.

The Withdrawal of Elites and the Abandonment of the Periphery

Roman elites in Ravenna and Constantinople were genuinely insulated from the deterioration occurring on the frontiers and in the rural provinces. Ordinary people did not experience ‘the fall of Rome’ as a single event. They experienced it as grinding local realities: taxes that crushed, soldiers who passed through and took the grain, roads that were no longer repaired, the lord who had changed from Roman to Gothic but left them mostly alone.

The contemporary parallel cuts in two directions simultaneously. Coastal and metropolitan elites in the Western world are often insulated from the social deterioration visible in post-industrial heartlands and frontier communities. The heartlands, in turn, are often insulated from the geopolitical shifts that are reshaping the global order. Nobody has the full picture. The collective response is therefore necessarily inadequate — and the inadequacy of the response itself accelerates the decline. The American withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 — not the decision itself, but its chaotic execution and the signal it sent to allies and rivals alike — had something of Rome’s abandonment of Britain in 410: not a catastrophe in itself, but a revelation of limits, and a recalibration by everyone watching.

The Differences That Matter

Intellectual honesty requires acknowledging where the parallel strains or breaks. America is not Rome – the Pax Americana is not the Pax Romana – and the differences are real.

America retains extraordinary underlying strengths that Rome in its final century did not possess: the world’s largest economy with deep structural resilience; dominant military technology by a substantial margin; demographic growth through immigration that most European nations lack; institutional depth — courts, rule of law, constitutional order — that, however strained, remains more robust than anything Rome possessed in its decline. The patient is unwell. The patient is not yet terminal.

The speed and visibility of the current moment is also genuinely different. Roman decline was experienced locally and gradually, invisible as a grand narrative to those living through it. American and Western decline — if that is what it is — unfolds in full global visibility, in real time, amplified by media and social networks. This changes the psychology in ways that may cut both ways: decline can become self-fulfilling through narrative, but it can also be interrupted by awareness in ways that slow Roman processes never allowed.

The most important historical caveat is this: Rome’s third-century crisis (235–284 AD) looked terminal from the inside and was not. The empire recovered under Diocletian and reorganised under Constantine — not a return to what was, but a transformation into something different. Whether America and the West are in a terminal fifth-century decline or a recoverable third-century crisis is a question that cannot yet be answered. History does not offer that clarity in advance.

The Hollowed Tree

Which brings us to the most searching question — not about Rome, and not ultimately about America, but about what underlies both.

When a tree is hollowed by disease or decay, the process begins in the heartwood — the dense, dead-seeming core of the trunk that is actually the tree’s structural backbone. The sapwood, the living outer ring that continues to transport water and nutrients and to grow, remains intact and functional. From outside, the tree looks entirely normal. It continues to grow, produce leaves, even fruit. The hollow is invisible. It is only when stress is applied — a storm, a heavy fall of snow, a sustained wind — that the inadequacy of the outer ring alone becomes suddenly, catastrophically apparent.

What has been the heartwood of Western civilisation, and of American civilisation in particular? The answer is not simple, but at its core it is this: a Judeo-Christian (largely Protestant) account of reality that provided the moral and metaphysical foundation for everything built above it.

This is not romanticism about a lost Christian golden age. It is a structural observation. Christianity provided Western civilisation with a shared account of human dignity grounded not in utility, sentiment, or state grant, but in the image of God — imago Dei — which therefore could not be revoked by any human power. It provided a moral authority that stood outside and above political power, and could therefore critique it: the prophet before the king, the church before the emperor. It provided an understanding of human nature that took seriously the capacity for self-deception and the corruption of power — which is precisely why the American founders built in checks and balances, separation of powers, and constitutional limits. They assumed that fallen people would seek power corruptly, and they designed the government accordingly. It provided a horizon of accountability beyond the immediate — the fear of God as a restraint on behaviour when earthly accountability fails. And it generated genuine community structures — congregations, parishes, voluntary associations — that stood between the individual and the state, preventing the state from becoming the only significant collective institution in a person’s life.

As Christianity has lost cultural authority across the Western world, none of these things have been replaced — only mimicked. The moral vocabulary persists in secularised form, but without the metaphysical grounding that gave it weight. Justice, dignity, rights, oppression: these are profoundly Christian categories, and they do not function well when severed from the theological account that produced them. Although people might also discuss these categories in terms of secular philosophy and the Enlightenment, for example, Christianity remains the only foundation that might undergird them in the West.

The sapwood is alive. The heartwood is decaying – we just do not know how severely. The tree continues to grow and produce fruit. It looks, from outside, remarkably strong. The question — and it must be asked as a genuine question, not a rhetorical one — is whether the heartwood can be restored.

The hollowed tree analogy has one limitation: a tree cannot regenerate its heartwood. Once gone, it is gone. Whether the same is true of civilisations is far less clear. The third-century Roman crisis resolved because a Diocletian emerged willing to make brutal structural reforms, and because Constantine’s reorientation gave the empire a new source of cohesive identity that proved generative for over a century. The recovery was not a return to what was. It was a transformation into something different, built on a changed foundation.

What the equivalent of that transformation would look like for the Western world — whether it is possible, what it would require, what form it would take — is a question that genuinely cannot be answered from where we stand. We do not know whether we are in a third-century crisis with a resolution still ahead, or whether 9/11 was our 410 and the trajectory is now set. History does not yield that clarity to those living inside it.

What the Church Must Do

But here is what the church cannot do: wait for historical clarity before deciding how to live faithfully.

The monasteries that preserved Christian learning and civilisational memory through the post-Roman darkness did not know, when they were founded, that they would be needed for that purpose. They were simply attempting to be faithful communities in a time of institutional chaos. The faithfulness came first. The providential fruit came later — and was visible only in retrospect.

The call to the church in this moment is not to save Western civilisation. It is not to restore Christendom, or to recover cultural dominance, or to make America great again in any sense. These are not the church’s vocation and they are not within the church’s power. The call is simpler and harder: to be recognisably, substantively, durably, authentically “Christian” — whatever storms come.

This means recovering the heartwood — not merely maintaining the appearance of the tree. It means building flourishing churches who know who they are in Christ together: communities where the Bible is actually believed, taught, and obeyed; where the living Jesus Christ is genuinely known rather than nominally acknowledged; where Christian discipleship is serious enough to produce people whose identity, moral framework, and deepest loyalties are shaped by Scripture and the gospel rather than by the ambient culture that surrounds them. The church that cannot be distinguished from the world it inhabits has already lost the only thing that makes it worth preserving.

It means recovering the prophetic voice — the willingness to name what is true regardless of who is listening — from a position of genuine freedom. That freedom is only possible when the church is not so entangled with any political movement, cultural faction, or institutional interest that its voice has been quietly purchased. The church has never been called primarily to influence culture; it has been called to be faithful, and faithfulness has its own cultural consequences, which God determines in his own time. What we are called to is not cultural leverage but God’s loving rulership — being salt and light in whatever darkness comes, carrying the word of life through whatever disruption lies ahead, and trusting that the God who brought his church through a tumultuous history has not exhausted either his purposes or his power.

And it means doing all this without despair. Rome did not fall in 410. Alaric’s sack of the city was the shock that exposed the decline — but the Pax Romana continued for another 66 years, finally ending in 476 when Romulus Augustulus was quietly deposed and nobody much noticed. Those 66 years were neither a golden age nor a sudden catastrophe; they were a long, uneven unwinding that most people living through it did not recognise as terminal. We do not know where we stand in the equivalent sequence for the Pax Americana. Even if our 9/11 moment was our 410, we may yet have many years before the hollowed tree falls. What we do know is that the God who was not surprised by the fall of Pax Romana is not surprised by the fractures in the Pax Americana. The city of God, as Augustine reminded a grieving church in 410, does not stand or fall with any earthly empire. It was not built by human hands, and it will not be brought down by human failure.

The tree may be hollow. The storm may be coming. But the church living faithfully remains God’s strategy for reaching the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Christians living faithful lives punctuated by God’s miraculous interventions in whatever worldly empire we inhabit will continue to bear fruit in ways and times that only God can see.

^[1] I wrestled somewhat with the term to use. America is not an “empire” in the same way that Rome was an empire. However, the influence of America globally is perhaps greater than the influence of Rome. Some call this the “American hegemony”, but that has negative connotations. It could be the “American world order” or the “American systemic empire” because it is the various American systems – financial, military, cultural, institutional – that have influenced the world. I could get very pretentious and use “American imperium”, because that refers to the command authority of Rome rather than its territorial possession. This works because America does not control the territories that it influences. However, most readers would not connect with it at all. So, I will continue with Pax Americana, but I wanted you to know my thinking here.

^[2] For example, the UK currently has recognisable Sharia Law systems that exist in parallel to the British legal system. These have been allowed to continue and thrive, even though they represent a clear challenge to the rule of law in the UK.

For the past several years, I have written and taught that the societies of the former Christian-majority nations of the West have become like Babylon in the Bible. Being Babylon does not depend on the government being “liberal” or “conservative”. A nation becomes “Babylon” when it rejects Judeo-Christian biblical values for whatever replacement values the culture deems suitable for the day. Although an echo of biblical values remain in Babylon nations, these societies have in truth jettisoned Christian values for those perceived more suitable for the times. Sadly, many Christians and churches in these nations have not recognised the transformation, believing that they remain in a Christendom-like society (what I have referred to as “Jerusalem” or “Israel”) which supports their Christian faith and welcomes their efforts to promote Christian belief in the larger society.

I have recently written about the Global Shaking that the world has been experiencing since September 2008. The Global Shaking is shaking everything that can be shaken, including many Christian churches and denominations. The Global Shaking has revealed the extent and significance of the society’s transformation to Babylon, since the society no longer has the anchors of Christian vision and values that formerly sustained the society through such shakings. If we are to lead well as Christians, we must understand what is happening in our world and the general context in which we lead. Otherwise, we are no better than the blind leading the blind (see Matthew 15:14).

As I have reflected on Babylon and the Global Shaking, I have wondered when Western nations actually became like Babylon, whether it was possible to identify the point of transition. As someone originally from the US, with the distance of someone who has ministered in London for almost 25 years, I find it possible only to consider when the transition occurred in the United States. Although I lived through it in the US, I did not recognise what was happening at the time. It seemed a time when churches were growing and prospering, when Christian entertainment and merchandising were exploding, and when we assumed that as a “Christian nation” the US would always remain the vanguard of the Gospel in the world. It was also the beginning of a post-Berlin Wall world, and the seeming triumph of the “Christian” West.

In this essay, I want to set out the empirical and cultural-theological case that the United States underwent a decisive transition in the period from 1992 to 1993 to become like Babylon, a transition which had solidified by September 2008. This was a shift from a society broadly shaped by its Christian heritage (what we might call a “Jerusalem”-shaped culture) to one operating according to fundamentally different assumptions and values (a “Babylon”-shaped culture). This transition did not happen overnight, and its precursors go back further than 1992. But 1992-93 was the threshold year, the moment when what had been transgressive became normalised, and the trajectory of American culture became unmistakeable.

This essay provides background data and analysis to support the Global Shaking series and to connect with the theological framework developed more fully in the Living in Babylon series, both on my Freed to Lead Substack. For the theological precision behind the use of “Jerusalem” and “Babylon” as categories — including the important distinctions between Babylon as cultural context and the eschatological Harlot Babylon of Revelation 17–18 — readers are directed to that series.

The data presented here covers three interlocking trends: the decline in Christian identification and practice in the United States; the concurrent and paradoxical growth of the megachurch phenomenon; and the cultural-political shifts that marked 1992 as a threshold moment. All three, read together, tell a coherent story. (For the Living in Babylon theological framework, see my Freed to Lead Substack.)

The Threshold Year: 1992-93

To understand why 1992-93 represents a genuine cultural threshold rather than simply another data point in a gradual decline, it helps to compare two moments separated by just five years.

In May 1987, Gary Hart was the clear frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. When the Miami Herald reported on his affair with Donna Rice, Hart was forced to withdraw from the race. The American public, and the political class, judged that a candidate who had conducted himself in this way was unfit for the highest office. The mechanism of accountability was swift and decisive.

In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected President of the United States, despite questions surrounding his conduct. This was not a case of hidden information coming to light after the election. Clinton’s moral failures were known before polling day. More significantly, the Clinton presidency then provided a second and more serious test of cultural standards. The Monica Lewinsky affair was not a matter of pre-campaign conduct but of misconduct in office, conducted in real time, involving the President lying under oath to a federal grand jury and to the American public. Yet, the outcome was acquittal by the Senate, and Clinton leaving office in January 2001 with approval ratings in the high sixties. (Gallup historical approval data.)

The contrast between these two moments is stark. What ended Hart’s career in 1987 did not merely fail to end Clinton’s in 1998 — it was, in effect, publicly ratified. The American public did not simply forgive Clinton; a significant portion concluded that his conduct was not disqualifying for public office. This represented not merely a shift in tolerance, but a deeper shift in moral culture: the beginning of the formal separation of public competence from private character, and the end of shame as a meaningful political force.

Precursors

1992-93 was a threshold rather than an absolute beginning. The cultural forces that produced the Clinton moment had been building for decades. The sexual revolution of the 1960s had already severed the link between sexual behaviour and public shame for large sections of the population. The broader cultural turn toward expressive individualism had already begun to erode the communal moral frameworks that had previously governed public life. The televangelism scandals of the late 1980s — involving figures such as Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart — had already demonstrated that Christian public figures were not immune to the exposure and commercialisation of private failure.

These are genuine precursors, and they deserve mention. But they did not, in themselves, constitute the threshold. What changed in 1992 was that these and other cultural trends achieved majority cultural expression. The question was no longer whether the old standards could be challenged, but whether they could be enforced at all.

The Statistical Picture: Christian Identification and Practice, 1992–2007

In 1992–93, approximately 84–85% of Americans identified as Christian. Gallup data shows that 84% of Americans identified as Christian in 1993, statistically unchanged from 86% in 1983. By 2007, when Pew Research conducted its first Religious Landscape Study, that figure had dropped to 78% — a decline of 6–7 percentage points in fifteen years. This was the beginning of a long-term trend of disaffiliation that has continued to the present day, with the Christian share of the US adult population standing at 62% in the 2023–24 Pew Religious Landscape Study.

The attendance picture is equally revealing. Gallup data from 1992 shows that 34% of US adults attended church every week. Adding those who attended almost every week and about once a month, a reasonable estimate is that 55–60% of Americans attended Christian worship at least monthly in 1992. The gap between identification and practice is itself significant: a substantial proportion of American Christianity was already cultural or nominal — a reservoir of identification without active belonging, precisely the kind of Christianity most vulnerable to rapid erosion when cultural pressures changed.

The Megachurch Paradox

Against this backdrop of declining identification and attendance, one counter-intuitive trend stands out: the explosive growth of megachurches. In 1992, data collected by researcher Scott Thumma revealed approximately 350 such congregations in the United States — defined as Protestant congregations with sustained weekly attendance of at least 2,000. By 2007, the Hartford Institute’s database listed 1,250 megachurches: an increase of approximately 257% in fifteen years.

During a period when Christian identification fell by 6–7 percentage points, the number of megachurches nearly quadrupled. The research points to a clear explanation: megachurch growth was driven primarily by transfer growth rather than conversion growth. Megachurches were drawing committed attenders away from smaller congregations rather than reaching the unchurched in significant numbers. The result was a concentration of engaged Christians into larger and larger gatherings while thousands of smaller churches stagnated or closed. The megachurch boom was not a sign of Christian vitality; it was a sign of consolidation during a time of decline.

There is a further dimension worth noting. The megachurch model adopted the language, aesthetics, and logic of consumer culture. The seeker-sensitive movement, with its emphasis on relevance, accessibility, and experience, represented a significant accommodation to the cultural environment of the 1990s. Christianity was being packaged and marketed using Babylon’s own commercial tools — and the long-term theological consequences of that accommodation are now becoming fully visible.

The Commercialisation of Christian Culture

The megachurch phenomenon did not develop in isolation. It was accompanied by the rapid commercialisation of Christian music and publishing during the same period. Contemporary Christian Music underwent a decisive transformation in the 1990s as major secular labels acquired Christian imprints and the industry adopted mainstream commercial metrics — sales, chart positions, radio airplay — as the primary measures of success.

Similarly, Christian publishing expanded dramatically during this period. The commercial success of titles such as The Prayer of Jabez (2000) and the Left Behind series illustrated both the size of the potential market and the degree to which Christian publishing had adopted the logic of consumer demand: give people what they want to hear, package it attractively, and sell it in volume.

When Christian music is evaluated by chart performance and Christian books by sales figures, the market becomes the arbiter of spiritual value. Babylon’s economy — with its promise of wealth and success and its ultimate worship of Mammon — had colonised the institutional structures of American Christianity from within. The result, by the early 2000s, was a Christian cultural ecosystem that was simultaneously larger in its commercial footprint and thinner in its theological substance than it had been a generation earlier.

Consumerism, the Internet, and the Acceleration of Babylon

The 1992–2007 period also saw the shaping of consumer capitalism in its contemporary form. Capitalism had already begun a shift in the 1980s with Reaganomics, which had helped the US emerge from the economic doldrums of the 1970s. From the 1990s, the deregulation of financial markets, the rise of consumer credit, the dot-com boom, sub-prime mortgages, and the financialization of the economy consolidated a cultural framework in which consumption became the primary mode of self-expression and identity formation. This is not capitalism as such, but what we might call pseudo-capitalism: an economic order that mimics the language of free markets while generating wealth for the few at the expense of the many, and that elevates Mammon to the status of a governing value.

The rise of personal computing and the internet after 1995 accelerated these developments. The internet created genuine possibilities for connection, learning, and Christian witness across national and cultural boundaries — possibilities that faithful Christians have used to good effect. But the internet also became, very rapidly, one of Babylon’s most powerful tools: through the algorithmic amplification of outrage and tribalism; the pornography industry’s colonisation of domestic space; the fragmentation of shared reality into competing information ecosystems; the reduction of human attention to a commodity to be bought and sold; and the replacement of embodied community with the simulacrum of digital connection.

By the year 2000, the transition was substantially complete. The United States had become a Babylon-shaped culture: not yet the coercive, totalising Babylon of Revelation 17–18, but a society whose governing assumptions — about morality, identity, economic life, and truth itself — were no longer shaped by the Christian heritage that had previously given them form.

The Global Shaking and the Emergence of Babylon

The Global Shaking began in September 2008 with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the ensuing global financial crisis. Its significance for the thesis of this paper is not primarily economic. It is that the crisis exposed the hollowness of the prosperity assumptions that had quietly shaped much of American culture — including much of American Christianity — during the previous fifteen years. (For the broader Global Shaking framework, see the Freed to Lead Substack.)

Since 2008, the two trends documented in this paper have continued and in some respects accelerated. Christian identification has continued to fall: from 78% in 2007 to 62% in 2023–24. Megachurch numbers have continued to rise: from 1,250 in 2007 to approximately 1,750–1,800 by 2020. The concentration of remaining engaged Christians into larger congregations, the removal of Christian expressions from local neighbourhoods, and the continuing erosion of broad cultural Christianity, have deepened.

A further development since 2008 has been the increasing visibility of Babylon’s coercive dimension. The transition from voluntary cultural drift to demanded ideological allegiance — particularly around questions of sexuality, identity, and progressive orthodoxy — has accelerated sharply since approximately 2012–15. When the promises of Mammon are shown to be empty, Babylon does not repent; it tightens its grip on the cultural and legal levers that enforce conformity. The demands for allegiance to Babylon’s ‘images of gold’ have become increasingly explicit and increasingly enforceable, such that Christians who refuse conformity now face not merely social disapproval but professional, legal, and institutional consequences.

The transition from a liberal Democratic president to a conservative Republican president – now on two occasions – has not altered the Babylon dynamic. It has merely shifted Babylon from a progressive liberal Babylon to a populist conservative Babylon. The populist conservative Babylon has just as many images of gold demanding homage. The consequences for not bowing down are just as severe.

Over the past few years, people on both sides of the Atlantic have frequently asked my view of President Donald Trump. Opinions are sharply divided — some admire him greatly, others despise him, and most find him genuinely perplexing. I have consistently declined to share my personal assessment, partly because any honest answer requires more context than a conversation usually allows.

That context is the “Living in Babylon” framework. Within it, I have found a single grid that makes coherent sense of Trump, his predecessors, and indeed the entire character of contemporary American leadership: President Trump is a Babylonian ruler — as was Joe Biden before him, and Barack Obama before him.

When I compare the words and conduct of recent American presidents with Nebuchadnezzar and the rulers who appear in the book of Daniel, the similarities are striking. These were not evil men in any simple sense — Nebuchadnezzar could be magnanimous, capable, even occasionally responsive to God. But they were men wholly formed by Babylon, operating by Babylon’s logic, serving Babylon’s ends. The same is true of America’s recent presidents. Biden was a progressive liberal Babylonian ruler; Trump is a populist conservative Babylonian ruler. The political distance between them is real, but the common denominator is more fundamental: both are men of Babylon, shaped by its values, animated by its spirit, and serving — knowingly or not — its purposes.

Reading the Moment

The data and analysis presented in this paper support the following thesis: the United States crossed a decisive cultural threshold in 1992-93, moving from a Jerusalem-shaped society to a Babylon-shaped one. The Hart/Clinton contrast marks the moment when the old moral consensus lost its power of enforcement. The statistical evidence from 1992 onwards — declining Christian identification, the megachurch paradox, the commercialisation of Christian culture, the rise of consumer capitalism and the internet — all point in the same direction. By 2000, the transition was substantially complete. By 2008, when the Global Shaking began, the United States had become comprehensively unmoored from its Christian heritage.

This is not primarily a political analysis, still less a call for cultural nostalgia. The Jerusalem of mid-twentieth-century America was not the Kingdom of God, and we should not mistake it for such. The task for Christians living in Babylon is not to recover a lost Jerusalem but to do what Daniel, Esther, and the communities addressed in 1 Peter did: to live faithful lives punctuated by miracles, to seek the welfare of the city, to refuse the demands for idolatrous allegiance, and to bear faithful witness to the God who rules over Babylon as surely as he ruled over Jerusalem. That task requires, first of all, healthy Christian leaders who have an accurate reading of the moment in which we live.

In previous articles, I explored the nature of this disruption, the factors that determine whether disruptions become permanent, and when the current Global Shaking might resolve into a new stable order. I suggested the resolution for this time of shaking could occur likely by 2032. This timeframe is based on both the convergence of various cyclical theories and the application of historical analysis regarding generational replacement, institutional transformation, economic restructuring, and ideological shift. If the present Global Shaking sees a kinetic and widespread World War III, then that could defer the proposed resolution timeframe for several years.

In my last article, I examined how the Global Shaking is affecting the church itself. God is not merely shaking the world; he is shaking his church. I argued that the church of 2035 will be as different from the church of 2005 as the church of 2005 was different from the church of 1975. The transformation between 1975 and 2005 was dramatic and comprehensive—reshaping worship, leadership, evangelism, denominational structures, and cultural engagement. Yet those changes occurred during a period of relative stability. The changes occurring now are taking place during a genuine global shaking, when the existing order is being radically restructured. We should expect the transformation in churches to be at least as dramatic, and likely more so.

God has given us a tremendous gift to recognise where we are in history so that we might understand what is required for faithful presence in this moment, acting with both urgency and wisdom. The window for preparation is narrowing. The choices made now will determine which churches are able to serve effectively in the 2030s and beyond.

But the church is facing extraordinary challenges. For example, according to Pew Research Center’s new publication, Religious Diversity Around the World^[1] we are witnessing the precipitous decline of Christianity in Western nations. In 2010, 62.4% of people in the UK identified as “Christian”, with 28.8% identifying as “religiously unaffiliated” (or “nones” as some call them^[2]). By 2020, ten years later, the “Christian” number had decreased to 49.4%, while the “religiously unaffiliated” number had increased to 40.2%. In the US in 2010, 78.3% identified as “Christian” while 16.5% were “religiously unaffiliated”. By 2020, the percentage of “Christians” in the US had decreased to 64% as the “religiously unaffiliated” increased to 29.7%. We cannot rely on having a culture that will support evangelism and discipleship.

In this article, I want to look forward. If the Global Shaking resolves by 2032, what will the church look like in 2035? What patterns, practices, and postures will characterise the churches that not only survive but flourish in the post-disruption world? And what must churches do now to prepare?

What the Global Shaking Has Exposed

Before we can envision where the church might be going, we must be honest about what the Global Shaking has revealed. This season of disruption has functioned as a severe stress test for churches and denominations. Many have failed this test.

Leadership Pathologies. We have seen celebrity pastor models that proved toxic and unsustainable and authoritarian control patterns that lead to spiritual abuse. There has been a lack of genuine accountability structures. Leaders have been driven by insecurity, ego, and the need for platform rather than genuine calling. We have heard reports of widespread moral failures among high-profile Christian leaders. In many old denominations, therapeutic and moralistic models of Christian leadership have failed to produce healthy followers of Jesus.

Institutional Weaknesses. Some denominations and churches have depended on cultural Christianity for their support rather than building genuine discipleship communities. Institutional self-preservation has been prioritised over truth and justice, as abuse scandals and cover-ups revealed. Denominational structures have proved weak and dysfunctional. Business-model approaches (seeker-sensitive, attractional, consumer-oriented) have collapsed when cultural props were removed.

Theological Shallowness. Churches have shown an inability to provide genuine theological formation. There has been a lack of coherent teaching that can engage culture without capitulation. Churches have failed to prepare believers for living as a minority in post-Christian society. Christian leaders have taken therapeutic rather than transformative approaches to faith.

Community Failure. Christians have engaged in unstable and irregular Sunday attendance patterns rather than genuine life-together community. Programmes have replaced relationships. There is a lack of authentic community that could sustain people through disruption.

The brutal reality is that fewer and fewer individual churches possess sustainable health and vitality to persevere and provide healthy Christian communities through the remainder of this disruption and into whatever emerges afterward. The danger is that some churches might mistake worldly standards for signs of enduring health and vitality when these may only be disguising growing disease and dysfunction in the body.

Churches That Are Surviving

Of course, not all churches are failing. Although I am realistic about the current condition of many churches and denominations, I am not pessimistic about the church. Jesus will have a pure and spotless Bride. The church remains God’s strategy for reaching the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Many churches are proving resilient, and even thriving during this time. However, we must discern carefully.

As noted, many people continue to evaluate whether a church is thriving on the basis of worldly standards or measurements. Some people assume that churches with large numbers of people are thriving more than small membership churches. Others evaluate churches on the basis of the size of its building or the size of its bank accounts. Still others will judge churches based on its perceived “influence” and the number of its “followers”. None of these are reliable determinants of health and resilience.

The churches proving genuinely resilient through this disruption seem to share certain characteristics. They have authentic Christian community where people actually do life together, beyond Sunday attendance. They pursue serious Christian discipleship and personal formation rather than offering consumer religious services. They maintain the shared practices—worship, Sacraments, prayer, service, fellowship—that form Christian identity and character. They provide clear biblical teaching that explains the faith, helps people flourish, and engages the culture. They have strong accountability structures that help prevent leadership abuse. They operate with economic simplicity, not dependent on massive overhead and staff. They hold realistic expectations, not trying to be all things to all people but simply to be the church God has called them to be.

In essence, churches that look more like the early Church (without idolising the early Church) are proving more resilient than those built on the old assumptions of cultural support, numerical growth, institutional prestige, and political influence—assumptions that we live in a “Christian” society or, what I have called in other essays, a society like “Israel” or “Jerusalem”.

We Are Living in Babylon and not Going Back

The question for churches is not how to restore a Christendom society or win the culture war, but how to form communities that can live faithfully as a minority in an increasingly post-Christian (or differently religious) social order. This is precisely what the early church did, and what the exilic community in Babylon modelled. (See my Substack series about “Living in Babylon for a fuller perspective on this issue.)

Living and flourishing in a Babylon society requires daily faithfulness. We do not need spectacular resistance, culture-war heroics, or a retreat into irrelevance; we need steady, daily, faithful living as followers of Jesus. Daniel in Babylon provides the model for us. He maintained integrity, worshipped boldly, and served excellently in a pagan system without compromise, trusting God’s sovereignty throughout his exile.

This approach is sustainable for the long haul—through the remainder of the Global Shaking and into whatever emerges. Grand gestures and crisis responses exhaust people and prove unsustainable. Daily faithfulness forms character and community that endures across generations.

A Global Christian Awakening

Periods of global shaking have historically been accompanied by significant spiritual movements. The Reformation emerged during the disruptions of the sixteenth century. The Great Awakenings occurred during periods of social upheaval in Britain and America. The explosive growth of Christianity in China followed the disruptions of the twentieth century. When old certainties collapse, people seek new foundations.

I believe that the Global Shaking will include a major global Christian awakening before its conclusion. The conditions that produce such awakenings are present and intensifying. We see people losing hope for material prosperity; the collapse of trust in society’s institutions; an ongoing increase in anxiety and mental health crises; and people struggling in their search for meaning. People are craving hope and community. Many young people are once again turning to Christian churches. We perceive the tremors leading to a major spiritual awaking.

The awakening I anticipate will likely not look like previous Western revivals. It may be centred in the Global South—in Africa, Latin America, and Asia—rather than in Europe or North America. It may occur primarily outside traditional denominational structures. It may be accompanied by persecution as much as by cultural favour. I am fairly confident that the next great awakening will not turn our countries back into “Christian nations” but instead will expose the fault lines that currently exist between light and darkness, between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the false gospels promoted by others. But the harvest is plentiful, and the Lord of the harvest is at work even now. Churches that position themselves to participate in this awakening—through genuine discipleship, healthy community, and faithful witness—will find extraordinary opportunities in the years ahead.

An Integrated Framework for the Church of 2035

We are living in a “Babylon” society, living through a Global Shaking, and anticipating a Global Awakening leading up to 2035. We do not know exactly what the church will look like in 2035, but we can perceive a direction of travel. So we must prepare ourselves and our churches. The church will continue to be God’s strategy for reaching the world in 2035. How do we prepare when we do not know exactly what will happen? Over the past several years, I have been developing an integrated framework to prepare Christian leaders, churches and disciples for the world that emerges from the Global Shaking. The framework applies no matter the context.

I can summarise the framework in a single comprehensive statement:

Healthy leaders building up healthy churches making healthy disciples who are reaching their communities in healthy ways.

This captures the complete Christian church ecosystem. It starts with healthy Christian leaders, not programmes or strategies. Only healthy leaders can build healthy churches. Healthy churches are needed to make healthy disciples—genuine formation as followers of Jesus, not consumers of religion. Healthy disciples will naturally want to reach their communities in healthy ways—having a sustainable witness, not gimmicks—with the confidence that they might invite their friends to their healthy church.

The emphasis on health at every level seems right for this moment. During the Global Shaking, the unhealthy has been exposed and is collapsing. What survives and thrives in the emerging order will be what is genuinely healthy and sustainable—not what is flashy or impressive—built on the solid rock of Jesus Christ.

Let me examine each element of this framework.

Healthy Leaders

The leadership crisis is at the heart of church and ministry failures during the Global Shaking. Churches need leaders who are genuinely free in Christ—not driven by insecurity, control, or ego.

Healthy Christian leaders are grounded in their identity in Christ. They lead from security rather than anxiety. They do not need the validation of platform, numbers, or reputation. They can receive criticism without being destroyed or deflected from their mission. They can celebrate the success of others without jealousy. They can admit mistakes without feeling their identity is threatened.

Healthy leaders develop other leaders. They are not threatened by competent people around them. They invest in raising up the next generation rather than protecting their own position. They measure success not by the size of their platform but by the maturity and fruitfulness of those they have developed.

Healthy leaders submit to genuine accountability. They welcome scrutiny rather than resisting it. They create structures that make abuse difficult rather than structures that protect leaders from consequences. They model the transparency they expect from others.

Without healthy Christian leaders, nothing else in the framework functions. This is why healthy Christian leadership must come first. Sadly, instead of nurturing healthy Christian leadership, many churches and denominations seek to imitate worldly forms of leadership. Corporate leadership models, therapeutic leadership models, or professional leadership models cannot replace authentically Christian leadership. Although healthy Christian leaders might learn from these models, becoming one of these models always distorts church leadership.

Healthy Churches

Only healthy leaders can build healthy churches. Of course, having healthy leadership does not guarantee having a healthy church. But without healthy leadership, having a healthy church is not possible, just as having a healthy body without a healthy brain is not possible. So, what does a healthy church look like in the context of the Global Shaking and the post-disruption world?

A healthy church develops a genuine Christian community, not an audience. People know one another. They share life together beyond Sunday services. They bear one another’s burdens. They hold one another accountable. They celebrate together and grieve together. This kind of Christian community cannot be manufactured through programmes; it must be nurtured through shared practices and genuine relationship.

A healthy church practises corporate discipleship. The church as a whole is being formed into the image of Christ, not just individuals. Worship, teaching, Sacraments, prayer, fellowship, and service work together to shape the Christian community’s character and identity. The church becomes a formative environment where people are transformed by participation in the community’s life.

A healthy church is economically sustainable. It does not depend on excessive overheads, scores of paid staff, or expensive facilities. It can function at smaller scale if necessary. It does not live one financial crisis away from collapse. This economic simplicity provides resilience and flexibility.

A healthy church has effective accountability structures. Leadership is not unaccountable. Finances are transparent. Concerns can be raised without retaliation. Abuse is addressed rather than covered up. These structures protect both the congregation and the leaders themselves.

Healthy Disciples

Healthy churches with healthy leaders will generally make healthy Christian disciples. But the discipleship must represent genuine Christian formation, not consumer religious services or simple volunteer recruitment.

Healthy disciples are grounded in their identity in Christ. They know who they are in Christ and live from that identity. They are not driven by the need for approval, success, or validation from the world. They can face difficulty and opposition without their faith collapsing because their foundation is secure.

Healthy disciples have been freed from strongholds that hinder their walk with Christ. They have dealt with past wounds, sinful patterns, and spiritual bondages. They are learning how to walk in freedom from the world, the flesh, and the devil. They are experiencing the transforming work of the Holy Spirit, not just intellectually affirming doctrine. This is why personal ministry and spiritual formation—not just teaching—are essential components of Christian discipleship.

Healthy disciples are lifelong learners. They continue to grow in knowledge, wisdom, and maturity. They can feed themselves spiritually, not remaining dependent on others to spoon-feed them. They engage with Scripture, pursue understanding, and apply what they learn.

Healthy disciples are active participants, not passive consumers. They contribute to the church community, serve others, use their gifts, and take responsibility for the health of their church. They do not simply receive; they give.

Healthy churches need a comprehensive discipleship pathway that addresses all of these dimensions: establishing identity and freedom in Christ as the foundation; facilitating personal encounters with the Holy Spirit to resolve issues and build resilience; and helping Christians develop the essential skills for becoming lifelong learners and followers of Jesus.

Reaching Communities in Healthy Ways

When a church is healthy, having healthy leaders and making healthy disciples, then the church and its people will naturally begin to reach their communities in healthy ways. Sometimes such outreach is corporate, involving the whole church, and sometimes it is personal, the activities of healthy followers of Jesus. Occasionally, the church leaders will direct the outreach, but most often the church members will generate ways to reach out that flow from their own Christian health, gifting, and calling.

Healthy Christian witness flows from genuine Christian community. People are attracted not primarily by programmes or events but by the quality of life they see in the Christians together. “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35, ESV). When a church is healthy, the church’s very life becomes a primary evangelistic witness.

Healthy witness involves both Christian presence and Christian proclamation. Christians are present in their workplaces, neighbourhoods, and civic institutions—serving, contributing, building relationships. They are known as people of integrity and compassion before they are known as people with a message. This presence creates the context in which sharing the good news of Jesus becomes credible.

Healthy outreach is patient. It does not demand immediate results. It trusts that faithful Christian presence along with clear Christian witness over time will bear fruit. It recognises that in Babylon, most people will need extended exposure to genuine Christian community before they are ready to consider the claims of Christ.

Healthy outreach cannot depend on cultural acceptance or political power. It does not assume that people are already sympathetic to Christianity or that Christian values are embedded in the culture. It starts from scratch, explaining and demonstrating the Christian faith to people who may have no background in it whatsoever.

The framework of healthy Christian leaders building up healthy Christian churches that are making healthy Christian disciples who are reaching their communities in healthy ways with the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ applies in all cultural contexts and across all faithful expressions of Christianity. It applies to every Christian denomination, regardless of their denominational distinctives. It applies to churches today, and it will apply equally well to churches in 2035.

What We Are Learning at City Temple

At City Temple in London, we have been wrestling with these questions for many years. We do not claim to have all the answers, and we are certainly not promoting ourselves as a model church that others should try to copy. Every context is different, and what works in central London may not transfer directly to other settings. But we have been developing a strategy and resources for this integrated framework that we believe capture what churches need to focus on during the Global Shaking and beyond. It is not yet fully complete, but we continue to move in this direction. I share it only as an example, with the hope that other churches might find it helpful as they discern their own path forward.

The City Temple Strategy

As we have developed our strategy over the years, we have sought to have a strategy that is biblical, teachable, transferable, and scalable. We need a strategy grounded in God’s Word, the Bible. We want it to be something that any Christian can use, not just something for “experts”. We want it to be something that we can give away to others, so they can use it in other contexts. And we want it to be something that is scalable, something that will work with 5 people or 500 people. Our resources consist of four interconnected elements, each addressing a critical dimension of church health.

Freed to Lead addresses the leadership crisis that has emerged during the Global Shaking. We believe that authentic Christian leadership is the leadership the world needs in every aspect of society. But such leadership must begin with Christians and churches. Churches need leaders who are genuinely free in Christ—not driven by insecurity, control, or ego. This book and course establish the foundation: healthy leaders are essential for everything that follows. Leaders who are secure in their identity in Christ can develop other leaders, welcome accountability, and serve without needing the validation of platform or numbers.

Freed to Flourish Together builds on the foundation of freed leaders to show how churches can become healthy, discipling communities rather than personality cults or consumer experiences. This addresses corporate discipleship—how churches as whole communities can be formed and function in healthy, sustainable ways. The church is not merely a collection of individuals but a body, and the health of the body matters as much as the health of its members.

The Freedom Discipleship Pathway seeks to develop healthy disciples through a series of courses and experiences. The Freedom in Christ Course establishes identity and freedom in Christ as the foundation for all Christian life and service. The Steps to Freedom in Christ facilitates personal encounters with the Holy Spirit so that people might resolve personal and spiritual issues, break strongholds, and build resilience. Freed to Follow (a resource currently being redeveloped) helps Christians develop the essential skills for becoming lifelong learners and followers of Jesus. These courses, combined with the leadership development of Freed to Lead and the corporate discipleship principles in Freed to Flourish Together, create a comprehensive ecosystem for developing mature disciples.

Living in Babylon provides the cultural and theological framework for why all of this matters now. It also illuminates our challenges for churches to reach their surrounding communities in healthy ways. We are not in a “Jerusalem” (Christendom) society anymore—we cannot assume cultural support for Christianity or operate as though we are the established religion (even when the Church of England is, as in England). Churches need different patterns for faithful presence and proclamation in a post-Christian context, patterns that will remain relevant regardless of what specific form the post-disruption world takes. The Babylon framework helps churches understand their context and respond appropriately.

Although this represents our present strategy, strategies by their nature are always provisional. We must remain grounded in the Bible as God’s Word. We must remain open and obedient to the Holy Spirit. We must also be aware of the spiritual battles that surround us, battles with the world, the flesh, and the devil. We need to remember as well that we do not do these things in isolation. The Lord has many churches in our cities through whom he is working to extend his loving rulership.

Our Hope for Other Churches

We are not developing these resources merely for ourselves. Our hope is that they might serve the broader church as it navigates the Global Shaking. This requires several commitments on our part.

We are committed to ongoing learning and adaptation. We do not have everything figured out. We are testing and refining approaches, taking time to iterate and learn from both successes and failures. What we offer to others is not a finished product but a work in progress that we believe is heading in the right direction.

We are committed to biblical grounding. The patterns we are developing emerge from deep biblical and theological reflection, not merely pragmatic adaptation to circumstances. We want to help churches be faithful to Scripture, not just effective by worldly measures.

We are committed to contextual awareness. We recognise that what works in central London may not transfer directly to a village church in rural England or a suburban congregation in America. We try to distinguish what is specific to our context from what might be broadly transferable, and we encourage other churches to adapt rather than simply adopt what we are doing.

We are committed to sharing openly. We want to make these resources available to churches that might benefit from them. We have no interest in building an empire or creating dependency. Our goal is to help churches become healthy and sustainable on their own terms, not to make them satellites of City Temple.

We offer what we are learning in humility. We are a church in London trying to be faithful in our context, and we have made plenty of mistakes along the way. But we believe the framework and strategy we are developing—healthy leaders, healthy churches, healthy disciples, healthy outreach—captures something essential about what the church needs during the Global Shaking and into whatever emerges afterward. If it can help other churches navigate this moment, we will be grateful.

What All Churches Must Do

Regardless of what strategy a church might adopt, if 2032 is when we might emerge from the Global Shaking then the period from now until then is critical. Churches that will survive to minister effectively in the post-disruption world must use this remaining time to prepare. I think each church and her leaders have work to do:

Shed unsustainable structures, dependencies, and assumptions based on cultural Christianity. The props that supported church growth in the 1989-2007 period have been removed and will not return. Churches must honestly assess what in their current model depends on cultural support that no longer exists. Buildings, staff, programmes, and expectations may all need to be reconsidered.

Form genuine communities of Christian practice and belief that can sustain themselves. The consumer model of church—where attendees receive religious services in exchange for their donations and occasional presence—has proven incapable of sustaining people through disruption. Churches must cultivate authentic community, shared practices, and mutual commitment.

Develop leaders with depth and character rather than platform and charisma. The celebrity pastor model has been exposed as unhealthy. Churches must invest in raising up leaders who are grounded in their identity in Christ, who can develop others, and who welcome accountability. This requires intentional leadership development, not merely identifying talented individuals and giving them platforms.

Build trust through integrity and transparency rather than marketing and image management. The exposure of abuse, cover-ups, and institutional self-protection has devastated public trust in religious institutions. Churches must demonstrate genuine integrity—welcoming scrutiny, admitting failures, and prioritising truth over reputation.

Articulate a coherent Christian faith that does not depend on cultural support or political power. The fusion of evangelical identity with political movements has confused the Gospel with partisan agendas. Churches must recover the ability to proclaim the Kingdom of God without reference to any earthly kingdom. This requires theological clarity and the courage to be distinct from both the political left and the political right.

Establish healthy discipleship pathways that actually form mature Christians. Therapeutic approaches to faith, entertainment-oriented worship, and consumer-driven programming have produced shallow disciples who abandon the faith when difficulty comes. The statistics themselves seem to support this assertion. Churches must implement intentional formation in the practices and beliefs of historic Christianity—addressing Christian identity, freedom, spiritual growth, and lifelong learning.

Create accountability structures that guard against abuse and maintain integrity. The scandals of the past two decades have revealed the catastrophic consequences of unaccountable leadership. Churches must build genuine accountability into their structures—not as a burden but as a protection for everyone. Church leaders themselves must advocate for and submit themselves to such accountability.

Simplify economically to become sustainable at smaller scale. The large staffs, expensive facilities, and complex programming of the megachurch era are neither attainable nor sustainable for most congregations. They are certainly not achievable for a majority of church plants. Churches must learn to minister effectively with fewer financial and physical resources, which often means recovering simpler, more participatory models of church life.

The tragedy is that many churches are still operating as if it is 2005, trying to apply strategies from the 1989-2007 period to a reality that no longer exists. By 2035, it will be brutally obvious which churches recognised the disruption and adapted versus which ones simply became irrelevant.

The Emphasis on Faithfulness

Throughout all of this, the consistent emphasis must be on Christian faithfulness—daily, persistent, unglamorous faithfulness in our “Babylon” society. This stands in contrast to several alternatives that may seem attractive but will not sustain churches through the Global Shaking.

Spectacular resistance makes dramatic stands that burn out quickly. It generates attention and perhaps admiration, but it cannot be sustained over the years and decades required to navigate the Global Shaking and establish patterns for the post-disruption world.

Culture-war heroics attempt to reclaim Christian cultural dominance. But the cultural conditions that supported historic Christendom, or even the “Israel” society of the 20^th century, have passed and will not return. Expending energy on culture-war battles distracts from the real work of forming faithful Christian communities that make healthy Christian disciples.

Defeatist withdrawal retreats from engagement into Christian ghettos. But the church is called to be salt and light, not to hide. Withdrawal abandons the mission and fails to love our neighbours.

Pragmatic capitulation abandons Christian distinctiveness to remain relevant. But a church that becomes indistinguishable from the culture has nothing to offer. The attempt to be relevant by conforming to culture or by adopting the priorities of the culture produces irrelevance.

Instead, we need the steady faithfulness of Daniel, living in a hostile society without compromise. Daniel lived a faithful life punctuated by miracles. He had a tremendous influence in Babylon while maintaining his integrity with God. Like Daniel, we must be a people who are maintaining Christian practices and community, serving with excellence, speaking biblical truth, living with integrity, trusting God’s sovereignty—day after day, year after year, through the remainder of this season of disruption and into whatever comes next. Such faithfulness will still be viable and relevant when the Global Shaking has ended and the post-disruption world becomes apparent.

Conclusion

I am looking to 2035 and where the church may be going. We do not know exactly what the post-disruption world will look like. But we can prepare by focusing on what is genuinely healthy and sustainable, trusting that health will prove resilient whatever specific circumstances we face. The framework I have proposed—healthy leaders building up healthy churches making healthy disciples who are reaching their communities in healthy ways—gives a sense of direction.

The key is recognising where we are in history, understanding what is required for faithful Christian living in this moment, and acting with both urgency and wisdom. The window for preparation is narrowing. The choices made now will determine which churches are able to serve effectively in the 2030s and beyond.

For churches willing to embrace this vision, the calling is clear: develop, embody, and share patterns of health that can sustain Christian community and witness through disruption and into whatever new world emerges. This is about faithfulness—faithful leadership, faithful community, faithful discipleship, faithful presence in Babylon.

This is our confidence as we navigate the Global Shaking: not that we can predict its course or guarantee its outcomes, but that the Kingdom we serve will remain when all else has been shaken. Let us therefore be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe.

^[1] Tong, Yunping. 2026. “Religious Diversity Around the World.” Pew Research Center. doi: 10.58094/ef8g-cr20.

^[2] Ryan Burge’s Substack, Graphs about Religion, at ryanburge@substack.com, identifies this group as “Nones” and further divides them into four distinct groups. I highly recommend this Substack for further research.

In previous articles, I explored the nature of this disruption, the factors that determine whether disruptions become permanent, and when the current Global Shaking might resolve into a new stable order. I suggested the resolution for this time of shaking could occur likely by 2032. This timeframe is based on both the convergence of various cyclical theories and the application of historical analysis regarding generational replacement, institutional transformation, economic restructuring, and ideological shift. I also examined historical parallels to the Global Shaking—periods such as 1914-1945, 1789-1815, and the Reformation era—demonstrating that such periods of comprehensive disruption, while devastating, eventually resolve into new stable orders.

In this article, I want to examine how the Global Shaking is affecting the church itself. God is not merely shaking the world; he is shaking his church. This shaking has exposed profound problems in leadership, theology, community, and institutional structure. It has revealed what was built on sand and what was built on rock. And it points toward a future in which the church will look dramatically different from what we have known.

The Decline of Western Christianity in the Global Shaking

As I was preparing this article, I received the Pew Research Center’s new publication, Religious Diversity Around the World.^[1]Examining the Religious Divide Scores for the United Kingdom and the United States revealed important trends in these two nations. (These trends are replicated in Canada, Australia, and other Western nations as well.) The 2010-2020 period reviewed by this report occurs entirely within the Global Shaking. The Religious Divide Score measures how evenly a country is split between its two largest religious groups.

I have replicated the Pew Research results in this chart for easy comparison:^[2]

In 2010, 62.4% of people in the UK identified as “Christian”, with 28.8% identifying as “religiously unaffiliated” (or “nones” as some call them^[3]). Ten years later, the “Christian” number had decreased to 49.4%, while the “ religiously unaffiliated” number had increased to 40.2%. In the US in 2010, 78.3% identified as “Christian” while 16.5% were “religiously unaffiliated”. By 2020, the percentage of “Christians” in the US had decreased to 64% as the “religiously unaffiliated” increased to 29.7%.

What I find striking when comparing the numbers is that self-identifying “Christians”^[4] decreased in both the UK and the US by similar percentages—13.0% UK and 14.3% US. The “religiously unaffiliated” also increased by similar percentages—11.4% UK and 13.2% US. I also recognised that the percentage of “Christians” in the US in 2020 (64%) is only a decade behind the percentage of Christians in the UK in 2010 (62.4%). Notably, the decrease in percentage of Christians happened even as the numbers of churches, including megachurches, increased. These numbers suggest that, on the whole, churches in both the UK and the US are failing to lead people to Jesus and disciple them.

The Global Shaking Is Shaking the Church

Clearly, the Global Shaking has not left the church untouched. Indeed, the church has been shaken as severely as any other institution—perhaps more so, because the church claims to represent eternal truth and yet has often been exposed as fragile, compromised, and dependent on cultural props that are now being removed.

This season of disruption has functioned as a severe stress test for churches and denominations. Many have failed this test. What has been exposed?

Leadership Pathologies. The celebrity pastor model that dominated from the 1990s through the 2010s has proven toxic and unsustainable. High-profile moral failures, authoritarian control patterns, spiritual abuse, and lack of genuine accountability structures have been exposed across denominations and traditions. Leaders driven by insecurity, ego, and the need for platform rather than genuine calling have been revealed. The megachurch model’s vulnerability to leadership failure became dramatically apparent as figures like Bill Hybels, Mark Driscoll, and numerous others fell from prominence amid allegations of misconduct.

Institutional Weaknesses. Many churches and denominations have shown their dependence on cultural Christianity for their survival, rather than on having built genuine Christian discipleship communities. Institutional self-preservation has often been prioritised over truth and justice, as abuse scandals and cover-ups have revealed. Denominational structures have proven weak and dysfunctional. Many hoard resources while allowing local churches to wither away. Business-model approaches to church—seeker-sensitive, attractional, consumer-oriented—have often proved insufficient to sustain healthy communities of faith.

Theological Shallowness. Many churches have demonstrated an inability to provide genuine theological formation in their people. There has been a lack of coherent teaching that can engage the dominant culture without capitulation to that culture. Churches have failed to prepare believers for living as a minority in a post-Christian society. Moralistic and therapeutic approaches to Christian faith have replaced transformative Christian discipleship.

Community Failure. Unstable and irregular Sunday participation patterns have undermined genuine life-together community. Programmes have often replaced relationships. The lack of authentic community that might sustain people through disruption has become painfully evident, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic when many congregations discovered they had audiences rather than communities.

The things above represent a brief overview of what the Global Shaking has exposed in the church. The brutal reality is that many individual churches do not possess sustainable health and vitality to persevere and provide healthy Christian communities through the remainder of this disruption and into whatever emerges afterward. Churches and denominations may indeed survive for many years, living off the remains of legacies and shuttered buildings, but such survival will come from artificial life support and not genuine Spirit-given life.

The Church of 2035 Will Be Radically Different than 2005

To understand where we are going, we must understand where we have been. The church of 2035—particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom—will be as different from the church of 2005 as the church of 2005 was different from the church of 1975. This is not just speculation; it is the observable pattern of history, especially during periods of disruption.

The changes between 1975 and 2005 were dramatic and comprehensive. They reshaped worship, leadership, evangelism, denominational structures, and cultural engagement. Yet those changes occurred during a period of relative stability—the Cold War and post-Cold War era when the existing order was bending but not breaking. The changes between 2005 and 2035 are occurring during a genuine global shaking, when the existing order is collapsing. We should expect the transformation to be at least as dramatic, and likely more so.

To grasp the magnitude of what lies ahead, we might examine the changes that occurred in the thirty years from 1975 to 2005 in both the UK and the US. This provides a baseline for understanding the scale of transformation we should anticipate. What follows is merely a brief survey in which I will admittedly paint with some very broad strokes using publicly available information (without footnotes). My purpose is to provide a sweeping overview of the periods in question, not a documented defence of my argument.

The United Kingdom: 1975 to 2005

The UK Church in 1975

In 1975, British evangelicalism stood at a pivotal moment. The charismatic renewal was just beginning to impact mainstream denominations. The house church movement was embryonic. The evangelical establishment was dominated by Reformed expository preaching, concentrated almost entirely in London.

Westminster Chapel. Though Martyn Lloyd-Jones had retired in 1968, his influence remained strong. His sermons were being published (the Romans commentary series began in 1970), and he was the “pastors’ pastor” through the Westminster Ministers’ Fraternal. From 1948 until 1968, the congregation averaged perhaps 1500 on Sunday mornings and 2000 on Sunday nights. His 1966 call for evangelicals to leave “mixed” denominations had defined the split between Anglican evangelicals (who stayed) and Free Church evangelicals (who followed Lloyd-Jones’s separatist direction).

All Souls Langham Place. John Stott had just stepped down as Rector in 1975 to pursue wider ministry, but his influence was enormous. Christianity Today would later describe him as “an architect of 20th-century evangelicalism who shaped the faith of a generation.” The 1967 Keele Congress, largely due to Stott’s influence, had committed evangelical Anglicans to full participation in the Church of England, setting the trajectory for decades.

St Helen’s Bishopsgate. Dick Lucas had been Rector since 1961 and was building what would become the template for city-centre expository ministry. Under his leadership, St Helen’s grew from a small congregation to a large thriving church. Through the second half of the twentieth century, the ministries of John Stott, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Dick Lucas were hugely significant for British evangelicalism.

The Emerging House Church Movement. In the early 1970s, significant emerging church leaders started coming together—a group of leaders who recognised each other as “apostles” and “prophets”. Leaders like Bryn Jones, Terry Virgo, and Gerald Coates were beginning to gather small networks of charismatic house churches. Terry Virgo had just planted his first church in Haywards Heath in 1971 and was beginning to travel to teach other groups.

Classical Pentecostal Churches. Elim and the Assemblies of God were established but not yet mainstream, viewed with suspicion by most evangelicals.

The characteristics of UK church influence in 1975 were clear: expository preaching was the dominant model; there was a strong Reformed/Calvinist emphasis among evangelical leaders; charismatic renewal was just beginning to percolate into mainstream denominations; influence was London-centric; the emphasis was Word-focused, suspicious of emotionalism.

The UK Church in 2005

By 2005, the landscape had been transformed. The charismatic movement had become mainstream evangelical. The house churches had grown into significant networks. Alpha had gone global. The megachurch model was being adopted.

Holy Trinity Brompton (HTB). Nicky Gumbel took over as vicar from Sandy Millar in July 2005. Alpha had grown explosively: from just four courses in 1991 to 2,500 in 1995, reaching up to 10,500 courses in 1998. HTB had been the UK epicentre of the Toronto Blessing in 1994. Justin Welby (future Archbishop of Canterbury) was an active member in the 1980s and learned many key lessons there. The church planting network was beginning to spread. HTB had possibly become the most powerful church in the Church of England.

Newfrontiers. Terry Virgo’s network had grown into an international apostolic movement of over 1,500 churches in more than 70 nations in the 2010s. By 2005, it had at least 400-500 churches worldwide, with the Stoneleigh Bible Week having attracted 25-30,000 people at its peak. Distinctively Reformed and charismatic—an unusual combination that connected them to figures like John Piper and Don Carson.

Soul Survivor/Worship Central. This youth movement was hugely influential in shaping the worship culture of British evangelicalism.

St Helen’s Bishopsgate. The church remained influential, now led by William Taylor from 1998 following Dick Lucas’s retirement. The Proclamation Trust (founded 1986) and Cornhill Training Course (1991) were training a generation of expository preachers. It remained a conservative evangelical flagship, but now one voice among many rather than the dominant model.

Kensington Temple / London City Church. KT had become one of the largest churches in Europe, heavily influenced by immigrant communities. It had planted many churches in and around London, developing a city-wide church model.

Hillsong London. Launched in 2002, it was already growing rapidly, representing the new global charismatic brand.

The characteristics of UK church influence in 2005 were dramatically different from 1975: charismatic worship had become normative across evangelicalism; Alpha had become a dominant evangelistic tool; church planting networks were expanding; the worship music industry had emerged as a major influence in local churches; there was greater diversity (ethnic and stylistic); “experience of the Spirit” was valued alongside biblical teaching; and network/movement structures had joined single influential churches as dominant organisational models.

The UK Shift Summarised

The most remarkable shift was that what was controversial in 1975 had become the establishment by 2005. By the 2000s, it was said, the majority of younger evangelicals in the Church of England were charismatic in outlook. The house church movement that had been viewed with suspicion had become respectable networks with international reach. Expository preaching remained valued but was now one model among several. London remained central, but the charismatic emphasis had spread throughout the country.

The United States: 1975 to 2005

The US Church in 1975

American evangelicalism in 1975 stood at a crossroads. Billy Graham remained the dominant figure, but the movement was beginning to diversify. Mainline Protestantism was on the cusp of accelerating decline. The charismatic movement was percolating into mainstream evangelicalism. The Jesus Movement had just crested. The megachurch phenomenon was nascent but emerging. And the seeds of the Religious Right were being planted.

Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Graham was at peak influence: crusades filled stadiums across America; the Hour of Decision radio programme reached millions. At the Lausanne Congress for World Evangelization in 1974, a gathering of 2,700 evangelical leaders from around the world, Graham gave the opening speech. He remained a central unifying figure of American evangelicalism, though fundamentalists distanced themselves from his “cooperative evangelism.” Graham and other “neo-evangelicals” had founded Christianity Today in 1956 and, over the following decades, strove to reshape American culture by using mass media and engaging with politics.

Southern Baptist Convention. America’s largest Protestant denomination was concentrated in the South but expanding nationally. In the 1950s, liberalism had begun to increase in the seminaries, resulting in many students doubting the truthfulness of the Bible. The seeds of the Conservative Resurgence were already being planted; Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler would launch their coordinated effort in 1979. The SBC was arguably the dominant denomination of the American South.

Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. Beginning in 1965 in Southern California, this fellowship grew out of Chuck Smith’s ministry and became a hub of the Jesus Movement in the late 1960s through connections with Lonnie Frisbee and John Higgins, attracting thousands of young converts and fostering contemporary Christian music through Maranatha! Music. Some of the fastest-growing US denominations of the late twentieth century—Calvary Chapel, Hope Chapel Churches, Victory Outreach, Vineyard Churches, and Sovereign Grace Churches—trace their roots directly back to the Jesus Movement. Calvary Chapel pioneered the model for casual worship style and verse-by-verse expository teaching.

First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana. Under Jack Hyles, the church reported 18,700 worshippers in 1984, making it the largest church in the nation. It was representative of the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement at its height, with aggressive bus ministry and soul-winning culture. It served as a fundamentalist flagship, separated from neo-evangelicalism.

The Emerging Charismatic Movement. Unlike older Pentecostalism, the Charismatic movement operated within mainline denominations and even in the Catholic church. Oral Roberts was transitioning from tent revivals to television ministry and founding a university. Kenn Gulliksen started a church in West LA in 1974, sent out by Calvary Chapel. This would be known as the first Vineyard church.

The characteristics of US church influence in 1975 were: Billy Graham as the unifying (or dividing) figure; crusade evangelism as a dominant model; television ministry emerging but not yet dominant; fundamentalist-evangelical tension defining the landscape; the Jesus Movement bringing contemporary music and casual worship into the evangelical mainstream; charismatic renewal spreading across denominations; political engagement minimal (when the Religious Right surfaced in the late 1970s, Graham declined to participate, warning fellow Christian leaders to “be wary of exercising political influence” lest they lose their spiritual impact); and the megachurch model nascent—prior to 1980, fewer than 150 megachurches (defined by average weekly attendance exceeding 2,000) operated nationwide, with under 20 established before 1960.

The US Church in 2005

By 2005, American evangelicalism had been transformed. The megachurch model dominated. The seeker-sensitive movement had reshaped worship and church programming. The Religious Right had emerged, peaked with the Moral Majority, and evolved into new forms. The Southern Baptist Convention had completed its Conservative Resurgence. Contemporary worship music was now normative. Political engagement with the Republican Party was firmly established.

Willow Creek Community Church. Founded in 1975 by Bill Hybels, Willow Creek was strategically located to have an impact on the entire nation. By 2005, the church claimed 21,500 in attendance, making it the sixth largest Protestant congregation in the United States. It eventually topped out at around 25,000 in 2015. The Willow Creek Association mentored more than 10,000 churches. Hybels invented the seeker-sensitive model, and the Global Leadership Summit trained thousands of pastors.

Saddleback Church. In 1980, Rick and Kay Warren relocated to Orange County, California to launch Saddleback Church. In 1995, Rick released The Purpose Driven Church, which spelled out the purpose-driven paradigm and philosophy of ministry—one of the most transferred church models in history. The Purpose Driven Life (2002) became one of the bestselling non-fiction hardbacks in American history. Forty-three years and 50,000 baptisms later, Saddleback Church had gained an international following.

Lakewood Church. Under Joel Osteen, Lakewood’s congregation increased almost fivefold. Attendance increased to thirty thousand weekly at three services—the largest weekly church crowd in America. In 2005, Lakewood Church relocated to the Compaq Center, a 16,000-seat facility. Their version of the gospel with a positive, motivational emphasis reached millions through their television ministry.

Southern Baptist Convention (Post-Conservative Resurgence). Self-reported membership peaked in 2006 at roughly 16 million. In 2000, the conservative resurgence that started with the election of Adrian Rogers in 1979 reached full fruition in the publication of a revised denominational statement of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message. Seminaries were now uniformly conservative; Al Mohler at Southern Seminary became a leading theological voice.

Vineyard Churches. John Wimber had died in 1997, yet the movement continued under decentralised leadership. Over time, the Vineyard movement had grown to be a network of over 1,500 churches worldwide. The “signs and wonders” emphasis and influence on worship music through Vineyard Music made it a bridge between evangelical and charismatic worlds.

Emerging Megachurch Networks. The number of megachurches had doubled over five years. A 2005 survey identified around 1200 American megachurches.

The characteristics of US church influence in 2005 were dramatically different from 1975: seeker-sensitive worship was normative across evangelicalism; purpose-driven and church growth methodology was prominent; contemporary worship bands had replaced traditional choirs; the megachurch was the aspirational model; celebrity pastor culture was emerging; political alignment with the Republican Party had consolidated, with white evangelical vote 80%+ Republican; the prosperity gospel had moved from margins to mainstream; and the multi-site church model was beginning.

The US Shift Summarised

The transformation was comprehensive. Billy Graham’s unifying crusade evangelism had been replaced by megachurch celebrity pastors with distinct brands. The fundamentalist-evangelical tension had been overshadowed by charismatic-evangelical integration. Television ministry had given way to seeker-sensitive programming. Political disengagement had been replaced by deep alignment with the Republican Party. Contemporary worship had become almost universal. The megachurch had become not merely acceptable but aspirational—the model that thousands of churches sought to emulate.

Since 2005: The Global Shaking Years

The changes between 1975 and 2005 occurred during a period of relative stability. The yet incomplete changes since 2005 have occurred during the Global Shaking itself. Not surprisingly, this period has been characterised more by exposure and collapse than by confident new models emerging. In looking at this period, we must remember that the Global Shaking’s effects on churches are ongoing, so everything here remains in transition.

The United Kingdom: 2005 to 2025

The institutional denominations have entered accelerating decline. The charismatic evangelical establishment that dominated in 2005 now faces questions about its effectiveness. A conservative evangelical breakaway in the Church of England is underway. The sexuality crisis has fractured Anglicanism globally. African-led Pentecostalism has become the primary growth story.

Much institutional power remains concentrated in the HTB network within Church of England structures. Numerical growth is concentrated in African Pentecostal churches. Theological confidence is concentrated in conservative evangelical networks (the St Helen’s axis, FIEC, Newfrontiers successors). Global South Anglicanism now provides alternative episcopal oversight for English conservatives. Sexuality has become the defining fault line, exposing deeper disagreements about biblical authority. London remains dominant, but African churches are spreading to provincial cities. Church planting activity is high, but net church closures still exceed openings. “Conversion growth” remains elusive; most growth is transfer, immigration, or biological.

The United States: 2005 to 2025

The megachurch model’s vulnerability to celebrity pastor failure became dramatically apparent. Bill Hybels stepped down from Willow Creek in 2018 amid allegations. Hillsong’s founder and global leader resigned, and over half its US campuses disaffiliated. Mars Hill Church collapsed in 2014 after Mark Driscoll resigned amid allegations of plagiarism and workplace bullying, affecting 12,000 people.

The Southern Baptist Convention fell to about 12.7 million members in 2024—its lowest since 1974. The denomination had lost more members in the four years since the start of the pandemic (1.8 million) than in the thirteen years before that. A sexual abuse crisis exposed systemic failures. The architects of the Conservative Resurgence (Paige Patterson, Paul Pressler) were discredited. Internal conflicts continue over women pastors, critical race theory, and political alignment.

White evangelical identity has become deeply fused with Republican politics and particularly with Donald Trump. A large majority of white evangelicals supported Trump in both 2016 and 2020. Between 2016 and 2020, white Americans with warm views toward Trump were far more likely to begin identifying as born-again/evangelical Protestants. The word “evangelical” has taken on an increasingly political meaning versus its original religious or theological one.

American religious practice continues to decline. Weekly or nearly weekly attendance fell from about 42% around 2000 to about 30% by the early 2020s. Church membership dropped below 50% for the first time in 2020, down from 70% in 1999. In 2003, approximately 11% of Americans identified as atheist, agnostic, or having no religion; by 2023, this figure had risen to perhaps 27%.

Non-denominational churches stand out as one of the few areas of growth. There are about 6,000 more non-denominational churches in North America than in 2010, along with an increase of roughly 6.5 million people in attendance. Life.Church in Edmond, Oklahoma has 25 sites in seven states and gathers as many as 60-70,000 people weekly. Lakewood Church continues as the largest single-site church in America with about 45,000 attendees per week.

Three Significant Problems

The US and UK church is going through some major transitions because of the Global Shaking. Looking at churches in the US and the UK, I see at least three significant problems that are preventing churches from navigating the Global Shaking effectively.

First, many churches are trying to live as though it is still 2005. They anticipate that the things that worked effectively in 2005 might work effectively for them now. But we cannot return to 2005. The seeker-sensitive model, the megachurch aspiration, the reliance on cultural Christianity, the assumption that numerical growth validates ministry—these belong to a world that no longer exists. Churches that continue to operate on these assumptions will find themselves increasingly irrelevant.

Second, many liberal churches are targeting the issues raised by the culture as their focal points. The newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury has already said that she will target misogyny. The London diocese is encouraging churches to preach anti-racism. The Church of England has earmarked £100m for slavery reparations-related initiatives, even though the Church of England was influential in making slavery illegal. However well-meaning these projects might be, they are not the Gospel of Christ crucified and resurrected. Even worse, when churches target the prevailing culture, they will always be behind that prevailing culture, never leading it. The church becomes a religious chaplain to secular concerns rather than a prophetic voice proclaiming the Kingdom of God.

Third, many conservative churches are trying to emulate what other “successful” conservative churches are doing. They try to adopt their style of leadership, their music, or their programming. They seek to replicate what has been effective in one context in a completely separate context, which is seldom effective. When churches try to emulate other churches, they will always be behind those churches. Moreover, many “successful” models themselves have been exposed as fragile during the Global Shaking. The very churches being emulated are often struggling with the same problems afflicting everyone else.

What Churches Must Do to Survive and Flourish

If the period leading up to 2032 is when the new order takes shape, then the period from now until then is critical. Churches that will survive to minister effectively in the post-disruption world must use this remaining time to prepare. This is not a time for business as usual.

Churches must shed unsustainable structures, dependencies, and assumptions based on cultural Christianity. The props that supported church growth in the 1989-2007 period have been removed and will not return. Churches that continue to depend on them will not survive.

Churches must form genuine communities of authentically Christian practice and belief that can sustain themselves. The consumer model of church—where attendees receive religious services in exchange for their donations and occasional presence—has proven incapable of sustaining people through disruption. Only churches built on authentic Christian community, shared biblical practices, and mutual commitment will endure.

Churches must develop Christian leaders with depth and character rather than platform and charisma. The celebrity pastor model has been exposed as toxic. The leaders who will serve the church in 2035 will look different from the leaders who dominated in 2005—less focused on personal brand, more focused on forming others; less dependent on institutional position, more grounded in genuine spiritual authority.

Churches must build trust through integrity and transparency rather than marketing and image management. The exposure of abuse, cover-ups, and institutional self-protection has devastated public trust in religious institutions. Only churches that demonstrate genuine Christian integrity—that welcome scrutiny rather than fearing it—will be trusted by the generation coming of age during the Global Shaking.

Churches must articulate a coherent Christian faith grounded in the Bible that does not depend on cultural props or political power. The fusion of evangelical identity with political movements has confused the gospel with partisan agendas. Churches must recover the ability to proclaim the Kingdom of God without reference to any earthly kingdom.

Churches must establish healthy Christian discipleship pathways that actually form mature Christians. Therapeutic approaches to faith, entertainment-oriented worship, and consumer-driven programming have produced shallow disciples who abandon the faith when difficulty comes. Only intentional formation in the practices and beliefs of historic Christianity will produce disciples who can endure.

Churches must create accountability structures that prevent abuse and maintain integrity. The scandals of the past two decades have revealed the catastrophic consequences of unaccountable leadership. Churches that do not build genuine accountability into their structures will repeat the failures of the past.

Churches must simplify economically to become sustainable at smaller scale. The large staffs, expensive facilities, and complex programming of the megachurch era are not sustainable for most congregations. Churches that learn to minister effectively with fewer resources will be positioned to thrive when the dust settles.

The tragedy is that many churches are still operating while looking backwards, trying to apply strategies from the 1989-2007 period to a reality that no longer exists. By 2030, it will be brutally obvious which churches recognised the disruption and adapted versus which ones simply became irrelevant.

Where the Church Is Going

During the Global Shaking, we need to discern where the church is going, not where the church or the culture has been. The church of 2035 will be radically different from the church of 2005. We need to discern what God is doing and anticipate where God is leading us.

This article has focused on diagnosis—understanding the problems that the Global Shaking has exposed and the magnitude of transformation that lies ahead. In my next article, I will suggest some prescriptions—strategies and approaches for churches that want not merely to survive but to flourish in the post-disruption world. The opportunities are significant for churches that position themselves wisely.

For now, the essential point is this: the church of 2035 will be as different from the church of 2005 as the church of 2005 was different from the church of 1975, if not more so. The transformation is not optional; it is being imposed by the Global Shaking whether we embrace it or not. The only question is whether churches will navigate the transformation faithfully and fruitfully, or whether they will cling to what is passing away until they become irrelevant.

Conclusion

For the church, the Global Shaking is both crisis and opportunity. The crisis is real—many churches and denominations have failed the stress tests of this season of disruption, revealing profound weaknesses in leadership, theology, community, and sustainability. The comfortable patterns of the Christendom era—or even the recent past—will not carry churches through what remains and into what emerges.

But there is also opportunity. I anticipate a major global Christian awakening before the Global Shaking concludes. The conditions that produce such awakenings are present and intensifying: the comfortable assumptions of secular materialism have been shaken; institutional trust has collapsed; anxiety and mental health crises have reached epidemic proportions, particularly among the young; and, people are searching for meaning, community, and hope that the systems of this world manifestly cannot provide.

Churches that use the next few years (2026-2030) to establish genuinely healthy patterns—in leadership, community, discipleship, and cultural engagement—will not only survive but potentially thrive in serving the post-disruption world. Churches that position themselves to participate in the coming awakening—through genuine discipleship, healthy community, and faithful witness—will find extraordinary opportunities in the years ahead.

The key is recognising where we are in history, understanding what is required for faithful presence in this moment, and acting with both urgency and wisdom. The window for preparation is narrowing. The choices made now will determine which churches are able to serve effectively in the 2030s and beyond.

This is my confidence as we navigate the Global Shaking: not that we can predict its course or guarantee its outcomes, but that the Kingdom we serve will remain when all else has been shaken. I am confident that the church of the future will be a glorious church, flourishing and honouring Jesus.

^[1] Tong, Yunping. 2026. “Religious Diversity Around the World.” Pew Research Center. doi: 10.58094/ef8g-cr20.

^[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2026/02/PR_2026.02.12_religious-diversity-around-the-world_appendix-c.pdf, accessed 2026-2-23

^[3] Ryan Burge’s Substack, Graphs about Religion, at ryanburge@substack.com, identifies this group as “Nones” and further divides them into four distinct groups. I highly recommend this Substack for further research.

^[4] We cannot determine whether those who self-identify as “Christians” are genuine disciples of Jesus Christ.

This harrowing tragedy reminds us that often the threats we cannot see cause much more harm than the threats we can see. In any period of great disruption, there are threats we can see — the whales, as I will call them. They are enormous, they surface regularly, and when they breach, everyone takes notice. They attract our attention. But there are other threats, far more dangerous precisely because we do not see them until it is too late — the sharks. And the lesson of the Indianapolis is this: in a time of crisis, it is not necessarily the visible catastrophe that destroys you. It is what comes for you while you are treading water, exhausted and exposed, unable to see what is circling beneath.

Since September 2008, the world has experienced a sustained period of disruption unlike

anything since the mid-twentieth century. Financial systems, political institutions, social structures, religious bodies, and international relationships have all been shaken—and continue to be shaken—in ways that are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. I am calling this period “The Global Shaking.” In any era of disruption, the years immediately before the resolution of the disruption are often the most dangerous.

I want to examine here some of the specific threats we face as we approach the window when the Global Shaking may resolve, 2027-2032. Some of these threats are visible—everyone knows they are there, tracks them, debates responses. I call these “whales.” Other threats are largely invisible or remain largely unnoticed. I call these “sharks.” Both are more dangerous during a time of shaking than during a time of calm, because the systems that might normally absorb or respond to such threats are themselves weakened and unstable.

Defining Terms: Whales, White Whales, and Sharks

A Whale is a major issue or threat that regularly surfaces and gets widespread attention. Everyone knows it is there and watches for it. When it breaches, it makes a big splash and dominates headlines. We may disagree about solutions, but we are watching it constantly. During a time of stability, we can often navigate around the whales, giving them due regard. During the Global Shaking, even the whales we are tracking can overwhelm weakened institutions.

A White Whale is something people perceive as a massive threat, and to which they devote enormous attention and resources. However, as more data emerges and it is examined critically and freely, people begin to question whether it is as big or as dangerous as feared. Sometimes chasing a white whale may cause more harm than the supposed threat itself. For example, at one time overpopulation was a white whale. Some were saying that there were too many people on the planet and that the global systems were about to collapse because of this. China even instituted its one-child policy. Now China and many other areas around the world are facing a population deficit. White whales distract attention and resources from genuine threats. They may even become personal obsessions for various people or segments of society.

A Shark is a serious, large-scale threat that is present now but largely invisible to or unnoticed by people. We might see symptoms or indicators of trouble but have not identified the systemic cause. When it finally surfaces or drags people under—usually through crisis or collapse—we realise it was there all along. Sometimes the threat is suddenly so overwhelming that we join with Sherriff Brody in Jaws to exclaim “we are going to need a bigger boat.” Unlike whales, we are often institutionally unprepared for sharks because we have not been tracking them. Sharks are particularly dangerous during the Global Shaking because they can surface suddenly when systems are already stressed, producing cascading failures.

Why Threats Are More Dangerous During the Global Shaking

During periods of relative stability, societies develop resilience. Institutions function. Systems absorb shocks. When a threat emerges, there is capacity to respond. The period from 1989 to 2007 was such a time—disruptions occurred, but they were largely absorbed by the existing order.

During the Global Shaking, that resilience has been depleted. Institutions are weakened. Systems are stressed. Trust has collapsed. When threats emerge now, there is often no capacity to respond effectively. A united response becomes almost impossible. What would have been a manageable problem in 2005 becomes a crisis in 2025. What would have been a crisis in 2007 becomes a catastrophe in 2027.

Moreover, the instability, uncertainty, and precarity that characterise the Global Shaking create conditions where multiple threats can converge. A debt crisis might coincide with an energy crisis, which might coincide with a leadership succession crisis, which might coincide with institutional breakdown. Systems that could handle any one of these in isolation cannot handle all of them simultaneously.

Some Whales Today

These are just some of the major threats that are visible and being tracked in 2026. Everyone knows they are there. The danger is not that we are unaware of them but that our weakened institutions may be unable to manage them effectively. In other words, the danger is that they might swamp or capsize the boat.

Global sovereign debt crisis. Nations currently have over $300 trillion in global debt, with unsustainable trajectories and mounting refinancing pressures. Everyone is watching interest rates and arguing about solutions. When this breaches fully, it will be catastrophic—but at least we are tracking it.

Ukraine war and Russian hybrid warfare. This includes not just the Ukrainian battlefield but Putin’s shadow operations across Europe—sabotage, disinformation, election interference, energy blackmail. Highly visible, with regular headlines and ongoing debates in NATO about responses.

Trump administration foreign policy. Trump’s second term has been a whirlwind, whether one agrees with him or not. NATO, China, Middle East, tariffs—constant headlines, high stakes, globally consequential. His second term has had fewer constraints.

AI resource demands and economic distortion. AI itself is a massive issue. Data centres require massive energy (conflicting with decarbonisation), water, and rare earths. Technology valuations are potentially inflated, with capital misallocation risks. Employment displacement is accelerating. Semiconductor and energy geopolitics is creating regulatory uncertainty.

US-China tensions and China’s economic trajectory. China’s property sector crisis, local government debt, and demographic decline are all visible. Everyone is watching whether Xi’s model holds or cracks.

European political realignment. Elections, populist gains, tests of EU cohesion, defence spending realities – all creating uncertainty and instability. Very visible political drama is unfolding across the continent.

UK post-election reality check. Labour is being tested by economic constraints, the gap between delivery and promises, and internal tensions. They cannot avoid the continuous political coverage.

Middle East instability. The whole region seems to convulse at times with post-Gaza dynamics, the Iran nuclear question, the question of Saudi-Israel normalisation, and regional proxy conflicts. Regular breaching, everyone watching.

Migration and borders. Immigration is a hot topic—Europe, US southern border, Mediterranean crossings—visible, emotional, politically charged.

The above items are significant issues, but we are observing them and wrestling for solutions.

Potential White Whales

These threats receive enormous attention and resources, but it is increasingly questionable whether they are as big or as significant as they seem—or whether chasing them is causing more harm than the supposed threat itself. We must discern whether the problematic symptoms we observe are from the supposed threat itself or whether they are the result of the “solutions” being imposed.

“Existential AI risk” as species-level extinction threat. Huge attention, massive resources devoted to “AI safety,” apocalyptic rhetoric—but is this real or a moral panic? We must distinguish the hype from the real whales, like the genuine resource and economic issues.

Neo-socialist explanations for social disparities. We see enormous institutional energy devoted to things like DEI, massive welfare spending, and policy distortions—but is this diagnosing the real problem or chasing a phantom while ignoring actual causes such as family structure, culture, and education quality?

“Far-right extremism” as the primary domestic threat. Every elite seems to scourge the far right, blaming it for social problems. We see allocation of security resources, political rhetoric, media coverage—but does the scale match actual danger, or is this political scapegoating while ignoring other threats?

Climate change and Net Zero timelines as economically and technically feasible. Everyone acts as though 2030/2050 targets are achievable, but this is doubtful. It may be magical thinking that we will discover too late. The energy crisis itself is a real threat; the question is whether the proposed solutions are making things worse.

I could be tempted to list many other white whales. Unfortunately, like Captain Ahab in Moby Dick, most people in leadership are unwilling to have their white whales questioned, choosing instead to pursue these all the way until the sinking of their ship and the destruction of their crew.

Sharks Circling in the Waters

These are several serious, large-scale threats that are present now but largely unnoticed by many people. They are dangerous because we are institutionally unaware and unprepared. Only when they surface do we realise they were there all along. I only intend this list to be indicative, not exhaustive. I am certain there are sharks that I do not see as well. I will group these sharks circling the waters in several categories. Please note that I am painting with very broad strokes and not intending to discuss any one of these sharks in detail.

Leadership and Succession Fragility

Aging authoritarian cluster approaching the terminal exit. We see many aging leaders today: Putin (73-74), Xi (73-74), Modi (76-77), Erdoğan (72-73), plus multiple African seniors. This is not an “emerging” threat—the actuarial reality is now. Succession mechanisms are either absent or untested. We see the leaders; we do not see the systemic chaos risk when multiple leaders exit within a compressed timeframe. Putin could potentially exit in the 2026-28 window based on health indicators. Russia post-Putin could be catastrophic. China post-Xi is a major unknown.

Financial System Fragility

Shadow banking and private credit exposure. Over $65 trillion is now in private credit, non-bank lending, collateralised loan obligations, and regulatory arbitrage. Many saw the 2008 traditional banking crisis coming because of mortgage-backed securities, but few are tracking this. This involves liquidity crisis risk, interconnection opacity, and no lender of last resort for non-banks. It is a present threat on a massive scale, largely invisible to the public.

UK commercial real estate triggering systemic stress. We see empty offices, pension funds exposed, regional banks vulnerable, and a refinancing wave in 2026-27. The changes in leasehold arrangements could leave many pension funds exposed. The risks are specific, present, large—but conversations stay technical and contained until it breaks.

Energy and Resources

UK and European energy insecurity. This is not the visible debate about energy (that is a whale), but the actual physical vulnerability: baseload sources have been decommissioned, renewable sources have unresolved intermittency issues, storage is inadequate, the grid is fragile, and we have geopolitical supply dependency issues. The system’s brittleness is present now. We will discover the shock when something breaks due to severe weather, Russian sabotage, or demand spike.

Water stress in critical systems. We can see aquifer depletion, infrastructure aging, and climate variability. This is a present reality with enormous implications, largely invisible until acute crises force us to recognise the problems.

Institutional Collapse

Authority and expertise legitimacy collapse. We observe distrust as more than a mood. It is a systemic reality in our social institutions: scientific establishment (COVID reversals, climate controversies), political class (promises versus delivery), religious institutions (abuse, irrelevance), media (bias, capture), medical establishment (over-prescription, protocol failures). We see the individual scandals, but we do not observe that the entire epistemological framework for “who do we trust?” is disintegrating. When people need guidance in crisis, they will have nowhere credible to turn.

UK two-tier policing and the failures in the justice system causing legitimacy issues. We see a present reality—effective decriminalisation of volume crime like shoplifting and phone theft, differential enforcement perceptions (the perception of unfairness in the system), resource collapse, organised crime exploitation. The public sees incidents, but it does not grasp the systemic breakdown scale until they see vigilante responses or the complete withdrawal of cooperation.

NHS functional collapse. This is more than a seasonal “crisis”, but an actual inability to deliver core services in many places. The system is broken in many ways, so we are just managing decline until something forces a full recognition of the scale of the issues.

Social and Demographic Fragility

UK and European social fracture. We see Islamic parallel institutions, integration failure, demographic anxiety, elite narrative versus reality gap, and speech suppression preventing honest conversation. This is present reality, large scale, but largely submerged in public discourse until something explosive forces it to surface. The Southport riots were a brief surfacing, but underlying tensions remain unaddressed.

Western fertility collapse implications. Demographic collapse is already happening: schools closing, economic models breaking, and families are not forming. For many, “replacement migration” is the only response being considered. Present and enormous, yet largely ignored in its full implications.

Discrimination against men and the radicalisation of young men. There are growing issues with socially isolated young men, algorithmic radicalisation, the appeal of “forbidden knowledge” narratives, and an irony-poisoned culture making sincere pushback difficult. We see individual incidents, but the scope of influence in certain online subcultures—and the bridge-building between “edgy” irony and genuine extremism—stays beneath the surface until there is violence or a major political figure gets compromised by association.

Social media’s neurological impact on Generations Z and Alpha. We hear about some of the victims (mental health crisis, suicide rates, social development damage), but we keep deferring a comprehensive reckoning with the structural brain development changes caused by smartphone use.

The Meaning Crisis

Western nihilism and purpose void. We observe deaths of despair, addiction, withdrawal, and young men checking out of society. The problem is present, pervasive, massive, but often treated as individual mental health issues rather than a civilisational crisis. This is a large shark beneath the surface of Western societies. The template of Weimar Germany seems to apply: weakened institutions plus cultural exhaustion plus debt crisis equals demand for a strongman figure who promises meaning and order.

The State of the Church Itself

The most important shark may be the state of Western church itself. We see surface manifestations—declining attendance, occasional culture war skirmishes, megachurch scandals—but the depth of institutional and theological crisis remains largely submerged.

Theological confusion. People have lack of clarity about basic Christian identity, the authority of Scripture, and the gospel itself. Progressive churches have often accommodated to secular progressivism until there is no distinctive message. Conservative churches have sometimes confused political conservatism with faithfulness.

Institutional fragility. Aging congregations and denominations, financial pressures, broken leadership pipelines, rare genuine community formation are undermining churches. We have often become service providers rather than covenant communities.

Cultural captivity. Whether to therapeutic individualism, consumerism, nationalism, or political tribalism, churches are reflecting the culture. Few churches have successfully maintained prophetic distance from surrounding culture.

Missional irrelevance. For the “nones” and dechurched, we often seem to offer either watered-down secular morality with religious window dressing, or culture war grievance—neither of which addresses spiritual hunger or offers genuine transformation.

The church in the UK is among the weakest in the Western world—theologically confused, institutionally fragile, culturally captive, missionally ineffective. When this surfaces fully, we will recognise the loss of Christian presence and witness in the West just as the nihilism crisis deepens and people need the gospel most.

The Critical Convergence Risk

Alone, any of these sharks would pose a threat. However, we are entering a period in the Global Shaking when multiple sharks might converge into a shiver (school) and surface, just as they did with the USS Indianapolis. Unlike whales (which we are tracking and debating), we are institutionally unprepared for sharks because we have not been having honest conversations about these threats. When multiple sharks surface simultaneously in systems already weakened by the Global Shaking, the potential for cascading failure is severe.

The UK is particularly vulnerable because it is an island nation (with energy and security exposure), has weakened institutions (from austerity, COVID, and political dysfunction), faces cultural fracture (immigration, integration, identity), carries economic fragility (debt, productivity, trade), and suffers from elite denial (speech policing preventing honest discussion and diagnosis).

The most terrifying prospect is this: multiple sharks could surface simultaneously in the 2027-2035 window—debt crisis, authoritarian succession chaos, energy failures, institutional breakdown, nihilistic despair—and the Western church is largely unprepared to offer the one thing people will desperately need.

The Gospel and the Church’s Task

In the midst of whales and sharks, visible and invisible threats, what is the church’s task? It is not primarily to be useful or resilient or culturally engaged—it is to proclaim and embody the reality that Jesus Christ is Lord, advancing his loving rulership (his Kingdom).

The gospel simply is this: Jesus Christ is Lord—crucified for our sins, raised from the dead, reigning now, returning to judge and restore all things. This changes everything about the church’s role.

The church announces the good news that sins are forgiven and new life is available through Jesus. The church demonstrates what Jesus’ reign looks like through transformed lives and communities. The church invites people into the kingdom of God, which is breaking into the present age. The church endures because Jesus promised the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

The health question is not “Can we contribute to society?” but “Are we faithful witnesses to Jesus?” Being faithful to Jesus will produce some social benefits, but that is secondary. Daniel served Babylon well, but ultimately because he served Yahweh faithfully, not because service was the goal.

The whales and sharks matter, but the church’s fundamental task does not change with circumstances: proclaim Christ crucified and risen, make disciples, plant churches, love neighbours, await his return. When people need guidance in crisis and have nowhere credible to turn, will there be faithful witnesses proclaiming Christ?

What the Church Must Do

The church’s role should be clear, even if many Western churches are not currently healthy or robust enough for what is coming.

Anchored in Jesus Christ, founded on the Bible, and filled with the Spirit, the church should be maintaining and modelling an alternative community with coherent moral formation. It should be preserving and transmitting wisdom about human flourishing that secular ideologies cannot generate. It should be providing resilient social infrastructure when state systems fail. It should be speaking prophetically to those in civil authority while serving practically in weakness. It should be demonstrating the possibilities of social integration—how to maintain distinct identity while genuinely contributing to the common good. This is the Daniel model: maintaining integrity and worship practices, serving excellently in a pagan system without compromise, trusting God’s sovereignty through exile.

The current Western church’s problem is that we are trained for Christendom (Christian cultural dominance) or for Egypt-style persecution (martyrdom and physical hardship). We are terrible at the Babylon model—which requires humility, cultural engagement, patience, and forming excellent people who earn respect through competence and character rather than claiming it through political or social power.

If the future is dominated by weakened but still functioning secular societies, the church needs to learn how to maintain prophetic distance without requiring political power; how to contribute genuinely to the common good while remaining countercultural on key issues; how to form resilient communities that can survive and even flourish without state support or cultural privilege; and how to engage sophisticated, confident secular (or multi-religious) cultures with wisdom and grace.

The vital question is not denominational but whether particular local churches are teaching the whole counsel of God in Christ with clarity and conviction; forming genuine disciples of Jesus, not just attendees; building resilient Christ-centred community that can withstand external pressure; engaging culture with both grace and truth; and developing leaders who can think Christianly about complex issues.

Conclusion

We are living through the Global Shaking. It began in September 2008 and will likely resolve into a new stable order by 2032. The years immediately ahead may be among the most dangerous, as multiple threats converge in systems already weakened by nearly two decades of disruption.

Some of these threats are visible—the whales we are tracking. Others are invisible—the sharks lurking beneath the surface. Both are more dangerous during the Global Shaking than they would be during a time of stability, because weakened institutions cannot respond effectively, and multiple threats can converge simultaneously.

The state of Christian churches itself is among the sharks—its crisis is real but largely submerged, and it will surface just when people need the gospel most. This is not cause for despair but for urgent action. Churches that use the next few years to establish genuinely healthy patterns—in leadership, community, discipleship, and cultural engagement—will be positioned to serve when the sharks surface and people are searching for meaning, community, and hope.

For the church, this is both crisis and opportunity. The crisis is real—most churches are not ready for what is coming. But there is also opportunity. When old certainties collapse, people seek new foundations. When nihilism and despair reach epidemic proportions, the gospel of Jesus Christ—crucified, risen, reigning, returning—offers the only foundation that cannot be shaken.

The key is recognising where we are in history, understanding what we face, and acting with both urgency and wisdom. The window for preparation is narrowing. The choices made now will determine which churches are able to proclaim Christ effectively when the sharks surface and people are desperate for good news.

This is our confidence as we navigate the Global Shaking: not that we can predict its course or guarantee its outcomes, but that the Kingdom we serve will remain when all else has been shaken.

In my first article about this Global Shaking, I explored the nature of this disruption, the factors that determine whether disruptions become permanent, and when the current Global Shaking might resolve into a new stable order. I suggested that a resolution window of 2027-2032 is most likely, based on both the convergence of various cyclical theories and the application of historical analysis regarding generational replacement, institutional transformation, economic restructuring, and ideological shift.

In this essay, I want to explore the resonance of the Global Shaking in history. The experience of living through such a period can feel unprecedented—as though we are navigating entirely uncharted waters. This feeling is understandable but misleading. History records several previous periods of significant disruption, times when the existing order collapsed and a new order emerged from the chaos. By examining these historical echoes, we can better understand our present moment, set realistic expectations for how long the disruption may continue, and prepare for the decade of stability that typically follows such periods of shaking.

Understanding where we are in this historical moment is essential for faithful Christian ministry and leadership in the years ahead. The church has navigated previous global shakings—sometimes faithfully, sometimes not. We have the opportunity to learn from both the successes and failures of our predecessors.

The Global Shaking

I“The Global Shaking” is genuinely global—not confined to one region or domain but affecting every nation and every sphere of human activity. The term “shaking” captures the biblical resonance of our situation without requiring extensive explanation.

The prophet Haggai, writing to the returned exiles in Jerusalem around 520 BC, delivered a message from the Lord: “For thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘Yet once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land. And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the LORD of hosts” (Haggai 2:6-7, ESV). The writer of Hebrews takes up this prophecy and applies it to the church age: “At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, ‘Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.’ This phrase, ‘Yet once more,’ indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain” (Hebrews 12:26-27, ESV). This is precisely what we are witnessing: a shaking that reveals what is solid and what is not, what will endure and what was always fragile.

I date the beginning of the Global Shaking to 15 September 2008—the collapse of Lehman Brothers. This event marked the true beginning of the Great Financial Crisis, transforming what had been a developing financial problem into a full-blown global catastrophe that shattered confidence in the post-Cold War economic and political order. The fall of Lehman Brothers was magnified because of four crucial precursors that had already begun altering the global landscape: the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 (convulsing the global political order); China’s entry into the World Trade Organisation in December 2001 (unsettling the global economic order); Facebook opening to the general public in September 2006 (beginning social media’s transformation of information ecosystems); and Apple’s introduction of the iPhone in January 2007 (launching the smartphone revolution). These four developments—political, economic, informational, and technological—set the stage. But their full implications did not begin to converge until the Great Financial Crisis.

A Brief Survey of Disruptive Events: September 2008 to Present

To appreciate the scope and intensity of the Global Shaking, it is helpful to take a quick view of the disruptive events that have accumulated since September 2008. This is not an exhaustive list (nor is it fully explained), but it illustrates the relentless character of the disruption.

2008-2009. The Global Financial Crisis began in September 2008. Quantitative easing and ultra-low interest rates became standard policy. The banking system is destabilised.

2010-2013. The Arab Spring (2010-2012) destabilised the Middle East and North Africa, leading to the Syrian civil war and massive migration. The European sovereign debt crisis (2010-2012) threatened the Euro and EU cohesion. Populist movements began rising across Europe.

2014-2015. Russia invaded Eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea (2014). ISIS declared a caliphate and established territorial control (2014-2017). The European migration crisis began (2015), bringing over one million migrants and refugees, primarily from societies with values and cultures dramatically different from Western nations.

2016. The Brexit referendum (June 2016) shocked the European establishment. Donald Trump’s election (November 2016) upended American political assumptions. Progressive social ideology (sometimes called the “Great Awokening”) gained institutional dominance.

2017-2019. The #MeToo movement (2017) exposed widespread abuse and shifted workplace and cultural dynamics. Ideological shifts in American and British universities accelerated. The Hong Kong protests (2019) revealed China’s authoritarian trajectory. Debt-to-GDP ratios reached unprecedented peacetime levels globally.

2020-2022. The COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022) disrupted nearly every aspect of global life. Drone warfare became systemically significant (as demonstrated in the Azerbaijan-Armenia war of 2020). The George Floyd protests and BLM movement (2020) accelerated cultural and political polarisation. The Capitol riot of January 6, 2021, triggered a US political legitimacy crisis. An inflation surge began (2021-2022), ending the low-inflation era. Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine (February 2022) gave rise to new military technologies and disrupted energy markets. Europe experienced an energy crisis (2022).

2023-2024. The October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and subsequent Gaza war (2023) destabilised the Middle East further. Iran-Israel escalation threatened broader regional conflict. AI breakthroughs with ChatGPT and rapid AI adoption (late 2022-2024) introduced transformative uncertainty. Net-zero policies and energy transition created economic disruption. De-dollarisation efforts and BRICS expansion challenged Western financial hegemony. Donald Trump’s second election (November 2024) signalled continued political realignment.

Ongoing Systemic Disruptions. Beyond specific events, several ongoing disruptions lack a single date but continue to reshape the world: China’s economic expansion and Belt and Road Initiative; social media’s transformation of information ecosystems; shadow banking and private finance growth outside traditional regulation; declining birth rates and demographic collapse in developed nations; supply chain restructuring and de-globalisation; central bank digital currency development; cryptocurrency and decentralised finance emergence; the commercial space industry; and drone warfare and advanced military technology transformation.

A Comparison: The Period 1989-2007

To understand what makes the current period distinctive, it is helpful to compare it with the preceding era. The period from November 1989 to August 2008 also experienced significant disruptions: the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989); the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991); the First Gulf War (1990-1991); the Yugoslav Wars and ethnic cleansing in Europe (1991-1995); the Rwandan genocide (1994); the Asian Financial Crisis (1997-1998); the dot-com bubble and crash (1995-2001); the September 11 terrorist attacks (2001); China joining the WTO (2001); the US invasions of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003); and the launches of Facebook (2004), YouTube (2005), and the iPhone (2007).

These were genuine disruptions. Yet there is a fundamental difference in character and intensity between the two periods. The 1989-2007 disruptions were largely absorbed by the existing order. The system bent but did not break. American hegemony, liberal democratic capitalism, and international institutions all survived and in many ways were strengthened. September 11 was traumatic, but it reinforced America’s power projection. China joining the WTO was disruptive, but it seemed to validate the liberal order by bringing China into the system. The Internet was transformative, but initially it seemed to support democratisation and connection.

The 2008-present disruptions have buckled the order itself. They have not been absorbed—they have accumulated and compounded, creating genuine systemic breakdown rather than adaptation. This is the hallmark of a global shaking: not merely difficult events within a stable order, but the breakdown of the order itself.

Previous Global Shakings

The Global Shaking of 2008-2032 is not unprecedented. History records several previous periods of comparable disruption, though most were not truly global in the way our interconnected world experiences disruption today. I paint here with broad brush strokes, acknowledging that each of these eras deserves far more nuanced treatment than I can provide. I also note that each one of these disruptions provided challenges and opportunities for Christians and churches.

1914-1945: The Thirty Years’ Crisis

The period from 1914 to 1945 represents the clearest modern parallel to our current era. It began with the outbreak of the First World War and ended with the conclusion of the Second World War and the atomic bombings of Japan. Between these bookends: the collapse of four empires (Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, German), the Spanish Flu pandemic, the Great Depression, the rise of fascism and communism, the Holocaust, and the development of nuclear weapons.

This was a genuine global shaking—not confined to Europe but affecting every continent. The international order of 1914 was unrecognisable by 1945. The European colonial empires that had dominated the world were fatally weakened. The United States and Soviet Union emerged as superpowers. Institutional Christianity in Europe was severely damaged. The world that emerged was fundamentally different from the world that entered the crisis.

The decade that followed (1945-1955) saw genuine reconstruction and the establishment of a new international order that would persist until the end of the Cold War. Notably for the Global Shaking today, the decades that followed provided extensive opportunities for world evangelism and mission as denominations expanded in the US and Americans funded missionaries around the globe.

1789-1815: The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era

The French Revolution of 1789 unleashed forces that would reshape Europe and the Atlantic world over the following twenty-six years. The old regime collapsed in France; revolutionary and Napoleonic wars swept across the continent; maps were redrawn repeatedly; the Haitian Revolution overthrew slavery in the Caribbean; Latin American independence movements began; religious upheaval accompanied political transformation, with dechristianisation in France followed by revival elsewhere.

This shaking was primarily European and Atlantic in scope—global for its era, though not truly worldwide. The order that emerged was different: monarchy survived but was constrained; nationalism became the dominant political force; the Concert of Europe maintained relative peace for decades.

Importantly, for the Global Shaking today, the government severely persecuted the church during this era (especially the first several years). This began with restructuring the church by seizing church land and making the clergy state employees, then moved into open persecution and de-Christianisation. Many churches were closed, public worship was banned in many places, and religious symbols were destroyed. The church survived as a subordinate institution. Napolean began to restore some order in 1801, but the church was never the same.

The decade that followed this period (1815-1825) was characterised by conservative restoration, managed stability, and economic recovery, even as the seeds of future disruptions germinated beneath the surface.

1517-1648: The Reformation Era

This period was substantially longer than the others, but it was nonetheless a disruption – albeit more of a slow burn. The Reformation that began with Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses in 1517 shattered the religious unity of Western Christendom and triggered over a century of religious, political, and military conflict. The initial break with Rome produced the Peasants’ War, the division of Germany, the English Reformation, and the Council of Trent. The Wars of Religion in France, the Dutch Revolt, and ultimately the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) followed.

The shaking of this era was civilisational in scope for Western Europe, with global implications as European powers carried their conflicts and their faiths to the New World and beyond. The Peace of Augsburg (1555) provided temporary stabilisation; the Peace of Westphalia (1648) established the framework for the modern nation-state system.

The decade after 1648 saw exhausted powers consolidate, confessional boundaries harden, and a new European order emerge—one built on the principle of state sovereignty rather than religious unity.

The entire era reconfigured our understanding of Christianity, with many breaking away from Roman Catholicism into a diversity of Christian streams. Notably for the Global Shaking today, new technology enabled the spread of diverse Christian ideas across Europe. No longer was a centralised authority in control of Christian information and theology. The Bible in local vernaculars allowed anyone who could read to access and understand the Bible.

1340s-1350s: The Black Death and Its Aftermath

The Black Death, which reached Europe in 1347, killed between thirty and sixty percent of Europe’s population within a few years. Similar devastation occurred across the Middle East and Asia. This was not merely a demographic catastrophe but a comprehensive shaking of medieval society: economic structures were overturned, labour relations transformed, the authority of the institutional Church severely damaged, and existing social hierarchies destabilised.

This shaking was genuinely Eurasian in scope—perhaps the most “global” of pre-modern disruptions. The decade that followed saw labour scarce and expensive, peasant power rising, old feudal bonds loosening, and the Church’s authority questioned but not yet broken. The seeds of transformation planted in the 1350s would take generations to flower fully, but the world of 1360 was already recognisably different from the world of 1340.

The demographic crisis unleased by the plague destabilised society, including churches. Although the world today is not facing the same level of demographic crisis, the Global Shaking has alerted us to significant changes, not only across countries and regions but also across churches and Christian denominations. Many American denominations, for example, are about to enter a demographic winter from which they are unlikely to recover. In the UK, denominations such as the United Reformed Church and the Church of Scotland are closing churches at an alarming level.

The 3^rd Century Crisis (235-284 AD)

The Roman Empire nearly collapsed during the fifty years of civil war, plague, invasion, and economic breakdown known as the 3^rd Century Crisis. Between 235 and 284 AD, the empire experienced over fifty emperors (most dying violently), major plague outbreaks, currency collapse, invasion by Germanic tribes and Persian forces, and the temporary breakaway of entire regions.

This shaking was Mediterranean and Near Eastern in scope—the “globe” as Rome knew it. Institutional paganism lost credibility; Christianity advanced rapidly despite persecution. The decade after 284 saw Diocletian’s comprehensive reforms: administrative restructuring, currency reform, military reorganisation, and the establishment of the tetrarchy. The Empire that emerged was fundamentally different—more authoritarian, more bureaucratic, more eastern in orientation—but it was stable and would endure for centuries.

The 3^rd Century Crisis does remind us that churches may thrive and expand during times of significant disruptions, and despite persecution and opposition. It reminds us not to lose hope but to keep our eyes fixed on Jesus as Christian leaders.

The Bronze Age Collapse (c. 1200-1150 BC)

Around 1200 BC, multiple civilisations collapsed nearly simultaneously: Mycenaean Greece, the Hittite Empire, the Egyptian New Kingdom (though it survived in weakened form), Ugarit, and others. Trade networks that had connected the eastern Mediterranean for centuries ceased to function. Writing systems were lost in some regions. The cause remains debated—the “Sea Peoples,” climate change, systems failure, or some combination—but the result was a genuine civilisational collapse.

This is the cautionary case among our examples. The decade after 1150 BC was not stabilisation but continued dark age: population decline, minimal trade, simpler material culture, power vacuums. Full recovery took centuries. Eventually new civilisations emerged—Phoenician, Israelite, Greek—but the Bronze Age world was gone forever. Not all shakings end in reconstruction; some end in collapse severe enough to require civilisation to be rebuilt from the ground up.

In previous articles on my Substack, I have indicated that the real contests among the nations of the world today are contests between “Babylon” nations and “Egypt” nations. Babylon nations are those nations that were once considered “Christian” nations but have become more like Babylon in the Old Testament and Revelation, nations that seek wealth and pleasure. Egypt nations are those nations ruled by a “pharaoh”, a strong central leader who values power and control. Interestingly, both Babylonia and Egypt survived the Bronze Age Collapse, albeit in severely weakened forms. I anticipate that the present clash between Babylon nations and Egypt nations will continue once the Global Shaking ends, with this conflict characterising the world that emerges.

Patterns Across the Ages

Several patterns emerge from this survey of historical shakings.

Duration. Major global shakings typically last between twenty and fifty years, though they can extend longer (as with the Reformation era). The current Global Shaking, if it resolves between 2027 and 2032, would represent nineteen to twenty-four years—on the shorter end of historical precedent but consistent with the pattern. Although I sense that the Global Shaking will end by 2032, several variables might prolong the Global Shaking into the mid-2030s.

Comprehensiveness. Global shakings affect multiple domains simultaneously—political, economic, social, religious, and cultural. Single-domain disruptions (such as a financial crisis that does not spill over into other areas) do not constitute global shakings. The current period has disrupted every major domain.

Irreversibility. The world that emerges from a global shaking is fundamentally different from the world that entered it. There is no return to the previous order. Those who attempt to restore what was lost invariably fail. For Christians and churches, this means that we must not long for times past but press into God’s future.

Opportunity for the Church. Global shakings have historically provided significant opportunities for Christian advance (from the 3^rd Century onward). Christianity grew rapidly during the 3^rd Century Crisis. The Reformation reshaped Western Christianity. The Great Awakenings occurred during periods of social upheaval. The explosive growth of Christianity in China followed the disruptions of the twentieth century. When old certainties collapse, people seek new foundations—and the gospel offers the only foundation that cannot be shaken.

The Decade After

What happens after a global shaking resolves? History suggests a decade or more of relative stability as the new order consolidates. This pattern is remarkably consistent across the historical examples we have examined.

After the disruptions of 1914-1945, the decade of 1945-1955 saw remarkable reconstruction and stabilisation: the Marshall Plan, European recovery, the establishment of Bretton Woods institutions and the United Nations, the beginning of the post-war economic boom. The Cold War provided a stable (if tense) framework for international relations. Institutional confidence was high.

After the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era (1789-1815), the decade of 1815-1825 saw the Concert of Europe, Metternich’s managed conservatism, relative peace, economic recovery, and the flourishing of the Romantic movement. The order was imperfect and contained the seeds of future conflicts, but it was genuinely stable.

After the 3rd Century Crisis in the Roman Empire (235-284 AD), Diocletian’s reforms produced a decade of restructuring and stabilisation. The Empire that emerged was different—more authoritarian, more bureaucratic, more eastern—but it was stable and would endure for another century in the West and over a millennium in the East.

The pattern is clear: global shakings end not with continued chaos but with new equilibrium. The order that emerges is different from what preceded it—often dramatically so—but it functions. People adapt. Life continues.

What the Decade After Means for the Church

If the Global Shaking resolves between 2027 and 2032, we can anticipate a decade of relative stability beginning sometime in the early 2030s. This has profound implications for the church.

The churches that have maintained health and vitality through the shaking will have extraordinary opportunities to serve and grow in the stability that follows. Periods of disruption exhaust people. When stability returns, many will seek communities of meaning, hope, and genuine human connection. (They are doing so already.) Churches that have formed mature disciples, built authentic community, and maintained faithful witness will be positioned to welcome those who are searching.

I anticipate that the Global Shaking will include a major global Christian awakening before its conclusion. The conditions that produce such awakenings are present and intensifying: the comfortable assumptions of secular materialism have been shaken; institutional trust has collapsed; anxiety and mental health crises have reached epidemic proportions, particularly among the young; people are searching for meaning, community, and hope that the systems of this world manifestly cannot provide. The awakening may be centred in the Global South—in Africa, Latin America, and Asia—rather than in Europe or North America. It may occur primarily outside traditional denominational structures. It may be accompanied by persecution as much as by cultural favour. But the harvest is plentiful, and the Lord of the harvest is at work even now.

However, this is not grounds for complacency. The decade after a shaking is often when the long-term consequences of choices made during the disruption become apparent. Churches that compromised their witness, hollowed out their discipleship, or embraced cultural substitutes for genuine faith will find themselves marginalised in the new order. Churches that maintained integrity, built genuine community, and formed mature disciples will be positioned to flourish.

The Urgent Need: Preparing Now

If 2027-2032 is when the new order takes shape, then the period from now until then is critical. Churches that will survive to minister effectively in the post-disruption world must use this remaining time wisely.

This season of disruption has functioned as a severe stress test for churches and denominations. Many have failed this test. What has been exposed includes leadership pathologies (celebrity pastor models, authoritarian control patterns, spiritual abuse, lack of genuine accountability structures, widespread moral failures); institutional weaknesses (dependence on cultural Christianity, institutional self-preservation prioritised over truth and justice, denominational structures proving weak and dysfunctional); theological shallowness (inability to provide genuine theological formation, lack of coherent teaching that can engage culture without capitulation, failure to prepare believers for living as a minority in post-Christian society); and community failure (unstable attendance patterns rather than genuine life-together community, programmes replacing relationships, lack of authentic community that could sustain people through disruption).

The churches proving resilient through this disruption share certain characteristics: authentic community that actually does life together, not just Sunday attendance; serious discipleship and personal formation rather than consumer religious services; shared practices (worship, Sacraments, prayer, service, fellowship) that form identity and character; clear biblical teaching that can explain the faith and engage culture; genuine accountability structures that prevent leadership abuse; economic simplicity—not dependent on massive overhead and staff; and realistic expectations—not trying to be all things to all people.

In essence, churches that look more like the early Church – without idolising the early Church – are proving more resilient than those built on assumptions of cultural support, numerical growth, institutional prestige, and political influence. That said, we cannot return to the days of the early Church – as some seem to idealistically desire. Nor can we return to the days of “Christendom”, when Western societies seemed much more like a Christian “Jerusalem” than a present “Babylon”. We must not expect a return to the post-WW2 world, or even the world of 2005.

Churches that will survive to minister effectively in the post-disruption world must use this remaining time to: shed unsustainable structures, dependencies, and assumptions based on cultural Christianity; form genuine communities of practice and belief that can sustain themselves; develop leaders with depth and character rather than platform and charisma; build trust through integrity and transparency rather than marketing and image management; articulate a coherent Christian faith that does not depend on cultural props or political power; establish healthy discipleship pathways that actually form mature Christians; create accountability structures that prevent abuse and maintain integrity; and simplify economically to become sustainable at smaller scale.

The tragedy is that many churches are still operating as if it is 2005, trying to apply strategies from the 1989-2007 period to a reality that no longer exists. By 2030, it will be brutally obvious which churches recognised the disruption and adapted versus which ones simply became irrelevant. As Warren Buffett said, “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked”.

Conclusion

We are living through the Global Shaking. It began in September 2008, announced by the events of September 2001 and the trends of the intervening years. It will likely resolve into a new stable order by 2032, but it could last longer (especially if another world war occurs during this time). History assures us that this pattern—disruption followed by stabilisation—is not unprecedented. The church has navigated such periods before, sometimes with faithfulness and fruitfulness, sometimes with compromise and failure.

We anticipate a major global Christian awakening before the Global Shaking concludes, and a decade or more of stability afterward as the new order consolidates. Churches that position themselves to participate in this awakening—through genuine discipleship, healthy community, and faithful witness—will find extraordinary opportunities in the years ahead.

Understanding where we are in this historical moment is essential for faithful Christian life and ministry. We are not called to predict the future or control events beyond our reach. We are called to faithfulness—to maintain healthy churches, form genuine disciples, and bear witness to the unshakeable Kingdom even as the things that can be shaken are shaken.

The prophet Haggai spoke to a discouraged remnant rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem after exile. Their circumstances were difficult; their resources were limited; the glory of their work seemed small compared to what had been lost. Yet God promised that he would shake the heavens and the earth, shake all nations, and fill his house with glory greater than before. The writer of Hebrews applies this promise to the church: we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken.

This is our confidence as we navigate the Global Shaking: not that we can predict its course or guarantee its outcomes, but that the Kingdom we serve will remain when all else has been shaken. The historical record confirms that shakings end, that new orders emerge, and that life continues. The question for the church is not whether we will survive the shaking—Christ has promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church—but whether we will be positioned to serve faithfully and fruitfully when stability returns.

Let us therefore be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe.

We Are Living in Babylon

In previous articles, I have discussed how Western societies, particularly the US and the UK, have undergone a profound shift since the 1990s. At one time, Western societies were anchored in historic Christianity, where Christian values permeated the society even though not everyone was a Christian. I described those times as “Living in Jerusalem” or “Living in Israel”. Although Western societies still have echoes of Christianity, they have become unmoored from the Christian pillars that once held them, taking on the values of “Babylon”. Living in Babylon means that our societies no longer have the inherent resources to remain stable during this era of global disruption. Living in Babylon amplifies the intensity of the shaking in the world.

“The Global Shaking”

We need a name for the era we are living through. I have seen many different names used recently, such as “Disruption”, “Rupture”, and “Polycrisis” – among others. I have chosen “The Global Shaking” rather than various alternatives for several reasons.

First, the shaking is genuinely global—not confined to one region or domain but affecting (with very few exceptions) every nation and every sphere of human activity. Second, “shaking” captures the biblical resonance without requiring explanation. Third, it avoids the grandiosity of “great” while still acknowledging the significance of the era. Finally, it points toward purpose: shaking is not merely destruction but revelation—it exposes what cannot stand and clarifies what remains.

The prophet Haggai, writing to the returned exiles in Jerusalem around 520 BC, delivered a message from the Lord:

“For thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘Yet once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land. And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the LORD of hosts” (Haggai 2:6-7 ESV).

The writer of Hebrews takes up this prophecy and applies it to the church age:

“At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, ‘Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.’ This phrase, ‘Yet once more,’ indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain” (Hebrews 12:26-27 ESV).

This is precisely what we are witnessing: a shaking that reveals what is solid and what is not, what will endure and what was always fragile.

The Global Shaking involves disruptions in many areas of society. To understand the nature of the present Global Shaking, we need to understand the nature of such disruptions and how they affect the various people-systems of society, often leading to significant change.

The Nature of Disruption and Change

Not all disruptions produce lasting change. Some disruptions are traumatic but temporary—like a city experiencing a major natural disaster or a nation enduring a severe recession. After a period of recovery, such systems often reach a new equilibrium that resembles or has some continuity with their pre-disruption state. Other disruptions, however, fundamentally transform people-systems in ways that prevent return to previous norms. These disruptions are not always perceived as traumatic; some might even be perceived as beneficial—at least initially.

Historical examples illustrate this distinction. The English and American Civil Wars were significant disruptions, but both systems largely reset after these conflicts, albeit with significant modifications. The institutional continuity remained fundamentally intact. In contrast, the French Revolution and Mao’s Cultural Revolution brought about more enduring transformation that fundamentally altered their societies in irreversible ways.

Factors That Determine Irreversible Change

Several key factors determine whether a disruption becomes transformative rather than temporary.

Generational Replacement. When a disruption lasts long enough that a new generation comes of age knowing only the disrupted reality, reversion becomes far less likely. This new generation has no experiential memory of the old system. This typically requires approximately 15-25 years—which explains why Mao’s Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) and the Soviet system (70+ years) fundamentally altered their societies in ways that persist even after those systems ended.

Institutional Destruction vs. Temporary Suspension. The extent to which core institutions are destroyed rather than merely suspended determines reversibility. The English Civil War executed the king but later restored the monarchy because institutional continuity remained possible. The French Revolution so thoroughly demolished the ancien régime’s institutions that genuine restoration became impossible—only new forms attempting to wear old clothes.

Economic Restructuring. When a disruption fundamentally reorganises how people make a living, reversion becomes nearly impossible. The enclosure movement in England and subsequent industrialisation disrupted village life permanently because the economic foundation had shifted. People could not return to subsistence farming even if they had wished to do so.

Ideological and Narrative Transformation. When disruption is accompanied by a new ideology that becomes internalised—especially by the young—change tends to persist. The American Revolution created a republican ideology that made restoration of Crown authority unthinkable, even though the disruption itself was relatively brief (1775-1783).

Network Effects and Path Dependency. Some disruptions create new patterns that become self-reinforcing. Once sufficient numbers adopt new technologies, practices, or social arrangements, the costs of reverting become prohibitive. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic normalised remote work in ways that persist long after the immediate crisis ended.

The Threshold Question

Based on these factors, a season of disruption typically needs to last at least one full generational cycle (roughly 20-25 years) to produce truly irreversible change—but only if it is also accompanied by the crippling, destruction, or transformation of underlying institutions, economic structures, and internalised narratives. Shorter disruptions can still produce permanent change if they are intense enough to destroy institutions or create new path dependencies (as with the COVID-19 pandemic), but without generational replacement, partial restoration by those who remember the old ways remains possible.

Instability, Uncertainty, and Precarity

Times of Global Shaking are characterised by three interrelated conditions that distinguish them from periods of relative peace: instability, uncertainty, and precarity. Understanding these three concepts helps us grasp why the present moment feels so disorienting for so many people, and why familiar strategies for navigating life and ministry often prove inadequate.

Instability refers to the absence of reliable equilibrium in systems that previously maintained consistent patterns. During stable periods, institutions, economies, and social arrangements tend toward predictable states. A business can reasonably expect that the regulatory environment next year will resemble this year. A church can anticipate that the cultural assumptions of its community will shift gradually rather than dramatically. During the Global Shaking, however, systems have oscillated unpredictably and sometimes violently. Financial markets swing between extremes. Political alignments shift rapidly. Social consensus on basic questions dissolves and reforms around new configurations. Consider how quickly the political landscape has shifted in both the United Kingdom and the United States over the past decade. Parties that seemed dominant suddenly collapse; movements that seemed marginal suddenly become mainstream. This is instability—the absence of reliable equilibrium that allows for long-term planning based on reasonable extrapolation from the present.

Uncertainty refers to the inability to assign meaningful probabilities to future outcomes. This is distinct from mere risk, where we may not know exactly what will happen, but we can estimate the likelihood of various possibilities. In periods of genuine uncertainty, the range of possible futures expands beyond our capacity to model or predict. We do not simply face known risks with calculable odds; we face situations where we cannot even enumerate what might happen, much less assess its probability. The emergence of artificial intelligence illustrates this condition. We do not know whether AI will create mass unemployment or generate new categories of work. We do not know whether it will concentrate power in fewer hands or distribute capabilities more widely. We do not know whether it will accelerate the Global Shaking or contribute to a new stability. The honest answer to most questions about AI’s social impact is that we genuinely do not know—and unlike previous technological transitions, we lack the ability to make confident prediction.

Precarity refers to the condition of existence without predictable security or reliable foundations for well-being. The term originally described employment relationships that lacked the stability and protections of traditional jobs—the gig economy worker who cannot count on income next month, the contractor without benefits or job security. But precarity now extends far beyond employment to describe a pervasive condition of contemporary life. Housing has become precarious in many cities, with costs rising faster than incomes and security of tenure diminishing. Healthcare systems strain under pressures that make access uncertain. The church itself has become precarious for many believers, as congregations shrink, merge, or close, and the assumption that one’s local church will exist in ten years becomes questionable.

Many young adults today experience all three conditions simultaneously. They face unstable employment markets, uncertain career trajectories, and precarious housing situations. They navigate relationships and form families in contexts that previous generations would find unrecognisably challenging. Is it any wonder that anxiety and mental health difficulties have reached epidemic proportions among the young?

These three conditions—instability, uncertainty, and precarity—have created the distinctive texture of life during the Global Shaking. They explain why so many people feel that the ground beneath them is shifting, why planning for the future seems futile, and why the old certainties no longer hold. For the church, recognising these conditions is essential. We cannot minister effectively to people whose lived experience we do not understand. And we cannot offer genuine hope if we pretend that the instability, uncertainty, and precarity they experience are merely imaginary or easily overcome.

Dating the Global Shaking: The Fall of Lehman

Although we could have many contenders, I suggest that we date the beginning of this current period of global disruption to 15 September 2008—the collapse of Lehman Brothers. This event marked the true beginning of the Great Financial Crisis, transforming what had been a developing financial problem into a full-blown global catastrophe that shattered confidence in the post-Cold War economic and political order. This was not merely a financial event; it was the moment when the post-Cold War global order began visibly to unravel.

The fall of Lehman Brothers triggered the most severe global financial crisis since the Great Depression. Banks failed or required rescue across Europe and America. Governments nationalised financial institutions. Quantitative easing became permanent policy rather than emergency measure. The assumptions of the 1989-2007 era—that markets were self-correcting, that globalisation was irreversible, that liberal democratic capitalism had won—were suddenly exposed as fragile.

But September 2008 was significant beyond finance. In August 2008, Russia invaded Georgia—the first major military aggression by a great power against a neighbour since the Cold War. The WTO’s Doha Round had effectively collapsed. The stage was being set for the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks in 2009. A swine flu epidemic emerged in 2008-09. In retrospect, we can see that multiple systems became troubled simultaneously. The financial crisis was the most dramatic and visible, but it was not alone.

Lehman’s fall became such a powerful inflection point because of four crucial precursors that had already begun altering the global landscape:

11 September 2001: The terrorist attacks on the United States convulsed the global political order. The subsequent “War on Terror,” invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the erosion of civil liberties in Western democracies marked the beginning of the end of post-Cold War optimism about Western liberal democracy’s inevitable triumph. It introduced a new era of fear, surveillance, and perpetual conflict.

11 December 2001: China joined the World Trade Organisation, unsettling the global economic order. At first, integrating China into the WTO seemed the culmination of the liberal world order that had triumphed with the fall of the Berlin Wall. However, this integration of China into the world economy accelerated globalisation, transformed manufacturing, created massive trade imbalances, and set in motion the rise of an authoritarian power that would eventually challenge Western economic and political hegemony.

September 2006: Facebook opened to the general public (having launched in February 2004 for university students). This marked the beginning of social media’s transformation of information ecosystems, public discourse, and social interaction. The introduction of the “Like” button in February 2009 accelerated Facebook’s viral growth and addictive qualities, creating powerful feedback loops for content visibility and passive engagement. Together, these developments caused the old gatekeepers of information—traditional media, established institutions—to begin losing control of the narratives, setting the stage for the information chaos that would characterise the post-2008 disruption.

9 January 2007: Apple introduced the iPhone, launching a technological revolution that would fundamentally alter human communication, social interaction, and daily life. Smartphones put powerful computing and constant connectivity in everyone’s pocket, enabling the social media revolution and creating entirely new patterns of human behaviour and attention.

These four developments—political, economic, social, and technological—set the stage. But their full implications did not converge until the Great Financial Crisis. The fall of Lehman Brothers was the point when all these threads came together, when the post-Cold War consensus fractured, and when it became apparent that the world was fundamentally changing. What had seemed like separate trends or manageable challenges suddenly converged to reveal a comprehensive systemic disruption.

Why not date the shaking earlier—say, to 2001 or even 2007? The housing bubble was already deflating in 2007, after all, and some would argue that the subprime crisis had already begun. The answer is that while stress was building throughout 2007 and early 2008, the system appeared to be holding. Bear Stearns was rescued in March 2008. It was Lehman’s collapse that demonstrated the system could not hold—that contagion was unstoppable, that governments would be forced into unprecedented interventions, that the rules of the previous era no longer applied. Lehman was the point of no return.

September 2001: The Announcement

If September 2008 marked the beginning of the Global Shaking, September 2001 announced that it was coming.

The attacks of 11 September 2001 shattered the post-Cold War sense of security and American invulnerability. They launched the “War on Terror,” which would destabilise the Middle East for decades. They began the erosion of civil liberties and the expansion of the surveillance state. They marked the end of “end of history” optimism—suddenly Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilisations” seemed more plausible than Francis Fukuyama’s confident liberalism.

The wars in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) that followed consumed American attention, treasure, and credibility. The Iraq War, in particular, fractured Western alliances and discredited liberal interventionism. The absence of weapons of mass destruction damaged trust in government and intelligence services. Abu Ghraib damaged America’s moral authority.

Yet the system held. The disruptions of 2001-2008 were absorbed. The global financial system continued to function—indeed, to flourish. Globalisation accelerated. China’s entry into the WTO was rapidly reshaping the global economy. The iPhone and Facebook’s expansion beyond universities were transforming communication and social life. Yet, these were not signs of stability; they were accelerants that would make the coming shaking more severe. But at the time, they appeared to be evidence of continued progress.

The period 2001-2008 was thus a strange interlude: trauma and confidence coexisting, warning signs accumulating while the party continued. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand did not cause the First World War—the pressures had been building for decades—but it triggered the cascade that followed. Similarly, 2001 announced that the post-Cold War order was vulnerable; 2008 demonstrated that it was collapsing.

The Unravelling of the Post-Cold War Settlement

What makes this season of disruption distinctive is that it represents the comprehensive breakdown of the post-Cold War settlement that had prevailed from 1989 to 2007 (which itself had emerged from the “rules based” international order that arose following WWII). That roughly 18-year period possessed a certain coherence: American unipolarity and Western hegemony; faith in market capitalism and liberal democracy as universal values; relatively stable international institutions (UN, NATO, WHO, WTO, EU); pre-social media information ecology; a financial system operating under pre-2008 capitalistic assumptions; and cultural consensus in Western nations around basic norms and values.

The coherence and prosperity of this season convinced many that the world had reached the end of history, the culmination of all the promises of Western liberal democracy. For example, approximately 1.2 billion people were lifted out of extreme poverty during 1989-2007, halving the rate of extreme poverty from 36% to 18% of the global population. Many people assumed that such growth and prosperity would continue indefinitely.

The Global Scope of the Shaking

This season of shaking is genuinely global—almost no area of the world has remained unaffected. It encompasses multiple interconnected dimensions.

Financial and Economic. The Great Financial Crisis itself (2008-2010) led to quantitative easing and rapid inflation of equities beyond normal P/E ratios. A prolonged low-interest environment produced wide-ranging effects on global capital allocation and the accumulation of debt. Persistent inflation and economic instability marked the 2020s, raising fundamental questions about globalisation versus economic nationalism.

Geopolitical. China’s economic expansion and growing assertiveness, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (2014-present), the destabilisation of American hegemony and the unipolar world order, the rise of multipolar competition among regional powers, and increasing tensions between authoritarian and democratic governance models have reshaped the international landscape.

Technological. The smartphone revolution and social media transformation of communication, the emergence of artificial intelligence as a potentially transformative force (particularly from 2022 onward), disruption of traditional media and information gatekeepers, and surveillance capitalism and data collection at unprecedented scale have changed how humans live and interact.

Social and Cultural. The rise of radical Islamic movements and persistent terrorism, large-scale migration patterns creating political and social tension, the disintegration of cultural norms and shared values (particularly in the UK and Western Europe), growing nihilism and loss of meaning structures, polarisation and fragmentation of public discourse, and the breakdown of institutional trust and authority have transformed Western societies.

Scientific Authority and Institutional Trust. The COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022) exposed deep fractures in scientific and public health authority, with widespread instances of “experts” providing misleading information driven by political or economic motives rather than scientific integrity. Dissenting scientific voices have been suppressed and “cancelled,” particularly evident in climate change discourse where scientists questioning consensus narratives have faced professional consequences. Fundamental biological categories are being disputed despite clear scientific definitions, revealing the subordination of objective science to ideological imperatives. This has produced erosion of public trust in scientific institutions, the medical establishment, and academic expertise, along with the weaponisation of “science” and “expertise” for political purposes, undermining genuine scientific discourse.

COVID-19: Entrenchment

The COVID-19 pandemic entrenched the shaking globally, making changes that were emerging but still potentially reversible into permanent realities. COVID compressed what might have taken another decade into 18 months of intense change: remote work becoming normalised rather than experimental; digital commerce displacing physical retail at accelerated rates; state intervention in economies becoming accepted practice; surveillance infrastructure being built and normalised; social trust and institutional authority being further weakened; and physical gathering and community being dismissed as optional. In this sense, COVID intensified the Global Shaking toward its conclusion.

Convergence toward a Resolution

All disruptions historically come to an end. Times of shaking do not endure indefinitely. To discern when the present Global Shaking might resolve, we might consider several cyclical theories that have been proposed in recent years. Unusually, multiple theorists from different disciplines, using different methodologies, converge on roughly the same timeframe for resolution of the current era of disruption.

Neil Howe’s Fourth Turning Theory. Howe’s generational framework suggests a climax and resolution around 2028-2030, followed by a First Turning characterised by a new institutional order and social consensus.

Peter Turchin’s Structural-Demographic Theory. Turchin’s mathematical models of social instability predicted instability peaking in the 2020s, with resolution (one way or another) by the early 2030s. His analysis focuses on elite overproduction, declining living standards, and state fiscal crisis.

Ray Dalio’s Long-Term Debt Cycle. Dalio’s framework suggests we are in the late stages of a long-term debt cycle that began after World War II. His analysis points to the 2020s-2030s as the period of maximum stress and fundamental reordering of the global financial system.

George Friedman’s Geopolitical Cycles. Friedman’s analysis of American power cycles and global realignments similarly identifies the late 2020s and early 2030s as pivotal for the international order.

This convergence from multiple independent frameworks is significant. It is not just one theory but multiple analytical approaches pointing to the same approximate window.

Applying the Disruption/Change Framework

Using the factors I discussed earlier, along with the convergence of the cyclical frameworks identified above, I anticipate that the changes evident by the end of the Global Shaking to be profound and irreversible.

Generational Replacement. We are now 17+ years into this season of disruption (dating from September 2008). A generation that came of age entirely within this disrupted reality is now entering their prime working and family-forming years. They have no adult memory of the pre-smartphone, pre-GFC world. We are approaching—but have not yet completed—the point where the disruption becomes normalised and a new equilibrium can emerge.

Institutional Status. Many institutions from the 1989-2007 era still formally exist (UN, NATO, WTO, WHO, EU, various denominational structures) but are operating under severe strain or have lost legitimacy. They have not been replaced yet—we are in an interregnum where old institutions cannot function as originally designed, but new ones have not fully emerged. This liminal state suggests the disruption is not yet complete, yet the nihilistic tendencies in many people will continue to disturb the old order and foment something new yet undefined.

Economic Restructuring. This has been profound and ongoing. Quantitative easing fundamentally altered capital allocation. China’s rise changed global manufacturing. AI is beginning to reshape labour markets. National public debts have reached levels that have discernible impacts on national economies, with little willingness or ability to wean nations off unsustainable levels of debt. Blockchain technology has not yet developed a digital currency that might reasonably replace other national currencies such as the dollar or the euro. We have not yet reached a new stable economic order—we are still in an experimental phase. Yet it is difficult to imagine a return to the capitalism of the 1990s.

Ideological/Narrative Shift. This feels particularly incomplete. There is no new dominant ideology that has replaced the 1989-2007 consensus of liberal democracy plus market capitalism plus American hegemony. We have shifting ideologies, often at open war with one another. Additionally, we have fragmentation: rising authoritarianism, populist nationalism, techno-optimism, social nihilism, various forms of religious fundamentalism—but no clear winner. The old narrative has collapsed, but the new one has not cohered.

The Timeline: 2027-2032

Based on these factors and the convergence of cyclical theories, the most likely window for resolution for this Global Shaking and the first glimpses of the new order that will emerge is 2027-2032, although I might lean toward the latter part of this period. This represents approximately 19-24 years from the beginning of the disruption in September 2008, which aligns with the generational cycle necessary for irreversible change.

By this window, the generation with no adult memory of the pre-disruption world will dominate economically and politically. AI’s initial transformative effects will have largely come into view. A new international order (multipolar, regional blocs, or some other configuration) will have taken shape. New economic norms around capital, labour, and technology will have developed. Cultural and social norms will have settled into new, different patterns.

If the Global Shaking began in 2008, the range of 2027-2032 rather than a single year acknowledges genuine uncertainty. We do not know exactly when the new stable order will emerge, and it may happen differently in different domains—financial before political, or regional before global. But the convergence of evidence suggests that by the early 2030s, it will be clear what the new world looks like, even if we cannot predict today what that world will be.

What the Post-Disruption World Might Look Like

While precise prediction is impossible, certain features seem likely in whatever order emerges: a multipolar geopolitical order with regional hegemons rather than a single superpower; higher inflation and capital controls compared to the 1989-2007 period; AI-driven productivity alongside significant technological unemployment and workforce restructuring; weakened but not dead liberal democratic institutions in the West; more explicit civilisational/cultural blocs (Western, Chinese, Islamic, Indian, etc.) with pronounced cultural conflicts; de-globalisation or re-regionalisation of supply chains and economic relationships; new forms of currency and financial infrastructure possibly including digital currencies; and persistent social fragmentation within Western societies, disrupting and destabilising them.

The key insight is that by 2032 or so, we should see more clearly what the new world will look like, and return to the 1989-2007 order will be impossible. The world will have fundamentally changed. In most respects, it has fundamentally changed already.

A Global Christian Awakening

Periods of global shaking have historically been accompanied by significant spiritual movements. The Reformation emerged during the disruptions of the sixteenth century. The Great Awakenings occurred during periods of social upheaval in Britain and America. The explosive growth of Christianity in China followed the disruptions of the twentieth century. When old certainties collapse, people seek new foundations.

I anticipate that the Global Shaking will include a major global Christian awakening before its conclusion, particularly among young adults in their 20s. “Awakening” describes a period in which thousands of people who are not Christians suddenly hunger for God and become genuine Christians. This is not triumphalism but observation: the conditions that produce such awakenings are present and intensifying. The comfortable assumptions of secular materialism have been shaken. Institutional trust has collapsed. Anxiety and mental health crises have reached epidemic proportions, particularly among the young. People are searching for meaning, community, and hope that the systems of this world manifestly cannot provide.

The Christian awakening we anticipate will likely not look like previous Western revivals. It may be centred in the Global South—in Africa, Latin America, and Asia—rather than in Europe or North America. It may occur primarily outside traditional denominational structures. It may be accompanied by persecution as much as by cultural favour. But the harvest is plentiful, and the Lord of the harvest is at work even now. Churches that position themselves to participate in this awakening—through genuine discipleship, healthy community, and faithful witness—will find extraordinary opportunities in the years ahead.

The Global Shaking of the Church

This Global Shaking, this season of disruption, has functioned as a severe stress test for churches and denominations. Most have failed this test. What has been exposed includes the following:

Leadership Pathologies. Celebrity pastor models that proved toxic and unsustainable; authoritarian control patterns and spiritual abuse; lack of genuine accountability structures; leaders driven by insecurity, ego, and the need for platform rather than genuine calling; and widespread moral failures among high-profile Christian leaders.

Institutional Weaknesses. Dependence on cultural Christianity rather than genuine discipleship communities; institutional self-preservation prioritised over truth and justice (abuse scandals, cover-ups); denominational structures proving weak and dysfunctional; and business-model approaches (seeker-sensitive, attractional, consumer-oriented) that collapsed when cultural props were removed.

Theological Shallowness. Inability to provide genuine theological formation; lack of coherent teaching that can engage culture without capitulation; failure to prepare believers for living as a minority in post-Christian society; and therapeutic rather than transformative approaches to faith.

Community Failure. Unstable and irregular Sunday attendance patterns rather than genuine life-together community; programmes replacing relationships; and lack of authentic community that could sustain people through disruption.

The brutal reality is that few individual churches possess sustainable health and vitality to persevere and provide healthy Christian communities through the remainder of this Global Shaking and into whatever emerges afterward.

Churches That Are Surviving

The churches proving resilient through this disruption share certain characteristics: authentic community that actually does life together, not just Sunday attendance; serious discipleship and personal formation rather than consumer religious services; shared practices (worship, Sacraments, prayer, service, fellowship) that form identity and character; clear biblical teaching that can explain the faith and engage culture; genuine accountability structures that prevent leadership abuse; economic simplicity—not dependent on massive overhead and staff; and realistic expectations—not trying to be all things to all people.

In essence, churches that look more like the early Church are proving more resilient than those built on the old assumptions (cultural support, numerical growth, institutional prestige, political influence) that we live in a “Christian” society or, what I noted above as a society like “Israel” or “Jerusalem”.

The Urgent Need: 2026-2032

If 2027-2032 is when the new order takes shape, then the period from now until then is critical. Churches that will survive to minister effectively in the post-Shaking, post-disruption world must use this remaining time to: shed unsustainable structures, dependencies, and assumptions based on cultural Christianity; form genuine communities of practice and belief that can sustain themselves; develop leaders with depth and character rather than platform and charisma; build trust through integrity and transparency rather than marketing and image management; articulate a coherent Christian faith that does not depend on cultural props or political power; establish healthy discipleship pathways that actually form mature Christians; create accountability structures that prevent abuse and maintain integrity; and simplify economically to become sustainable at smaller scale.

The tragedy is that most churches are still operating as if it is 2005, trying to apply strategies from the 1989-2007 period to a reality that no longer exists. By 2030, it will be brutally obvious which churches recognised the disruption and adapted versus which ones simply became irrelevant.

Conclusion

We are living through the Global Shaking. It began in September 2008 with the fall of Lehman Brothers (building on crucial precursors from 2001-2007) and will likely resolve into a new stable order by 2032. Multiple independent analytical frameworks converge on this same basic timeline. I anticipate a major global Christian awakening before its conclusion, and a decade or more of stability afterward as the new order consolidates.

For the church, this is both crisis and opportunity. The crisis is real—most churches and denominations have failed the stress tests of this season of disruption, revealing profound weaknesses in leadership, theology, community, and sustainability. The comfortable patterns of the Christendom era or even the recent past will not carry churches through what remains and into what emerges.

But there is also opportunity. Churches that use the next few years (2026-2030) to establish genuinely healthy patterns—in leadership, community, discipleship, and cultural engagement—will not only survive but potentially thrive in serving the post-disruption world.

Understanding where we are in this historical moment is essential for faithful Christian life and ministry. We are not called to predict the future or control events beyond our reach. We are called to faithfulness—to maintain healthy churches, form genuine disciples, and bear witness to the unshakeable Kingdom even as the things that can be shaken are shaken.

The prophet Haggai spoke to a discouraged remnant rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem after exile. Their circumstances were difficult; their resources were limited; the glory of their work seemed small compared to what had been lost. Yet God promised that he would shake the heavens and the earth, shake all nations, and fill his house with glory greater than before. The writer of Hebrews applies this promise to the church: we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken.

I often think about Daniel at the end of his life. In his youth, he had seen the wonders of Jerusalem. He had played in the streets with his friends, studied the Torah, worshipped the one God, and enjoyed all that life in Israel had to offer. Then, suddenly, he was snatched away into a strange country with foreign gods, golden images, and capricious leaders. Death could have come for him at any moment.

Yet, he survived.

No – he thrived. He became a highly influential leader, mostly unseen but well respected (by many) and well loved (by a few, at least). God used Daniel both to prosper the nation and to promote the well-being of God’s people. And God’s people flourished in Babylon, despite being in exile. God used the time in exile to purify his people from the worldliness, idolatry and false worship that had infected them in Jerusalem. God connected his people together in synagogues so that they might remember who they were in a foreign land. In due season, as promised, God returned many of his people to Jerusalem.

Yet, not Daniel.

Almost certainly, Daniel never saw Jerusalem again. The last events recorded in the Book of Daniel show him still alive and active in Babylon during the early Persian period (around 536 BCE). He had lived more than 70 years in a foreign land. He had lived with the promise that God would restore his people to their land and that God’s sovereignty would prevail into a distant future, determining the courses of nations and ensuring that God’s kingdom would come and would overcome.

We know that Daniel looked forward in wondrous dreams and visions. But I wonder whether Daniel ever looked back as well. If so, what were the lessons that he had learned? What insights might the Lord have given him? I often wish Daniel could have written another book at the end of his days to show us how he lived well in Babylon.

I’m not an old man as Daniel was, and I’m much less removed in time from my Jerusalem than Daniel was at the end of his life, but I often look both backwards and forwards to reflect on life in Babylon and how we might live fruitfully during the time of our exile. Like Daniel, I am confident that I shall never see a “Jerusalem” again. Yet, like Daniel, I know that God will bring his people out of exile. I know that God’s people have a hope and a future. I know that God’s people will continue to influence the society around them, whether or not that society is like Babylon. And I know that God’s people will flourish in this new Babylon, if we learn from Daniel.

Hope not in politics

Politics, political systems, political parties, and political leaders will not save us or our society – even if the people involved are fully committed Christians. This is not an excuse to stick our heads in the sand. Christians must be involved in politics, most certainly, but we can never put our hope in politics. Daniel would warn us to beware of becoming so engaged in politics that we lose our Christian distinctiveness. Beware of compromising the Gospel for political gain.

I have watched Christians across the political spectrum make the same fundamental error — believing that if only their preferred party or candidate could gain power, the kingdom of God would advance. This is a profound misunderstanding of both politics and the Gospel. Politics operates by the rules of Babylon: power, compromise, expedience, and the art of the possible. The Gospel operates by different rules entirely: truth, sacrifice, love, and the impossible made possible through Jesus Christ. When I was young, living in what felt like Jerusalem, it seemed natural that Christian values and political values would align. But Babylon has a way of exposing the fault lines between Caesar and Christ.

The danger is not political engagement itself — Daniel served in Nebuchadnezzar's court, after all. The danger lies in allowing political passion to eclipse our primary allegiance. I have seen too many believers become so identified with their political tribe that they have lost the ability to speak prophetically to those in authority when their own side errs. They have traded the cross for a flag, the Gospel for a political platform. In Babylon, the call is not to withdrawal from civic responsibility, but to hold our political commitments with an open hand, always ready to let go when they conflict with our deeper loyalty to the King of Kings.

Hope not in bigger churches with greater influence

We have seen that building bigger and bigger churches and Christian organisations will not change society. The correlation between the rise of megachurches and society's slide from Jerusalem to Babylon in the 1990s is not coincidental. Of course, correlation is not causation. However, as churches pursued size, they often sacrificed other things, like intergenerational connection and community orientation. As churches chased numbers, they frequently compromised the very message that might have provided the salt and light our communities desperately needed.

To be clear, healthy churches come in all shapes and sizes, and some large congregations faithfully proclaim the biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ while serving as transformational centres in their communities. But the megachurch (or mega-organisation) movement too often reflected Babylon's values — bigger is better, success is measured by attendance and budgets, leaders should be “charismatic”, and influence is proportional to size. In pursuing the metrics of Babylon, many churches lost their prophetic edge and their capacity to challenge the culture around them.

The alternative is not necessarily smaller churches, but churches that define success biblically rather than culturally. These churches prioritize depth over breadth, character over charisma, and long-term spiritual formation over short-term numerical growth. Such churches become centres of transformation not because of their size, but because of their rootedness in Christ and their commitment to living as a counter-cultural community in the midst of Babylon.

Reconsider our measures of success in Babylon

A litany of high-profile leadership failures has exposed the bankruptcy of Babylon's success metrics when applied to Christian ministry. Many who appeared outwardly successful — with their large churches, financial wealth, widespread fame, and best-seller books — have often fit Jesus' description of "whitewashed tombs." Like many, I have despaired watching people I personally admired fall because of unresolved sin issues that their apparent success had masked.

These failures reveal the seductive power of Babylon's value system. When we measure success by external markers — attendance, influence, visibility, wealth — we create incentives for leaders to prioritize image management over soul care. The pressure to maintain the appearance of success can drive leaders to hide their struggles, resist accountability, and ultimately fall into the very sins they preach against. Babylon rewards performance; the Gospel calls for obedience.

The biblical measures of success look radically different: faithfulness over fame, integrity over influence, servant-heartedness over celebrity status. In God's economy, the leader who quietly pastors a small congregation with love and faithfulness for decades may be infinitely more successful than the one who builds a ministry empire but loses his soul in the process. Learning to celebrate these quieter forms of success is essential for surviving and thriving in Babylon.

Expect not the culture to be redeemed

Babylon’s culture is irredeemable, not because God lacks the power to transform it, but because Babylon represents humanity's organized rebellion against God. Faithful Christians will engage with government, the arts, business, sports, education, and religion, but the danger is always great that these institutions will change us more than we will change them. This is the sobering reality of living in exile.

I have watched well-intentioned believers enter various cultural spheres with dreams of transformation, only to find themselves slowly conformed to the very systems they hoped to change. The corruption is often subtle — small compromises that seem necessary for influence, gradual adoption of worldly methods to achieve godly ends, the slow erosion of distinctiveness in pursuit of relevance. Babylon is corrupting precisely because it does not announce itself as evil. It presents itself as the way things work, the path to effectiveness, the price of a seat at the table.

This does not mean withdrawal from cultural engagement, but it does mean entering these spheres with realistic expectations and robust spiritual disciplines. Like Daniel, we can serve faithfully in Babylon's institutions while maintaining our spiritual integrity. But this requires constant vigilance, regular retreat for spiritual renewal, and Christian community accountability to help us recognize when we are being shaped more by Babylon than by the Gospel.

Embrace a next generation orientation

Whatever we build in Babylon as Christian leaders, wisdom calls us to build it for the generations to come. The temptation in exile is to become consumed with our own survival, our own comfort, or our own legacy. But Daniel understood that his faithfulness was not just about his own relationship with God. It was about helping the next generation to know and serve the Lord in their own challenging circumstances.

The next great awakening will likely emerge among those in their twenties. Young adults, less invested in the status quo and more willing to take risks, often become God's instruments for spiritual renewal. This means the role of older believers is not to create movements for themselves, but to prepare the ground, provide resources, and clear obstacles for those who will carry the Gospel forward after they are gone.

Building for the next generation requires different priorities than building for ourselves. It means investing in depth rather than flash, in principles rather than programs, in character formation rather than quick results. It means creating institutions and traditions robust enough to survive the transition from one generation to the next, while remaining flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances.

Seek a spiritual worldview

The normalization of demonization in Babylon society has caught many Christians off guard. Having lived through the transition from a nominally Christian culture to a post-Christian one, I have witnessed the increase in spiritual darkness that accompanies the rejection of Gospel light. Paul's words about wrestling not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers and spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places, whilst always true have now become more tangible and urgent.

We are surrounded by and immersed in a spiritual realm that affects the “natural” world of our daily lives. This spiritual realm is the place of angels, demons, and other spiritual realities we normally do not see. Yet this spiritual realm often influences people — sometimes even us as Christians — in ways that contradict God's good will. The rise in depression, anxiety, addiction, and despair cannot be explained purely through psychological or sociological categories. There are spiritual dimensions to the cultural decay we are witnessing, and recognizing this is essential for both understanding our times and responding appropriately.

Yet we also live in a world that shines with the glory of God in Jesus Christ for those who have eyes to see. The same spiritual reality that explains the growing darkness also explains the miracles, the conversions, the acts of sacrificial love that continue to break through. Embracing a spiritual worldview means learning to see both the battle and the victory, the darkness and the light, the demonic and the divine at work in our world.

Refuse to compromise authenticity or integrity

The great irony of our age is that those who talk most about authenticity are often not very “authentic”. Authenticity has become a brand, a marketing strategy, a way of appearing genuine while remaining fundamentally false. In Babylon, even virtue gets commodified and corrupted. We need genuine authenticity.

True authenticity – and the integrity that accompanies it – are demonstrated not through our words, not through isolated actions, and not through our contrived uniqueness, but through the patterns of our lives. People perceive authenticity in others long before they can articulate what they are seeing. Authenticity is not about sharing every struggle or making every private thought public. It is about ensuring that who we are in public aligns with who we are in private, that our actions match our professions, that our lives bear witness to the truth we claim to believe.

In a culture obsessed with image and performance, the simple act of being genuinely ourselves — flawed, growing, honest about our limitations while confident in God's grace — becomes a radical testimony. This kind of authenticity cannot be manufactured or strategized. It can only be cultivated through deep relationship with God and sustained by biblical communities that value honesty over appearance.

Live a faithful life punctuated by miracles

So many believers crave a life of miracles but, in Babylon, miracles often seem few and far between. Many seek the latest spiritual experience or the latest shot of spiritual adrenaline. In Babylon, the spectacular miracle is rare; the faithful is daily. This reality disappoints those who have been promised that following Jesus means constant supernatural highs, but it actually points us toward a deeper understanding of how God works in a fallen world.

Daniel's life exemplifies this pattern. He prayed every day, maintained his religious practices whether he felt like it or not, and served faithfully in a pagan court over decades. Most days probably felt quite ordinary. But it was precisely this faithfulness that positioned him to be used by God in extraordinary moments — interpreting dreams, surviving the lion's den, receiving prophetic visions that would shape how God’s people understood the unfolding of world history for centuries.

Faithfulness is not determined by the fleeting moment of goodness or the instance of spiritual activity, but by the patterns of living for God that we establish over months, years, and decades. The miracles come — and they will come — but they emerge from a foundation of consistent obedience, regular prayer, and steadfast trust. In Babylon, learning to find joy and purpose in the ordinary acts of faithfulness may be the greatest miracle of all.

Looking Back, Looking Forward

As I write these words, I imagine Daniel's perspective as he looked back on a life lived in exile. There is satisfaction — deep and abiding — in knowing that God used even the years of captivity for His purposes. The prayers were not wasted, the stands for righteousness were not in vain, the quiet acts of faithfulness in a foreign land bore fruit in ways that could never have been imagined. Like Daniel, I can say that serving the God of heaven in the world of Babylon, while never easy, has proved to be profoundly meaningful. The skills learned in exile — how to maintain integrity while serving in corrupt systems, how to speak truth to those in authority with both boldness and wisdom, how to find hope when surrounded by darkness — these have become treasures more precious than anything left behind.

Yet there remains a tinge of longing for what was lost when Jerusalem fell. The simplicities of faith that once seemed so natural, the cultural supports that made Christian living feel effortless, the shared assumptions about right and wrong that no longer exist — these are mourned like a homeland to which we can never return. But perhaps this is as it should be. The ache for Jerusalem keeps our eyes fixed on the coming city whose builder and maker is God. It is the kingdom Daniel saw in his visions — a kingdom that would fill the whole earth and stand forever. That kingdom comes not through political victories or cultural transformation, but through the faithful witness of God's people in every generation, in every place of exile, until the Ancient of Days takes His seat and the Son of Man receives a dominion that shall not pass away. As Daniel declared in wonder and hope: "His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion endures from generation to generation."

Sarah has been a marketing director at a major technology firm for eight years, and her colleagues respect her for her strategic thinking and genuine care for her team. But lately, she's finding herself in increasingly difficult situations. Last month, she was asked to approve a campaign that she knew contained misleading claims about their product's capabilities. When she raised concerns, she was told she was being "unnecessarily rigid" and that "everyone stretches the truth in marketing." Two weeks ago, her company announced a new policy requiring all managers to attend diversity training that explicitly contradicts her biblical convictions about gender and sexuality. Her refusal to embrace enthusiastically the content has been noted by HR. Yesterday, a team member confided that they're struggling with depression and asked for her advice, but company policy prohibits any discussion that might be construed as religious counsel. Sarah loves her work and her people, but she's discovering that leading with integrity in Babylon requires a fundamentally different approach than anything she learned in business school or absorbed from the broader Christian culture of her upbringing.

Sarah's experience is not unique. Across industries and sectors, Christian leaders are finding themselves navigating increasingly complex terrain where the assumptions, values, and practices that once supported effective leadership have shifted dramatically. The comfortable alignment between Christian principles and broader cultural expectations has been replaced by a landscape where biblical convictions often place leaders at odds with organisational policies, industry standards, and social expectations. Understanding these new realities is essential for any Christian who wants to lead effectively and faithfully in today's environment.

Throughout this series, I have been reviewing the significant change that has occurred in Western nations. These nations once operated on the basis of Judeo-Christian values and perspectives, founded on the Bible as God’s Word. They reflected Protestant perspectives on the world, relationships and work. These cultures were like “Jerusalem”. But no longer. Over the past five decades, a shift has occurred, very subtle at first. Over the past three decades, the nature of the shift has become ever more apparent. It is a shift from “Jerusalem” to “Babylon”. Living in Babylon brings massive challenges to Christians who are leaders. Whilst these challenges are significant, they are not insurmountable for those who learn to adapt their approach while maintaining their core convictions. In this essay, I will present some considerations for Christian leaders to help them flourish in Babylon as real leaders who are faithful Christians.

Expect Your Leadership to Seem Alien

We no longer have a Christian value consensus in our culture, so we cannot expect people generally to act in a way consistent with Christianity. This fundamental shift means that behaviours, assumptions, and frameworks that were once taken for granted now require explicit explanation and intentional cultivation. The unspoken moral infrastructure that once supported Christian leadership has been dismantled, leaving leaders to operate in terrain that is not merely neutral, but often actively hostile to biblical principles.

Our leadership as Christians will seem much more alien to many people. What we consider normal leadership practices — integrity in all circumstances, servant-hearted decision-making, considering the welfare of others above profit margins — will increasingly be viewed as naive, impractical, or even threatening to those operating within Babylon's value system. We must prepare ourselves for the reality that our most basic leadership assumptions will be questioned, misunderstood, or actively opposed.

This alienation extends beyond mere disagreement about methods; it touches the very foundations of what leadership is meant to accomplish. Where we seek to build people up and serve their long-term flourishing, Babylon's leadership paradigms often focus on short-term gains, personal advancement, and the accumulation of power or influence. Understanding this fundamental disconnect will help us lead with greater wisdom and more realistic expectations.

Assume No One Has Faith

We cannot assume that anyone is a Christian, including those who claim to be. We cannot assume that anyone knows what it means to live as a Christian, including those who actually are Christians. This sobering reality forces us to abandon the shortcuts that were once available to Christian leaders. The shared vocabulary of faith, the common understanding of biblical principles, and the collective cultural memory of Christian values and practices can no longer be presumed, even within explicitly Christian organisations.

As we lead, we will need to help people develop Christian ways of thinking and acting, not based on the fact that these ways are "Christian" but based on the fact that these ways are better and more effective, producing better outcomes. This requires a fundamental shift in our approach to leadership development. Rather than appealing to biblical authority alone — which may carry little weight with most people — we must be able to demonstrate the practical wisdom and effectiveness of Christian principles in real-world situations.

This means we must become students of human nature, organisational dynamics, and practical wisdom in ways that allow us to show why honesty builds trust, why servant leadership creates loyalty, why forgiveness restores relationships, and why biblical principles produce better outcomes than their alternatives. We are not abandoning our Christian convictions. We are learning to present them in language, practices and policies that reveal their inherent truth and effectiveness.

See Your Leadership as Evangelism

In Babylon, the way we lead is our first line of evangelism. We must not resist this, but we also must not become preachy or moralistic. This recognition transforms how we understand our role as leaders. Every decision we make, every interaction we have, every crisis we navigate becomes an opportunity to demonstrate the reality of Christ working through us. This is not about manipulating situations for evangelistic purposes, but about living out our faith so authentically that others cannot help but notice the difference.

For many people, their first real encounter with a Christian who is living out their faith will be their encounter with us as leaders. This sobering responsibility should humble us and drive us to depend more deeply on God's grace and wisdom. We carry the weight of potentially being someone's only meaningful exposure to Jesus Christ. How we handle stress, treat difficult people, make hard decisions, and respond to failure may be their primary data points for understanding what it means to follow Jesus.

We must not shy away from mentioning Jesus as we lead. This does not mean we should be heavy-handed or inappropriate in our references to our faith, but neither should we hide the source of our convictions and character. When appropriate opportunities arise —and they will — we should be ready to give a gentle, humble account for the hope and principles that guide us. Our goal is not to overwhelm or manipulate, but to be authentic about who we are and why we lead the way we do.

Resist Cultural Pressure Relentlessly

We cannot overestimate the pressure to conform to the culture and the power Babylon’s culture will have in our people-system, even if it is a church. Babylon's influence is pervasive and persistent, working through media, peer pressure, economic incentives, and social expectations. Even within Christian organisations, the gravitational pull toward cultural conformity will be constant and often subtle. People will unconsciously absorb values and assumptions from the broader culture that directly contradict biblical principles.

As leaders, we will need continually to train and re-train people so that they will behave in healthy and fruitful ways, whether or not they are Christians. This is not a one-time orientation or annual workshop; it is an ongoing process of people-system formation that must be woven into the fabric of our leadership. We must be intentional about creating counter-cultural environments where biblical values are not only taught but practised, reinforced, and celebrated.

This requires us to be vigilant about the messages our people are receiving from other sources and to provide consistent, compelling alternatives. We cannot assume that people will naturally choose biblical approaches when faced with pressure, stress, or opportunity. Instead, we must create processes, relationships, and practices that make it easier for people to choose well and harder for them to drift toward cultural conformity to Babylon.

Invest Heavily in Intentional Discipleship

Discipleship within churches and training in our other leadership contexts require much more time, strategy, planning, and intentionality. People are no longer enculturated toward Christian values and practices like honesty. The casual, assume-they-know-it approach that might have worked in Jerusalem is utterly inadequate for Babylon. We must be far more deliberate about teaching, modelling, and reinforcing basic principles that were once considered plain common sense.

We need to have clear approaches on how we will help people function according to Christian values, even if they are not Christians. This means developing systematic approaches to character formation, decision-making frameworks based on biblical principles, and practical training in areas like conflict resolution, financial stewardship, and relational health. We cannot leave these things to chance or assume they will be picked up through observation alone.

This level of intentionality requires significant investment of time and resources. We must be prepared to slow down our pace of activity to ensure we are building people well. We must balance the pressure to achieve quick results or meet immediate demands against the long-term necessity of developing people who can think and act according to biblical principles, even when no one is watching.

Build Community for Your Leadership Context

We must build community – a healthy sense of belonging and connection with others – as a context for our leadership. Our leadership will function most effectively in the context of a healthy people-system (church or business) which has become a healthy community of people. Babylon's tendency toward isolation, competition, and transactional relationships creates a hunger for authentic community that Christian leaders are uniquely positioned to address. However, building genuine community requires intentional effort and cannot be assumed to happen naturally.

In addition to significance, security, and acceptance, people need a sense of belonging. Healthy belonging will become essential to healthy functioning. This means creating environments where people know they are valued not just for what they produce but for who they are. It means fostering relationships that extend beyond professional requirements to encompass genuine care and mutual support.

Building such community requires leaders to be vulnerable themselves, to invest in relationships beyond immediate functional needs, and to create processes and practices that encourage authentic connection. This is not about forced intimacy or artificial team-building exercises, but about creating space for people to be known and to know others in ways that strengthen their capacity to live and work according to biblical principles.

Work Diligently to Build and Keep Trust

Building trust takes much more time and requires much more transparency in Babylon. Keeping trust requires diligence. The cultural shifts that have brought us into Babylon have also created a general erosion of trust in institutions, leaders, and authority figures. People have been disappointed, betrayed, and manipulated by leaders in various contexts, making them naturally suspicious of anyone in positions of authority, regardless of their stated intentions.

As leaders, we must take the time and encourage the processes essential to building and keeping trust. This means being more transparent about our decision-making processes, more willing to admit our mistakes and limitations, and more consistent in our character and commitments over time. We cannot expect people to trust us simply because of our position or title. We must earn trust through demonstrated integrity and authentic care.

Keeping trust requires ongoing attention to our words and actions, ensuring they align consistently. In Babylon's environment of rapid change and information overload, people will notice inconsistencies quickly and trust, once broken, is extremely difficult to rebuild. We must be prepared to move more slowly, communicate more thoroughly, and follow through more meticulously than might have been necessary in Jerusalem cultural contexts.

Navigate the Vulnerabilities of Scale

In Jerusalem society, people generally assumed that bigger is better – bigger churches, bigger businesses, bigger communities. In Babylon society, we are learning that differently sized organisations might have certain advantages. Using churches as an example, a larger congregation might offer more financial security and a greater diversity of programming, whilst a smaller congregation might offer deeper discipleship and a closer sense of belonging. Bigger is not necessarily better, but neither is smaller.

Not only should we appreciate the advantages of various people-systems, but we must also recognise the inherent vulnerabilities regarding the size of our people-system. Small people-systems will be highly vulnerable to financial pressures and social fluctuations. Large people systems will be highly vulnerable to integrity issues, much more apt to lose integrity (personal and corporate) very easily, and will make a bigger target for forces (both spiritual and natural) hostile toward Christianity. Every leadership context in Babylon comes with unique vulnerabilities that must be acknowledged and actively managed.

Small organisations or churches face the constant pressure of limited resources, dependence on key individuals, and vulnerability to external economic or social changes. A few people leaving or one major financial setback can threaten the entire enterprise. Leaders in small contexts must be especially creative, resilient, and willing to wear multiple hats while maintaining focus on their core mission and values.

Large organisations face different but equally serious challenges. The complexity of managing many people and multiple people-systems within a larger people-system creates numerous opportunities for compromise, corner-cutting, and the gradual erosion of founding principles. Additionally, large Christian organisations often become targets for cultural opponents who see them as threats to Babylon's values. Leaders in large contexts must be especially vigilant about maintaining integrity at scale while preparing for increased opposition and scrutiny.

Cultivate Allies in Unlikely Places

Embrace friends wherever you find them — and find them in the unlikeliest of places — because you need all those who would be your friends in a hostile environment. Babylon's opposition to Christian principles does not mean that every person within Babylon is our enemy. Many people who do not share our faith commitments may still value honesty, compassion, justice, and other principles that align with biblical values. We must learn to identify and cultivate relationships with these natural allies.

We can build alliances with people who share our objectives even if they don't share our values. This might mean working with secular organisations that care about human trafficking, environmental stewardship, or economic justice. It might mean finding common ground with colleagues who value integrity and excellence even if they don't understand the spiritual foundations of these commitments.

We must take care not to make enemies out of those who would be our friends. We need to treat everyone with dignity and respect, even when they don’t share our values and perspectives. At the same time, we need wisdom to discern when cooperation is possible and beneficial versus when it would require us to compromise essential principles. We must be clear about our own boundaries while remaining open to unexpected partnerships, avoiding unnecessary conflicts with those who are not actively opposing us.

Manage Your Anxiety Amidst Uncertainty^[1]

Leading in a world of uncertainty, instability, and precarity naturally causes anxiety in everyone, especially leaders. Systemic anxiety throughout our people systems remains one of the biggest leadership killers. The rapid pace of change, the erosion of familiar structures, and the increasing hostility toward Christian values create an environment of chronic anxiety that can overwhelm both leaders and those they lead. If we do not recognise and manage our own anxiety well, it will spread throughout our organisations and undermine our effectiveness.

We must take care as leaders not to create anxiety unnecessarily (sometimes it is unavoidable). This means being thoughtful about how we communicate challenges and changes, taking time to process our own emotions before responding to crises, and creating stability wherever possible. People need to know that their leaders are steady, thoughtful, and grounded in something deeper than circumstances.

We must never cause anxiety as a leadership strategy. While there may be times when we need to create urgency or highlight serious problems, using fear and anxiety as motivational tools is both unethical and counterproductive. Instead, we must learn to lead with calm confidence, helping people navigate uncertainty with wisdom and hope rather than panic and desperation.

Remember Your True Enemy in Spiritual Warfare

As leaders, we must remember that our struggle is not with flesh and blood — the people around us or the people who follow us. Our primary struggle is with the spiritual forces of evil in the spiritual realm that surrounds us. This perspective transforms how we understand the opposition and challenges we face as leaders in Babylon. We must take the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places seriously.

Even though people will often act like the enemy, we cannot treat them like the enemy. People who oppose us, criticise us, or seem to work against our efforts are not our true enemies. They are often unwitting tools of spiritual forces that seek to undermine God's work in the world. This understanding leads us to respond with compassion rather than anger, with prayer rather than retaliation, and with wisdom rather than reactivity.

We must learn to stand firm. This means developing spiritual disciplines that keep us connected to God's strength and perspective, building accountability relationships that help us maintain our spiritual health, and creating practices within our organisations that acknowledge our dependence on God's power and protection. We cannot fight spiritual battles with merely human weapons; we need spiritual resources to lead effectively in Babylon's hostile environment.

Living Faithfully in Our Babylon

The challenges outlined above may seem overwhelming, but we must remember that God has placed us in this time and context for a purpose. Like Daniel in ancient Babylon, our lives will show that faithful leadership in a hostile culture can yield extraordinary results. Daniel did not seek to overthrow Babylon or retreat from its influence. Instead, he served with excellence while maintaining his convictions. Through his faithful leadership, he influenced kings and shaped the course of nations. His life was not defined by constant miraculous interventions but by consistent faithfulness punctuated by God's miraculous provision when needed. As Christian leaders today, we must embrace this same pattern — living faithful lives punctuated by miracles rather than seeking miraculous lives punctuated by faithfulness.

God is calling us not merely to survive Babylon but to serve the people of Babylon well while remaining faithfully Christian. When we lead with integrity in contexts that reward compromise, when we build genuine community in environments that foster isolation, when we demonstrate servant leadership in cultures that celebrate self-promotion, we become living demonstrations of a better way. Our faithful leadership becomes a beacon of hope for those who are weary of Babylon's empty promises. Like Daniel, who earned the respect of pagan kings through his character and competence, our consistent faithfulness in small and large matters alike will open doors for influence we could never manipulate or manufacture. God will honour our faithfulness with His miraculous intervention at precisely the right moments, transforming both our people-systems and the broader culture in ways that bring glory to His name and genuine hope to a world desperate for authentic leadership.

^[1] Part IV of my book, Freed to Lead, gives clear, practical guidance for leaders about recognising and resolving chronic anxiety in themselves and their people-systems.

When I was young, the Cold War was all the rage. These were the days of right vs. wrong, of good vs. evil, of East vs. West. The sense we had in those days is that the world was divided into the “Christian West” and the “Communist Rest”. Everyone who aligned themselves with the United States must be on the right side. After all, Jesus would ensure the survival of the US because we were a "Christian society". Everyone who aligned themselves with the Soviet Union must be evil. We were certain that God would bring them down.

In those days, the Soviet Union represented the antichrist nations, especially because there were about ten nations in the USSR (so we thought) and “ten nations” was what Revelation had predicted – didn't it? Gorbachev was clearly the Beast, because he had the (birth)mark of the Beast on his forehead – didn't he? Ronald Reagan came riding in on his white horse, white cowboy hat on his head, to vanquish the foe in a high-noon, West(ern) showdown. When the Berlin Wall fell, it was "job done". Now, the former enemies were expected to ride off together into the sunset, becoming the best of friends.

But it didn't turn out that way . . .

New World Order

The decade following the fall of the Wall seemed to mark a promise of global prosperity, where all nations would work together, trade together, come together, and become close friends. We would have no more world wars. Everyone would enjoy Western lifestyles and Western values, which we assumed would always be "Christian" values. In the 1990s, the only ones seeming to resist this globalisation were a few groups of backward-thinking, Islamist terrorists. But they were nothing to worry about because they would always be confined to places like Africa and Afghanistan. Oh, and there was also the little guy in Russia who seemed to resent the new oligarchs and how the Western countries had weakened and impoverished his nation, but everyone was certain that he would play well with others.

On a sunny Tuesday in September 2001, I was preparing to move from St. Louis to London. Arriving for a meeting of my presbytery^[1] that morning, I thought my friend was joking when he said that we were cancelling the presbytery meeting and that my flight to London that evening had also been cancelled because all the airports were shut down. It was only on the journey home, when we stopped in a diner for a meal, that we realised the significance of what had happened that morning. We watched with fascination and shock as the horror unfolded on the TV screen before us. It was September 11, and the beginning of a new world order.

The transition of the US from a Jerusalem society to a Babylon society became visible with the election of Bill Clinton as president.^[2] Prior to Clinton's election, presidential candidates were often rejected because of their sin issues – such as in 1987 when Gary Hart dropped out of the presidential race due to the revelation of an extramarital affair. By the time Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, everything had changed. Even though there were significant rumours about several affairs before he was elected the first time, Clinton was elected president and then re-elected president. The US had become a Babylon society, without most people realising what was happening.

The US was not the first Western society to become a Babylon, but the US becoming Babylon sealed the transition process of the West to Babylon. Many other nations followed in that transition. The 1990s seemed especially suited for the transition. No longer was there the Soviet threat that had kept people on their knees, praying that there would not be a nuclear war. The 1990s were a decade of financial growth and increased material prosperity. The 1990s unleashed the desire for pleasure and enjoyment, encouraging people to consume in order to grow the economy. Most nations, even nations like China, seemed to crave a part in the global prosperity – and, indeed, billions were freed from abject poverty. Babylon grew and flourished because it had no natural enemies. It also seemed to have the blessing of the churches. Many directly attributed the prosperity of the West to the direct blessing of God. But trouble was brewing, and a new world order was about to emerge.

On September 11, 2001, a new contender to Babylon crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre. Imagined in darkness, the new contender had animated the dreams of Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden's ultimate aim was to establish a global Islamic caliphate governed strictly by his interpretation of Sharia law. He wanted to remove Western (aka Babylonian) influence, particularly that of the United States (the great Satan), from the Muslim world. As Babylon (not what bin Laden would have called it), bin Laden saw the US as the primary corrupting influence in the world, with its moral corruption and exploitation of others for its own prosperity.

Although bin Laden considered himself the Caliph of the new Islamic caliphate, his behaviour resembled less that of a "steward" than that of another ancient middle eastern ruler – the Pharaoh.^[3]

The Emergence of Egypt Nations

The emergence of bin Laden and his vision for a global caliphate marked the emergence of a new pattern in global politics. No longer was the world divided between East and West, or even between democracy and authoritarianism. A new type of nation had emerged — what we might call "Egypt" nations — that operated according to entirely different principles than the “Babylon” nations of the West.

Egypt nations are characterised by several key features that distinguish them from their Babylonian counterparts. Most fundamentally, they are ruled by a pharaoh — a strong, autocratic leader who concentrates power in his own hands and exercises that power through personal authority rather than institutional frameworks. These pharaohs will be strong, autocratic leaders with autocratic tendencies, whether they come to power through revolution, military coup, or even seemingly “democratic” electoral processes that they subsequently manipulate. Where leaders in Babylon always have mandarins who will maintain the functions of government with some independence, leaders in Egypt will generally have “yes men” and lackeys supporting them, who always refer back to the pharaoh for permission or approval.

The difference in leadership styles between Babylon and Egypt creates a fundamental difference in how power transitions occur. Babylon nations will generally have peaceful transitions of power, following established legal and constitutional procedures. Egypt nations will generally have disruptive transitions of power — coups, revolts, violence, and other forms of upheaval. A key way to discern Babylon or Egypt might be to ask: “If the primary leader was suddenly removed, then what would happen?” In a Babylon nation, institutional frameworks would ensure continuity. In an Egypt nation, chaos or violent struggle for succession would likely follow.

A second characteristic is that Egypt nations tend to be monolithic societies. They exhibit ideological monolithism — having a dominant ideology that influences everything. This is the opposite of pluralistic societies, where multiple ideals compete for supremacy, often alternating from liberal to conservative. The monolithic ideology of Egypt might be Islam, Communism, a personality cult, or any number of others. This ideology becomes the lens through which all aspects of society are viewed and controlled.

Egypt nations also demonstrate cultural monolithism — having a dominant cultural group to which others must conform or be excluded from key parts of society. The dominant cultural group might be centred around race or ethnicity. The cultural group might focus on a particular version of religious belief, such as Sunni or Shia, Orthodox or Roman Catholic. No matter the dominant cultural group, minority cultural groups are either suppressed, marginalised, or forced to assimilate into the dominant cultural framework.

Perhaps most significantly, Egypt nations exhibit religious monolithism — having a dominant religious (or non-religious) tradition that is given preference over all others. The dominant religion is often very hierarchical — Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Shia Islam, Sunni Islam, or Hinduism (with its caste system). Or the dominant religion might be associated with something unique in the nation’s history, such as Confucianism. Even in officially atheistic states, the state ideology itself functions as a pseudo-religion with its own hierarchies and orthodoxies.

When the monolithic religion in an Egypt nation is "Christian", this creates particular challenges for discernment. The autocratic leader might seem to be the defender of Christianity or of Christian values. However, upon closer examination, the autocratic leader will most often only be using Christianity to maintain and defend, and often disguise, his autocratic leadership. True Christian values of humility, service, and care for the marginalised are subordinated to the pharaoh's need to maintain power and control.

The role of the military provides a third crucial diagnostic tool for identifying Egypt nations. Any nation governed by the military is an Egypt nation. Any nation in which the military is directed by the pharaohs absolutely is an Egypt nation. In Egypt nations, the military becomes an extension of the pharaoh's personal authority rather than serving the nation or its people. Conversely, any nation in which the military does not serve or directly sustain a pharaoh is likely a Babylon nation, where military forces operate within institutional frameworks and constitutional boundaries. For example, people in the United States’ military do not promise allegiance to a particular leader but to the Constitution of the United States.

Disrupting Our Categories

When we could assume that the West was authentically “Christian”, we quickly and easily labelled something as “good” or “evil”. We could quickly categorise a nation as “Communist” or “Christian” as a value judgment on that nation. Although these categories and labels were never fully true or accurate, they became a useful shorthand by which many Christians sought to understand the world. These categories and labels are no longer useful conceptually or morally – if ever they were. No major nation today represents authentic Christian faith and values.

When we identify a nation as "Babylon" or "Egypt", we are not suggesting whether a nation, its people, and its actions might be called "good" or "evil" from a Biblical perspective. In the Bible, both Babylon and Egypt were enemies of God’s people and God’s Kingdom. Exporting addictive pornography, accumulating excessive debt, invading a neighbouring country militarily, promoting a false religion, and encouraging unrestrained consumption (greed) are all fundamentally evil, according to the Bible. Using the Babylon/Egypt framework can only be descriptive, helping us understand the spiritual and cultural dynamics at work. Identifying a country as such is separate from making Biblical and moral judgments about specific policies or actions.

The historical relationship between Christianity and Western democratic values may obscure the dynamics of Babylon operating in nations. Western, liberal, democratic, capitalistic societies can only be established and maintained on the basis of Protestant Christian values. The emphasis on individual conscience, the priesthood of all believers, the importance of education and literacy, and the concept of covenant relationships – among others – all contributed to the development of democratic institutions and market economies. However, Babylon societies have long abandoned the Christian values which formed and sustained them, even though they sometimes exhibit the vestiges of these values.

As Christian values and biblical perspectives fade from Babylon nations, internal conflicts and struggles become more about "power" than about "ideas". Political discourse becomes increasingly tribal and personal rather than focusing on principles and policies. This creates a spiritual vacuum that makes Babylon nations vulnerable to the seductive promises of prosperity and pleasure while simultaneously weakening their ability to resist the empire spirit that seeks to control all aspects of society. Over time, this tendency toward “power” begins increasingly to align political tendencies in Babylon nations with similar tendencies in Egypt nations, although they remain fundamentally different.

“Babylon” and “Egypt” upends our traditional ways of categorising nations. We think of Babylon nations as those promoting "Western liberal values" (not to be mistaken for "Christian" values anymore). These include things such as individual rights, democratic processes, market economies, cultural diversity, and personal freedoms. We think of Egypt nations as "right wing", "extremist", "authoritarian", and similar terms used by international media and Western governments. However, neither Babylon nor Egypt is accurately described in these terms. Segments within Babylon may behave as autocratically as any segment in Egypt. Leaders in Egypt might genuinely promote “Christian” values – even if for unchristian purposes.

In this new world order, Babylon nations will continually attempt to convert Egypt nations to Babylon, while Egypt nations will continually resist such attempts, most often by recruiting other Egypt nations as allies. Attempts to convert nations from Egypt to Babylon will almost always fail — unless there is a massive civil conflict within that Egypt nation to help facilitate the change. External pressure, economic sanctions, military intervention, and diplomatic efforts rarely succeed in transforming an Egypt nation into a Babylon nation. Such conflicts within Egypt nations are often between warring pharaohs, each seeking to establish their own autocratic control rather than genuinely embracing pluralistic, democratic values. Attempts to convert nations from Babylon to Egypt may actually succeed, especially when people lack the stability, security, and cohesion necessary for a healthy society. However, most Egypt nations would rather profit from the Babylon nations while maintaining order and stability for the pharaoh.

The New Global Conflicts

We are living in a new world order, one that is not between "East" and "West" nations but one that is between "Babylon" and "Egypt" nations. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not end global ideological conflict — it transformed it. Instead of a bipolar world divided between capitalism and communism, we now have a multipolar world divided between very different approaches to power, authority, economics, and social organisation. This multipolar world is represented by a diversity of Babylon nations and Egypt nations, leading to unusual alliances and shifting allegiances.

Global conflicts today and into the future will happen between Egypt nations and Babylon nations. In one sense, the war in Ukraine is a war between Babylon and Egypt. If China chooses to invade Taiwan, then it will be Egypt invading Babylon. The conflicts are between nations and within nations, as different groups struggle to determine whether their nation will follow a Babylon model or an Egypt model. The struggle within many nations is whether that nation will be a Babylon nation or an Egypt nation. Notable examples include Brazil, Nigeria, and Hungary, where we can see active contests between Babylonian and Egyptian approaches to governance and social organisation.

Demographics will drive some of these conflicts. Most of the world's population today live in Egypt nations. This includes China with its 1.4 billion people, India with its 1.4 billion, and numerous other nations across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Most of the world's wealth today is in Babylon nations, even though wealth disparity tends to be greater in Egypt nations. In Egypt nations, wealth is often hoarded for power, so the standard of living for people may be much lower. The pharaohs and their inner circles accumulate vast resources while the majority of the population struggles with poverty and limited opportunities.

Economics will drive some of these conflicts. In Babylon nations, wealth is used for influence, and the standard of living for people is generally much higher. The wealth circulates more broadly throughout society, creating middle classes and providing opportunities for social mobility. This helps explain why most migrants want to move from Egypt nations to Babylon nations. We almost never see people fleeing from Babylon nations to Egypt nations, although occasionally people will move from one Egypt nation to another Egypt nation, especially in times of war or persecution. Decreasing standards of living in Babylon nations makes them vulnerable to Egypt-style internal conflicts.

Babylon nations will continue to have supremacy globally until suddenly they do not. The apparent strength and prosperity of Babylon nations masks underlying vulnerabilities. Babylon nations will eventually be brought down by a combination of internal weaknesses due to sin, excessive government debt, natural disasters, and Egypt aggression. The very prosperity and freedom that make Babylon nations attractive also create the conditions for moral decay, financial irresponsibility, and social fragmentation that may ultimately lead to their downfall.

Identifying “Babylon” and “Egypt”

Looking at the current global landscape, we can identify examples of each type of nation. Babylon nations today include the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the EU (mostly), Japan, and South Korea. These nations share common characteristics of democratic governance, market economies, cultural diversity, and individual freedoms. They also exhibit the characteristics of Babylon nations discussed throughout this series of essays.

Egypt nations today include China, Russia, India, Iran, North Korea, Turkey, Venezuela, most Muslim-majority nations, most officially atheistic nations, and (possibly) Hungary. Although there is considerable diversity among these nations, they tend to exhibit autocratic leadership (even within some democratic norms), monolithic societies, and state-controlled economies characteristic of Egypt nations.

Globally, the key battlegrounds between Babylon and Egypt for influence include Latin America (which has historically flip-flopped between Egypt and Babylon models), Africa (where most nations have historically followed Egypt patterns), Nigeria (perhaps where Babylon v Egypt is most religiously aligned with Christianity v Islam), Southeast Asia, Ukraine (which could become Egypt, Babylon, or even a Christian-affirming nation), and the Balkans (where various powers have often played both sides against each other).

We might identify world leaders according to this Babylon/Egypt framework. Current pharaohs might include Putin in Russia, Xi in China, Kim in North Korea, Erdogan in Turkey, Modi in India, and the Ayatollah in Iran. These leaders have consolidated personal power, eliminated opposition, and created systems of governance that depend on their continued authority.

Babylonian world leaders include every American president since Clinton, every British Prime Minister since Blair, and similar leaders across the Western world. These leaders operate within institutional frameworks that limit their personal power and require them to work within established systems of checks and balances. These leaders often have extensive networks of civil servants and government employees who drive the ideological alignment in the nation. And these leaders have often promoted the values of Babylon in their nations.

Interestingly, people have radically diverse opinions about Donald Trump. Many would describe him as a pharaoh or a fascist, but he is neither. Others wishfully want to call him a “Christian” leader, but his values and language do not seem to represent biblical Christianity. Ultimately, Trump is a Babylonian president. Effectively, he is a Babylonian leader operating within Babylon systems but with pharaoh-like tendencies and aspirations. He is very much like Cyrus – the Babylonian emperor who allowed God’s people to return to Israel – but that means he is still of Babylon.

Power and Authority in Babylon and Egypt

The spiritual dynamics underlying these different Babylon and Egypt leadership styles reveal important truths about the nature of power and authority in Babylon and Egypt. Money, sex (pleasure), and power are the dominant sin clusters of leadership across all nations and contexts. However, the emphasis differs between Babylon and Egypt nations. In Egypt nations, the dominant sin cluster is power. Pharaohs are primarily motivated by the acquisition and maintenance of personal power. They will use money and sexual influence as tools to achieve their ends for power.

In Babylon nations, the dominant sin clusters around leaders are money and sex (pleasure). (This explains why so many leaders in Babylon fall into sins regarding money or sex.) Babylon leaders are more likely to be motivated by financial gain or (sexual) pleasure, using political power as a means to achieve these ends. This difference explains much about how corruption manifests in each type of society and why different approaches to combating corruption succeed or fail in different contexts.

Different principalities and powers exercise influence over Babylon and Egypt nations. The spiritual warfare described in Ephesians 6:12 manifests differently in each context, with specific demonic strategies tailored to the vulnerabilities of each system. Today, the conflict between Babylon and Egypt is the conflict between demonic principalities and powers, not a conflict between "good" and "evil". Both systems are fallen and corrupted, serving the interests of spiritual powers of darkness rather than the Kingdom of God.

This spiritual dimension helps explain why purely political or economic approaches to global conflicts often fail. The underlying spiritual dynamics must be addressed through prayer, spiritual warfare, and the proclamation of the Gospel rather than merely through diplomatic negotiations or military interventions.

How We Must Live as Christian Leaders

Understanding the Babylon versus Egypt framework is not merely an academic exercise. It has profound implications for how we live as Christians and lead as Christian leaders in the current global context. Our response must be grounded in the recognition that Jesus is Lord who demands our ultimate allegiance and obedience. This allegiance must transcend national boundaries, political parties, and cultural identities.

We must beware of several temptations that could compromise our Christian witness and effectiveness. We must beware of aligning ourselves too closely with any political party or any particular government. Both Babylon and Egypt systems are fallen and corrupted, offering false solutions to humanity's fundamental problems. Christians who too closely identify with either system, or significant agents within those systems, risk compromising their prophetic voice and their ability to speak truth to those in authority. They also compromise their testimony of Jesus.

We must beware of compromising with the spirit of the age. Whether the spirit of the age manifests as Babylonian materialism and sexual liberation or Egyptian nationalism and authoritarianism, Christians are called to a different way of life that reflects the values of God's Kingdom rather than the values of earthly kingdoms. I have seen Christian leaders, churches, and ministries compromise their values and standards just for a seat at the proverbial table, or for some passing influence that seems significant at the time but always turns out to become empty and worthless because of the compromise.

We must beware of assuming "my way is the right way". As Proverbs 14:12 reminds us, "There is a way that seems right to someone, but its end is the ways of death". Cultural assumptions, political preferences, and national loyalties can all become idols that prevent us from seeing clearly and responding faithfully to God's call. We naturally assume that our perspectives and opinions are correct, when often they are not – worse, they may lead to destructive outcomes we never anticipated.

We must beware of those who might lead us astray with plausible-sounding arguments (Colossians 2:4). Both Babylon and Egypt systems offer compelling narratives about human flourishing, social justice, and national greatness. Christians must test all such arguments against the standard of Scripture and the example of Jesus Christ. I have often been surprised by how easily some Christian leaders have supported leaders or policies at odds with the Bible, having been taken in by what the someone has said when that is contrary to the evidence of their behaviour.

Positively, our response must focus on building churches into healthy and flourishing "cities of God", "societies of Jesus", or "communities of the spirit", who exist as the authentic ecclesia of God in accordance with biblical principles. Such churches shall become safe, fortified places, from which God's Kingdom will advance despite official opposition from either Babylon or Egypt authorities or society.

These communities must model an alternative way of life that transcends the limitations of both Babylon and Egypt systems. They must demonstrate the possibility of unity across racial, cultural, and economic divisions without the monolithic oppression characteristic of Egypt nations. They must enjoy freedom and prosperity without the moral decay and spiritual emptiness characteristic of Babylon nations.

Our fundamental commitment must be to faithfulness. We must live faithful lives punctuated by miracles, instead of expecting sudden miracles that will deliver us into faithfulness. Rather than seeking immediate political success or cultural transformation, Christians must focus on long-term faithfulness to God's calling, trusting that He will bring forth fruit in His time and according to His purposes. Our faithfulness is determined by our day-by-day obedience to God and the Bible over the course of our lives, not just over the course of our day.

We must look for where the favour of God is resting. Rather than automatically supporting either Babylon or Egypt nations – or any leader or organisation within them – based on political preference or cultural affinity. Christians must discern where God is working and join Him in that work. This may sometimes mean supporting Babylon nations against Egypt aggression, and sometimes supporting Egypt’s resistance to Babylon’s corruption.

Finally, we must pray with insight in the authority of Jesus Christ while making the Lord our dwelling place (Psalm 91). Our security and identity must be rooted in our relationship with God rather than in the success or failure of any earthly kingdom. We must beware pride and presumption, recognising that our ultimate hope lies not in political or cultural victory but in the return of Jesus Christ and the establishment of His eternal Kingdom.

The conflict between Babylon and Egypt will continue until Jesus returns and establishes His Kingdom in fullness. Until that day, Christians are called to live as faithful witnesses to a different way of life, demonstrating the possibility of communities that reflect God's values rather than the fallen values of either Babylon or Egypt. Christian leaders must lead as God has created them to do so in Jesus, with boldness, compassion, and God’s Kingdom vision. This is our calling and our hope as we navigate the complexities of this new world order while living in Babylon.

^[1] I had served two churches in an American Presbyterian denomination before moving to City Temple, an historic non-conformist congregational church in London.

^[2] This is not intended as a judgment on Clinton's presidency one way or the other. As with all presidents, he is remembered for some good things (balancing the budget) and some not-so-good things (his impeachment for lying to congress).

^[3] Such comparisons will always be inexact. Bin Laden would not have been exactly like a Pharaoh of ancient Egypt any more than he would have been exactly like one of the ancient caliphates, such as the Umayyad Caliphate. However, the point remains.

Living in Babylon has upended all our funding models for Christian organisations. In Jerusalem, people gave regularly to their local church, enough to allow that church to pay a minister, sustain its programmes and take care of its building (which it almost always had). When churches needed an extra boost, such as to build a new building, leaders could rely on their congregations to make extra donations. In many Western nations, churches also received significant financial support from the government, particularly in situations where there was a state-sponsored church. In all Jerusalem nations, churches received extra tax breaks and indirect government support.

Organised Christianity

In Jerusalem, churches formed denominations^[1] – groups of churches and church leaders with some common theological distinctives, shared polity, and a shared history. These denominations would organise to support one another in growing churches, planting new churches, training church leaders, supporting missionaries (mostly to foreign nations), and supporting extra-church leaders and administrators who could help various churches in various specialised ways – such as administration, pastoral care for leaders, and property matters. Churches would normally support these denominations by donating a portion of that which had been donated to the churches themselves. Sometimes churches would pay additional fees for special services provided by the denominations. Occasionally, denominations would take a portion of all money given to them to fund various projects to use for supporting administration in the denomination. Many denominations established procedures to protect church property in case a church might close, so that the property could not be lost or improperly taken.

In Jerusalem, other organisations arose to provide specialised services beyond the boundaries of local churches. Some of these organisations provided ministries or training that local churches or local church leaders felt ill-equipped to provide. Such ministries might include addiction recovery, counselling, worship-leader training, care for the homeless, food banks, or Bible study. Other organisations provided outreach and evangelism to specific groups of people, such as university students, men, women, the homeless, people in prisons, or various minorities in society. Still other organisations sent and supported missions and missionaries around the world, especially cross-cultural missions. Jerusalem society allowed these organisations to proliferate and flourish.

These organisations became known as “parachurch” organisations – that is, organisations that came alongside local churches or denominations. Parachurch organisations were not churches themselves, but supported or expanded the work that they believed churches should be doing. Often, parachurch organisations could offer their ministries to a higher standard of scope and quality than a local church could ever do by itself. Consequently, these organisations received financial support from individuals, churches, and denominations who valued their ministry and its impact. To maintain a sufficient level of support, the parachurch organisations would make regular reports to their supporters – either in person or through publications – showing that they were trustworthy and fruitful.

The Christian Economy

Over time, Jerusalem societies (particularly the US & UK) developed a thriving Christian economy. As the number of churches, denominations and parachurch organisations grew, so did their financial needs. But the pool of donors, and their financial resources, was limited. In Jerusalem society, churches, denominations and parachurch organisations began competing for the Christians’ donations. Starting with books, music, and church supplies, they also began developing alternative revenue streams. Christian businesses grew up to support this Christian economy, with many of these businesses eventually bought by secular businesses who recognised the profit potential. Having a Jerusalem society enabled this whole system to develop and expand. The system seemed to help individual Christians and churches to grow and flourish, so many considered it beneficial.

As Babylon began to supplant Jerusalem in the West, Babylon began to infect this Christian economy in subtle ways. Music labels chose whom to produce based on talent and charisma instead of on content and character. Publishers produced “Christian” books without rigorously evaluating their content. Christian leaders became obsessed with building their personal brand. Christianity itself became commodified – produced and sold to those with disposable income. Eventually, Babylon subsumed the Christian economy, particularly through a series of mergers and acquisitions.

Many Christian leaders and churches recognised the invasion of Babylon into the Christian economy and chose to rebel. At first, it was difficult. However, over the past two decades, new technologies have enabled those who refuse to pay homage to the images of gold in Babylon to create new pathways for serving. Some Christians chose to self-publish online or in print. Some Christian musicians appealed directly to individuals to support them. More and more Christian leaders have planted new churches outside traditional denominational structures. New networks have emerged to connect the work of local churches and share resources across cities, nations, and the world.

The Babylon Invasion

Not only did Babylon subsume the Christian economy, Babylon invaded various denominational structures and bureaucracies and various parachurch structures and bureaucracies. In many cases, these structures and bureaucracies embraced Babylon’s images of gold. Denominations began to advocate for abortion rights, homosexual marriage, and DEI. Parachurch organisations began to remove the explicit Christian content of their ministries to emphasize their humanitarian works. Mission organisations stopped evangelizing so that they could spend more time on education, health care, or advocacy.

As these organisations yielded to Babylon, they began to lose their financial support. They also became increasingly weighed down with expanding bureaucracies and middle-management, all of whom tended to serve the expansion of Babylon within their structures. Costs increased, but income did not. Scandals increased as well, along with distrust. Organisations became more and more desperate for funding, cajoling and cutting and complaining to persuade people to give, without realising that the Jerusalem models for funding no longer applied. We were now living in Babylon.

We are now living in a transition period between Jerusalem and Babylon in terms of the funding models for Christian organisations, whether churches, denominations, or parachurch organisations. Although the transition from a Jerusalem society to a Babylon society largely concluded two decades ago, like the frog in the proverbial kettle these organisations have failed to recognise the fundamental change in the temperature of the water they inhabit. Consequently, they have not even considered the necessary leap into other funding models necessary for their survival in the new Babylon context. No longer can any Christian organisation now in Babylon rely on the funding models that allowed them to thrive in Jerusalem then. Their funding models must change, and quickly, or they will die. Some Christian organisations have died already. They just have not recognised it yet.

The changes in the environment from Jerusalem to Babylon, along with their impact on funding Christian ministry, has led to the emergence of new phenomena in organised Christianity. These phenomena present an existential challenge to many churches. They are leading to the increased decline of Christianity in Babylon. We must understand these phenomena so not to become them ourselves.

The Walking Dead

For more than a century, horror films have frightened and thrilled people with tales of the undead. Ghosts, vampires, and mummies have haunted our screens and, sometimes, our dreams. In all these stories, something has interrupted the normal process of life and death, a natural process endemic to our world. The disembodied brain kept alive in jar, the person bitten by the vampire, the ghost whose passing was interrupted by a curse, and the mummy whose rest was disturbed all represent beings that should have died but have not died, and whose continued existence in their present state represents a destructive force in our world.

The transition to Babylon has revealed the undead in our midst as Christians. Except for us Christians, the undead is not the mythical and scary world of the horror story, but the banal and scary world of organised Christianity in the Babylonian West. To be clear, much of Christianity is alive and well in Babylon. Churches are thriving. People are following Jesus. Christian missions are advancing. Christians need to organise, and Christian organisations benefit society – even Babylon society. At the same time, the undead have arisen among us Christians. The undead threaten the vitality of the living. The undead drain away resources. The undead support the agendas of Babylon, bowing down to its golden images. The undead stymie the advance of God’s loving rulership in the world. The undead ultimately lead to the death of the healthy.

The undead among us take the form of zombies, cannibals, and leeches.

Zombies

As a kid, I enjoyed watching old Dean Martin & Jerry Lewis films. One of my favourites was Scared Stiff, where our heroes end up on a spooky Caribbean island. This film introduced me to one of the scariest creatures in cinema: zombies. Of course, the zombies of more recent films are quite different from the zombies of voodoo. Originally, a zombie was a person who has been reanimated after death, having no life in itself.

In terms of Christian organisations, “zombies” are churches, denominations, or parachurch organisations that have no sustaining life in themselves. They may seem tired and weary, incapable of growth or change. Often, people are just going through the motions, doing what they have always done until they can do it no more, long after it has lost all meaning. Zombies must be sustained artificially to survive – by members of the organisation, by a denomination, or by some other means. They do not contribute to the expansion or growth of the Kingdom of God. Often, these organisations become more like social clubs or therapeutic centres than biblical churches or ministries.

The idea of a “zombie” church or Christian organisation resembles the idea of a “zombie” company. Economists talked openly about zombie companies in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis, but the concept had been used since the early 1990s to describe some Japanese companies. During Japan’s economic crisis, banks allowed many companies to survive by rolling over their debt instead of simply letting them fail. Business starts and failures are a normal part of economic cycles. By interrupting this normal cycle, these companies became increasingly indebted and unproductive. Eventually, their very presence in the system hindered economic recovery and growth in Japan.

Following the financial crisis, like some horror film, zombie companies arose in many places around the world. Governments feared financial collapse. So, instead of allowing companies to go bankrupt, unhealthy companies were allowed to accumulate debt so they could stay afloat. However, the more debt they accumulated the more unproductive they became, and the more unproductive they became the more they struggled to pay down their debt. Eventually, these companies hindered economic recovery and expansion. By their nature, zombie companies cannot sustain themselves financially to invest in growing the company. Their financial precarity means that even the smallest change or challenge could lead to failure and closure.

Zombie churches, denominations, and parachurch organisations have many similarities with zombie companies. They cannot sustain themselves financially, so they cannot invest in growth. Often, they lack the people resources and physical resources required to sustain themselves, as well as financial resources. All organisations have a natural life cycle, even churches or church-related organisations. They experience birth, life and death. Sometimes, God brings resurrection. Sometimes, God allows something new to grow in place of what has died. Zombie Christian organisations arise when people interrupt the natural life cycle of the organisation to keep the organisation alive artificially by human intention and effort instead of God’s will.

People have many reasons for creating zombie Christian organisations. Some people have invested so much time, energy and money in their church that they want to keep it alive at all costs. Some people think that because it is a “church” or “church-related” that God would never want it to close. In some situations, people fail to consider the wider dynamics of their area, not realising that the demographics have changed to the extent that their organisation can no longer serve the surrounding community effectively. In some situations, the parachurch organisation may have served its God-given purpose but, instead of releasing people and funds into other places, it seeks to create a new, often lesser, purpose for itself. Often, the best option is to allow something to die, so that God may raise up something new.

Having zombie churches, denominations, and parachurch organisations in the ecosystem of the Kingdom of God is never neutral. The presence of these organisations always hinders the healthy growth and expansion of God’s Kingdom. They affect the health and growth of other Christian organisations. In addition, they unwittingly serve as a negative witness to Jesus Christ. In many situations, these organisations have significant internal dysfunction such as unhealthy conflict, poor theology, and factionalism. Dealing with these organisations drains resources from other healthy Christian organisations and healthy Christian leaders. I have seen many good Christian leaders almost totally destroyed by trying to sustain zombie Christian organisations.

Christian leaders must learn to discern the zombies from the living. Zombies do not have the financial resources to continue their ministry. If they do survive for any length of time, often only a few people are actually giving to keep it afloat financially. Zombies do not grow, nor do they invest in growth. Zombies tend to be declining or stagnant in terms of money, people, and ministry. They resist change, especially change in terms of ministry styles or ministry options, and they cannot respond well to challenge internally or externally. If a leader tries to bring life, then they will often remove the leader instead of cooperating with the leader. Zombies often experience significant internal conflict and dysfunction. They cannot maintain healthy processes.

When dealing with a zombie, the best option is to let it die. Do nothing to sustain it. Do not invest any additional resources in it. If it has genuine life, then God will sustain it and grow it. Otherwise, allowing a zombie to die is the best way to help the people make a transition to something else that is healthy. When a zombie dies, people who were part of it need support and encouragement. They also need to celebrate what was good in the organisation’s history. Every zombie was once a living, vibrant Christian organisation following Jesus Christ. We must learn not to fear death but to celebrate a life well lived.

Zombies might choose to die as well. When zombie Christian organisations recognise that they have no more life in themselves – that growth is no longer likely, that they cannot sustain themselves – then they may also choose to “die” for the sake of others. Closing a church, dissolving a denomination, or unwinding a parachurch ministry is often the best choice, so that God might use that voluntary sacrifice to plant and grow something new or to refresh other existing organisations. Life through death is a powerful theme for Christians.

Leaders must take care when discerning zombies. We must not allow Western concepts of numerical growth, financial prosperity, and abundant life to influence us. Spiritual life is not about numbers – although numbers are important. Spiritual life is not about the resources we have; it involves how we steward those resources to fulfil God’s purpose and will.

Over the years, I have consulted with many churches about church growth and health. One of my favourite experiences involved a church in a small town in rural Missouri, USA. It was the only consultation where every single one of the members attended the meeting – all six of them. I encountered a group of people who loved each other and who loved Jesus. They were vibrant and joyful. They were all older in age, but they were also financially self-sustaining. As one of several churches in a small town, the largest being Southern Baptist, they had no real prospect for long-term survival or growth. Afraid that I would suggest immediate closure, everyone came to the meeting. After talking and strategizing, I suggested that they continue their work and worship as a church until the last person “turned the lights out” and the church closed. This church was not a zombie, and it thrived for about another ten years before the lights went out for the last time.

Cannibals

I still remember the sense of shock and revulsion I felt as a young person at the end of the dystopian Sci-fi Soylent Green. Charlton Heston’s character discovers that soylent green, the nutritional supplement keeping humanity alive, was made out of dead human beings. Even without anything graphic, it was disturbing. Some of the most disgusting horror films involve cannibals. Globally (with a few exceptions), we have an instinctive revulsion to eating dead people. Historically, people may have practised cannibalism for several reasons – as a religious or superstitious practice, for warfare and conquest, or to exercise control over others – but it was always something upsetting. Perhaps the most disturbing form of cannibalism was eating human flesh for survival. Regardless of the reason, cannibalism often led to illness and death for the cannibal. Cannibalism is now almost entirely taboo around the world.

Despite the taboo, a form of cannibalism exists in Christian churches, denominations and parachurch organisations in Babylon. Cannibals are churches, denominations, or parachurch organisations that “eat” the dead to survive. In other words, they sustain their life by living off the remains of dead and dying individuals and churches. A few examples will illustrate how this works.

Downtown Church was once a large, thriving congregation. An elderly member whom the church had supported and encouraged for many years decided to leave a large legacy for the congregation in her will. Because of this legacy, the church no longer depended on giving to sustain its ministry. Over time, the membership began to decrease because of the changing neighbourhood of the church. Yet the church refused to change its ministry to meet the needs of its changing community. Instead, the remaining members decided to retrench and continue doing what they had always done for each other. Although both membership and giving had declined precipitously, the church could continue because it was feeding off the legacy given by its long-dead member. The church had become a cannibal.

The Christian Missionary Agency at one time supported more than one hundred cross-cultural missionaries around the world. Although it supported many humanitarian activities, the agency insisted that all missionaries clearly share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the people they were serving. Because he was impressed by the agency, a wealthy donor established an endowment to support the ongoing work of the agency. After a few years, new leadership in the agency became uncomfortable with the agency’s Gospel mandate, believing that the agency should focus exclusively on its various humanitarian projects. Over time, several missionaries left the agency because of this, and many donors stopped supporting the agency financially. However, the leadership refused to pay attention to the losses because the endowment enabled the agency to continue its work – even if it had no supporters whatsoever. The Christian Missionary Agency had become a cannibal.

The Unified Christian Synod denomination once had more than 150 churches in its North London Region. Each of the 13 regions of the UCS was responsible to support, encourage, and coordinate the work of the churches in its area. At one time, the UCS was a vibrant denomination with many healthy churches. However, as with almost all Christian denominations in Babylon, most of the North London Region churches had declined significantly, with many becoming difficult to sustain. As churches closed, the denomination would sell their church buildings and manses, depositing the money in the North London Region bank accounts as a reserves fund. The North London Region quickly discovered that it could easily live off the proceeds from this reserves fund. It consequently chose not to use the reserves fund to benefit the remaining churches so that they might grow or maintain their buildings. Instead, some in the North London Region began to encourage the smaller, weaker churches to consider closing so that the North London Region could sell the property and enhance its reserves. The North London Region had become a cannibal.^[2]

Cannibal organisations will instinctively promote the death of other organisations in order to survive. Sometimes, cannibal organisations do this passively. They will refuse to help the churches or people under the care. They will improperly restrict the kind of services they offer in supporting others. They will not engage creatively or sacrificially to help other churches or people grow. Other times, cannibal organisations will do this actively. For example, I personally know more than one situation where a denominational employee began suggesting to elderly leaders in local churches that they consider closing the church so that the denomination could sell the building and deposit the money in its accounts. Whether it is active or passive, cannibalism is never God's plan for Christian organisations.

Leeches

As a child, I loved watching Saturday afternoon movies on broadcast TV. (It was the only kind!) Even today, I vividly remember one scene from the film, The African Queen. Humphrey Bogart’s character, Charlie Allnut, jumps out of the boat to pull it through a shallow, swampy area filled with reeds. After struggling through the water, he climbs back onto the boat and discovers that his body is covered in leeches. Visibly disgusted, he frantically removes the leeches. It was a memorable, gritty and horrifying moment for me. Even today I am still reticent to go into unfamiliar waters. Leeches are terrifying creatures, creepy and unpleasant.

In terms of our discussion, leeches are churches, denominations, or parachurch organisations that suck life and vitality from other organisations for their own survival. They live off the vitality and resources of others, having no ability to generate their own resources. Often, leeches are simply unwilling to work to provide for themselves, so they look to others for their support. Solomon succinctly describes the activity of leeches in Proverbs: “The leech has two daughters: ‘Give! Give!’” (Prov. 30:15 NET).

Of course, there is nothing wrong with a church, denomination, or parachurch organisation making its financial needs known and inviting others to support its work. When this is healthy, such giving will generally lead to a beneficial reciprocity and mutual grace. For example, a local church might support a missionary organisation because it wants to extend its ministry influence beyond its local community. The missionary organisation then supports the local church by involving it in the stories and serving the church in its local ministry.

When this is not healthy, the missionary organisation might take money, and keep asking for more, without showing any regard for the local church or actively seeking ways that it might support the local church. I have known of parachurch organisations that gladly received extravagant gifts from elderly people without even considering whether those persons could genuinely afford to give so extravagantly. I have known organisations that were happy to take from churches without showing due regard for the health and vitality of those churches – perhaps even causing division in those churches. Leeches never genuinely contribute to the wellbeing and vitality of the organisation from which they are taking (even though they may appear to do so). They simply keep asking for more.

I recall being involved with one international missions organisation who was doing a major outreach in our city. Our church decided to support the outreach, even hosting the core leadership team throughout the year and providing housing for them at no cost. Of the four teams we hosted, only one showed any interest in our church at all. The leadership teams did not even worship with us when they had Sundays off. We donated valuable space for their missions conference toward the end of the year. But, instead of developing a conference relevant to our international city that could have drawn hundreds of people, they chose to repeat the style of conference they had done previously, drawing fewer than 200 people. They lived off our church and other churches’ life and vitality like a leech.

The Apostle Paul worked in tentmaking so that he would not become a leech. As Paul said to the Thessalonians: “For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labour we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you” (2 Th. 3:7-8 ESV). Paul’s example contrasts completely with those who would be leeches.

Dealing with Zombies, Cannibals, and Leeches

Zombies, cannibals, and leeches are ultimately agents of sickness and death in the Body of Christ. They are never neutral. Left unchecked and unchallenged, they will diminish the overall life of other organisations, making it more and more difficult for them to thrive. Jerusalem societies churches could easily feed and support zombies, cannibals, and leeches without much trouble. However, in Babylon societies, zombies, cannibals, and leeches will drain away the health and vitality of other Christian churches and organisations so that they cannot grow and thrive faithfully. Healthy Christian churches and organisations must deal with the zombies, cannibals, and leeches around them.

We would offer several provisional strategies for dealing with them fruitfully. These strategies are “provisional” in that most of us have never been forced to confront such entities in the past. Frankly, we found it easier to ignore them. Like the child in the scary movie, we closed our eyes and hoped the monster would go away. Now, we need to open our eyes. We will have to learn as we go along. But we can make a start.

First, we must expose zombies, cannibals, and leeches to the light, not with a spirit of condemnation, but with gentleness, kindness and grace. We need to remember that the people who are part of zombies, cannibals, and leeches are often brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ who want to serve God and do the best they can. They deserve our love and respect, not our disapproval. We cannot afford anger or bitterness, as these only empower zombies, cannibals, and leeches.

Exposing these organisations to the light means coming alongside them and helping them ask the right questions. We want to help them confront reality with humility. If a church is a zombie, then it might need to accept that it needs to close because it has no realistic prospect for growth and life. If a denomination is a cannibal, then it might need to renew its commitment to give itself – and its money – away fully for the health and well-being of its constituent churches, even if that means that the denomination might struggle financially in the future. If a parachurch organisation is a leech, then it might need to look for ways to generate revenue through various "tent-making" activities, such as setting up profitable businesses. Christian organisations can only change if they first see themselves as they really are.

Second, we must be willing to let zombies, cannibals, and leeches die. Very few Christian organisations are designed to last for centuries. Many have a natural life cycle of birth, growth, decline, and death. We can unwillingly create zombies, cannibals, or leeches by artificially sustaining their existence. In some cases, we need to let these organisations die of natural causes. We must not interrupt the natural cycle of life and death. In other cases, we might need intentionally to close them down. If the mission of these organisations is still important, then God will raise up another organisation in their place. We often forget that resurrection can only happen when a death occurs first.

Third, we must insist that all Christian churches, denominations, and parachurch organisations become financially self-sustaining. If an organisation cannot sustain itself — except with a few limited situations, such as a sudden financial crisis that might require the help of others — then that organisation may not be fulfilling its God-given purpose and mission. Becoming self-sustaining does not mean that organisations must survive only through the charitable giving of others. Sometimes, they must find alternate funding streams that will bring life to themselves and release them from the unhealthy dependency on others. For example, for more than 50 years City Temple, the church where I minister, has depended on casual room hire to support its ministry activities. By using its building as a resource to generate revenue, City Temple has served many other churches, ministries, and people without fundraising. In many places around the world, Christian organisations are engaging in things such as business as mission, property development, and service provision to become financially self-sustaining.

Fourth, we must be willing to confront zombies, cannibals, and leeches. Too often, Christians want to be "nice". But I often remind people that "nice" is not a biblical word. Certainly, we must be kind and gentle. At the same time, we must be willing to speak the truth in love — but with tremendous humility. Confronting these organisations involves identifying specific unbiblical and unhealthy behaviours and the effects those behaviours are having on others. Confronting may include describing what a healthy organisation might look like. Confronting may also involve casting a vision for a preferable future and creating hope for what positive change might achieve.

Fifth, healthy Christian organisations must establish and reinforce healthy boundaries. Sometimes, we simply need to resist zombies, cannibals, and leeches, and ward them off. We must ensure that these unhealthy organisations do not drain away our own health and life. We must refuse to encourage and sustain the zombie. We must not allow the cannibal to feed off our resources. We refuse to allow the cannibal to kill us. Instead, we fight for our survival. We must light a match on the leech so that it releases us. We cut it off so that it can no longer feed on our life and suck us dry. We cannot remain passive and apathetic in the presence of zombies, cannibals, and leeches. If we do not actively resist them, then they will kill us.

Healthy Christian Organisations

When we were living in Jerusalem, a society that instinctively supported and sustained Christian organisations, even unhealthy Christian organisations might do some good. Now that we are living in Babylon, the lack of health in Christian organisations is a cancer that affects the wider Body of Christ. Tolerating zombies, cannibals, and leeches undermines the cause of Christ throughout society. At the same time, we do not need actively to seek them out and eliminate them. To do so would distract us from what is most important: maintaining organisational health.

Developing healthy Christian churches, denominations, and parachurch organisations will help us overcome zombies, cannibals, and leeches, along with their destructive influences. Developing healthy churches, denominations, and parachurch organisations will enable us to flourish in Jesus. Healthy organisations will have resilience in the face of these destructive influences. Healthy organisations cannot make zombies, cannibals, and leeches healthy, but they can neutralise their influence and confront their unhealthy practices. Most importantly, healthy Christian organisations will extend the loving rulership of God, even in Babylon.

^[1] I am using “denomination” here to refer to an organised group of churches, no matter what it is called. These groups may be historic denominations, networks, or “movements”. I have friends in one such “movement” in the UK. They insist that they are not a denomination. But I say to them, “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck”.

^[2] I made up the first two examples as illustrations, although I am familiar with actual examples that are similar. The third example is completely true – only the names have been changed.

In a grim, brightly lit interview room, the police interrogate an elderly woman. “Tell us where your son is, ma’am.” The woman stifles a sob, seemingly wanting to speak but hesitating. “Ma’am, you really must tell us where your son is,” they continue insistently but gently. “We really need to find him.” With a sense of resignation, the woman finally divulges her son’s location. But she pleads with the police, “Please, please, go easy on him. He is a good son. And he really is a good person.” She pleads, even as she gazes on the pictures of the 15 people her son, the serial killer, has murdered.

I have seen this scene, and its variations, played out in many films and TV shows. The woman, bloodied from abuse, who declares “My husband really is a good man”. The woman, caught in adultery for the third time, who insists “But I am a good person”. The woman arrested for shoplifting who asserts “Well, I might steal occasionally, but that doesn’t make me a bad person”. In these scenes and many more, despite all evidence to the contrary, people insist that they are good people.

Although fictitious, these scenarios reflect a common sentiment for the general public in Babylon. This sentiment finds insightful exposition in the TV series, The Good Place. Over four seasons, the show wrestled with the questions of how someone can get into the “Good Place” when they die and whether it is possible to become “good” people, whether in this life or in the afterlife. Although the series creator initially intended to use various religious practices in the series, he finally decided to take a diverse approach that focussed on ethical behaviour, which might cover all faiths and be free of religious views.^[1] By doing so, he inadvertently expressed the role of religion in Babylon.

As a Christian leader, the headlines grab me: "England No Longer Majority Christian!" "American Church Attendance in Steep Decline!" "The 'Nones' Increase as Christians Decrease!" (I made all these up, but I've seen similar.) Looking at similar headlines, we might assume that religious people are quickly vanishing from society to be replaced by godless, cold-hearted atheists. Although I know a lot of atheists — and none of them "cold-hearted" — the assumption that religion is in decline and atheism is on the rise is not correct. Atheism itself is decreasing in our Babylon societies as religion continually reasserts itself. However, the religion now asserting itself cuts across all traditional, historic religions, becoming a new entity with echoes and patterns of the old religions, but continuing little of their original essence.

Diversely Religious

In Babylon societies today around the world, people are not abandoning "religion", but they are reimagining religion. Although people might personally reject the word "religion", people are indeed becoming more and more religious – or, perhaps at the least, “spiritual”.^[2] People throughout Babylon societies are turning to ever more diverse expressions of "spirituality", seeking to rediscover a sense of wonder and the sacred. People often tailor such spiritual pursuits to their individual perspectives and preferences, but that does not diminish the search. In addition, people are becoming more adventurous in exploring diverse global religions, from various forms of Christianity to various forms of Islam to aspects of Hinduism to parts of Buddhism and even to varieties of paganism. Religion is not waning in Babylon. It is increasing, but not in ways that adherents of the traditional religions usually expect.

In the Babylonian context, “religion” is simply a framework of beliefs, practices, and values centered around questions about our existence, what it means to live well, the “divine” (or something that functions like the divine, such as “higher power”, “guiding principle”, “cosmic force”, “universal truth”, etc.) and humanity’s relationship with the sacred or the spiritual, among other things. Religions can be theistic, non-theistic, or spiritual in nature. These religions often involve worship or reverence, moral codes, rituals, and a community of like-minded people – but not always. A religion might be highly structured or loosely structured. It might be very rigid and impersonal, or highly flexible and individual. Some people might even be quite “religious” without even realising it; in fact, they may even deny “religion” entirely. In whatever form it takes, someone’s religion provides meaning, purpose, and guidance for life. Because many people in Babylon would deny being “religious” in any way whatsoever, I am using the word in its loosest possible sense. In brief, “religion” is a way of seeking meaning, connection, or purpose in relation to something greater than oneself.

A new religion has emerged in Babylon, “The Good Religion”.

Religious Babylon

Before describing this new religion, we need to understand Babylon society from a general religious perspective. First, contrary to many assertions in Christian writings, Babylon is not a pagan society. “Pagan” is a broad term, but it normally describes religious and spiritual beliefs that are polytheistic and relating to forces of nature. Paganism today often connects with ancient traditions such as Wicca and Druidry. Pagans might worship multiple deities, spirits or natural forces, maintaining rituals connected with the seasons, solstices, and a reverence for the earth. Babylon tolerates and affirms pagans, but Babylon is not a pagan society.

Second, Babylon is a syncretistic society. Syncretism involves the blending or merging of different religious, cultural, or philosophical beliefs and practices into a personal belief system. Syncretism does not search for cohesion, coherence or consistence. It searches for what works for me (or for “us”, our group), what is experienced as beneficial, and what brings peace or comfort. Syncretism sees the world’s religions as a buffet, each with its own practices and ideas from which individuals might choose to create their own bespoke religion.

Third, Babylon is a pluralistic society. Pluralism accepts and affirms diverse beliefs, values, cultures, or groups within a society, assuming and affirming their equal validity. Pluralism encourages dialogue and mutual respect among people with (sometimes extremely) differing religious viewpoints, insisting on tolerance and mutual affirmation. The goal of pluralism is an inclusive society where people live together harmoniously despite significant religious and worldview differences. With pluralism, multi-culturalism becomes essential. Babylon accepts all cultures as equivalent, refusing to discern “good” or “evil” in any culture – except possibly Babylon’s host culture – its majority culture – especially that culture’s history.

Fourth, Babylon is a relativistic society. For Babylon, truth is relative, not absolute, becoming “my truth”. Experience and perspective determine what is “true” since no objective standard for truth exists. Even subjects like maths and science become relative, easily subjected to various prejudices and opinions. Knowing “the truth” is either impossible or irrelevant, so people must acquiesce for the sake of the common good. “Right” and “wrong”, “good” and “evil”, become relativistic as well, often determined by whether someone feels hurt or offended. Under relativism, no religion has a corner on the truth. All that matters is whether the religion is experienced as personally and privately “good” in some way – and not publicly disruptive.

Fifth, Babylon is an individualistic society. Babylon promotes the importance of personal autonomy, particularly with respect to personal choice. The right to choose is paramount. Babylon also prioritizes the rights, goals and interests of individuals – as long as these do not impinge on the goals and interests of Babylon’s elites, Babylon’s golden images, or Babylon’s protected classes.^[3] Babylon’s individualism values personal freedom, independence, and self-expression – within the limits imposed by the Babylon state. In Babylon, people are free to practise any religion or no religion, in whatever form desired, as long as that practice remains private and personal, having no impact on society generally.

Finally, Babylon is a passive and apathetic society, especially regarding religion. Passivity is the lack of action, characterized by accepting or allowing events to happen without actively responding or intervening. Apathy is the lack of passion, a state of indifference or lack of interest, emotion, or concern. Although people in Babylon value religion – especially “The Good Religion” – they tend to be passive and apathetic about it, often relegating it to something important but not really important now. Of course, some people and groups in Babylon take their religion very seriously, but Babylon tends to relegate them to the margins, classifying them as “fundamentalists” or “extremists”, and a “threat” to a peaceful society.

I personally encountered the passivity and apathy of Babylon society toward religion when I was in the hospital for 71 days recovering from Covid complications. During my stay, I interacted with many different hospital staffers from various backgrounds and world religions. Without exception, everyone who was raised in a Babylon society had a similar reaction when we talked about religion, whether they were “Christian”, “Muslim”, or something else. Everyone affirmed the value of religion. No one was hostile toward religion. Everyone felt religion was important, but only at some point later in life. No one from Babylon had a desire to pursue religion or to do anything about it – even when they acknowledged that it might benefit them. The only people I discovered who were enthusiastic about their faith were people from non-Babylon cultures.

In terms of religious belief and practice, apathy and passivity dominate Babylon. People do not want a religion that challenges them or discomforts them. They want a religion that adds value to their lives, without calling them to sacrifice or suffer. They want a religion that allows them to pick and choose the various beliefs and practices that they perceive will benefit them, while rejecting those that they might not like. This religious desire has infiltrated all the religions practised in Babylon, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Satanism, and paganism. Enter “The Good Religion”.

The Universal Religion of Babylon

The Good Religion has become the universal religion of Babylon, subsuming all other belief systems. In Babylon, people may practise any religion they desire as long as it upholds and yields to the fundamental tenets of The Good Religion. The Good Religion permits a variety of beliefs and practices within its rubric, even those beliefs and practices that may seem completely contradictory and mutually exclusive. The Good Religion is inclusive and affirming, with the aim of everyone in society experiencing “good”.

The Good Religion has six basic affirmations or tenets. First, “I am basically a good person” (or, “I am basically good”). People want to think and feel that they are essentially good people, affirmed even when they make mistakes – which are always “innocent” mistakes. The Good Religion tells people that they were born good. If later it turns out that they are not “good”, then it must be the responsibility of the parents, the school, the lack of opportunities – anyone or anything other than the people themselves.

Second, “I deserve to feel good”. People want to experience pleasurable things without much suffering or difficulty. The Good Religion says that people have a right to feel good, as long as they do not make others feel bad. Nothing should interfere with our good feelings about ourselves and our world. People around us must work to promote our good feelings. Any pleasure is available as long as it helps people to feel good. How we feel about something, or how something makes us feel, determines whether it is right or wrong.

Third, “I choose to do good” (or, “I choose, and it is good”). People want the freedom to choose without hindrance, with the knowledge that whatever they freely choose will be “good”. As long as they do not hurt other people (much), whatever people do is good by definition. Choosing to help others is good, especially because it makes me feel good about myself. Choosing some “me time” is good as well. Since I am a good person with good feelings, whatever I do will be good.

Fourth, “I have the right to live the good life”. People think they are entitled to “the good life”, defined in whatever way they choose to define it. “The good life” would certainly include having housing, clothing, food, and other resources commensurate with any other well-off person in society. Having the good life means that people can maintain a favourable work-life balance, with work taking up no more time than absolutely essential. The good life means having fun and enjoying friendships, with very minimal pain, suffering, or difficulty. Most importantly, people have freedom to determine what “the good life” means for them and they have the freedom to achieve that good life.

Fifth, “I (and others like me) can build a good society”. People believe that having a good country or a good culture is important. They also believe that good people have the innate capacity to build a good society by working together to do good. “Good” in this context is determined by the values and images of gold promoted by Babylon, especially as affirmed by the Mandarin class (“elites”) in Babylon.^[4] The good society is nonjudgmental, multicultural, and inclusive. The good society is within our human means and our human capabilities, if only we will use them in good ways.

Finally, “I have a good god”. A “god” can be anything in which people find their identity, significance, security, or acceptance. A “god” might be a deity, a supreme creator, an abstract principle, a symbol, a cultural figure, humanity, science, etc. A “good” god is one that will help when needed but generally does not interfere with life. A genuinely good god is like a friend or a kindly grandpa looking out for people. If personified, people can talk to him if they want, and he will listen to them. God always wants the best for people, which is the best that they want for themselves. If our “god” is science or evolution, then we will attribute any good outcome in life to their benevolence. No longer is nature “red in tooth and claw”, as Tennyson observed, but good and benevolent – as long as people do not violate it. If my god is no god at all, then I can find the source of goodness within myself.

The Good Religion was not discovered or revealed. The Good Religion emerged from a Jerusalem social context. It captured personalised expressions of Christian faith, but then subtly began distorting that faith. Jesus died for me because he loved me. He saw that I was a good person worth saving. I feel good because Jesus loves me, and he only wants good feelings for me. Because Jesus loves me, he helps me do good things. As long as I pray about it first, whatever I do will be good. Every impulse I have to do “good” (as I see it) must be from God. God is a good God because he provides for me and gives me everything I hope for or pray for – a good spouse, a good job, a good house, a good income, etc. He is also good because he helps me when I need him.^[5]

After its emergence, the Good Religion became dominant because of its association with Western wealth and prosperity, particularly that of the United States. As Western people generally became increasingly dissociated from genuine Christian and Biblical worldviews and values, they began to associate material prosperity with the natural outcomes of the cultural Christianity that pervaded the United States and other Western nations. This association began to change Christian belief and practice in the West, in ways first considered “liberal” and then recognised as “moralistic therapeutic deism”.

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism

The nascent emergence of the Good Religion was first recognised in a study of the religious and spiritual lives of American teenagers. Christian Smith, one of the researchers, suggested that we might call the dominant religion among American teenagers “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism”.^[6] According to Smith, we could summarise the “creed” of this religion in five statements:

1. “A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth.

2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.

3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about one-self.

4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when he is needed to resolve a problem.

5. Good people go to heaven when they die.”^[7]

In his article, Smith interprets each element in the name “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” (MTD).^[8] MTD wants people to become happy by living as good, moral persons. Such persons will seek to reach their potential while being nice and cooperative with others. All genuine religions lead in this direction, it is assumed, having similar visions for morality. The purpose of morality is to feel good about oneself.

MTD seeks to provide therapeutic benefits to its followers. The goal of MTD is to feel good, happy, and secure, attaining a high standard of well-being, resolving your problems, and having good relationships. A person’s “faith” has value because it helps them achieve the life goal of happiness and prosperity.

MTD identifies “god” as a being who exists, was involved in creation, and brings some order in life. God is not personally involved in our lives, unless people want god to be or need god to be. God stands at a distance, keeping watch over things but generally letting people get on with life. God will get involved, but only when we have some problem that only god might solve. God takes care of our needs, and helps us feel good about ourselves. God does not make demands. God just keeps god’s promises to care for us.

For our purposes in this article, Smith makes several key observations about MTD. First, MTD does not present itself as a new religion. MTD simply colonises established religious traditions, “the new spirit living within the old body”. Second, MTD operates as a “parasitic faith”. It does not have an independent life, but it attaches itself to the historical religious traditions and mutates its substance to conform to MTD. Third, MTD allows people in the various religious traditions to continue belonging to their particular religious tradition while adopting the core beliefs of MTD, beliefs which will ultimately overtake the essential beliefs of those traditions without people realising it.

At the time, Smith believed that they had perhaps identified an American civil religion. However, what they identified was something that would become a global religion, a one-world religion to which people from all nations might subscribe. Smith noted how religion operates outside of organisations, at the “level of individual belief and practice” that “is often eclectic, idiosyncratic, and syncretistic”, inconsistently so. Such religion also operates beyond the bounds of various cultures and worldviews.

MTD nudges religion in “a ‘softer,’ more inclusive, ecumenical, and mutireligious direction”. MTD works to shape and “harmonize” religious beliefs and religious institutions. It promises to allow people to decide for themselves how to practise their faith, while ensuring such practise does not conflict with or impose itself on others. Smith’s conclusion was startling: “Christianity is being colonized and displaced by quite a different religious faith”.^[9]

In a society such as the US, which still has a strong “Christian” memory despite being “Babylon”, MTD naturally resembles Christianity. Many people who practise MTD might easily convince themselves that they are practising Christianity. In societies such as the UK, where the majority of people no longer identify as “Christian”, MTD has morphed into something simultaneously religious, multicultural, and pluralistic – something that might “colonize” any world religion or non-religion (such as atheism). MTD has become “The Good Religion”.

A Unifying Religion

The Good Religion has become the unifying religion of Babylon. Unlike MTD, The Good Religion is not essentially deistic. The Good Religion will affirm a “higher power” of some nature, but that higher power might be evolution, science, or even the self. The Good Religion makes few demands of its followers, allowing them to connect or disconnect at will. The community engendered by The Good Religion is the loose community of like-minded people who freely associate, or dissociate, with others to achieve the Good Life and the Good Society.

The Good Religion is not a faith that people would either live for or die for. It does not provide directions for how to live or guidance for how to think. It does not interfere with our worldview or “our truth”. The Good Religion will, however, help us build the Good Society if we work together. Without an inherent set of doctrines and ethics, The Good Religion conforms to the values and golden images of Babylon, helping people work together more submissively and less critically.

The Good Religion is caught, not taught. It functions like a virus, penetrating the boundaries of religious cells in order to alter their DNA. When I was a kid, I heard many preachers say that the Christian faith is “caught, not taught”. They meant that Christians needed to live out their faith in an open, persuasive way so that others might decide to follow Jesus. The saying arose out of a Jerusalem mindset in which it was easier to claim to be a Christian than it was to live as a Christian. Although well-meaning, the idea of faith as “caught not taught” was never biblical. This attitude also created the context in which The Good Religion would eventually emerge. What was caught was a rapidly mutating virus that resembled Christianity but inoculated people against it so they would not catch the real thing.

Examples of The Good Religion

The Good Religion has established itself in almost every religious system operating in Babylon. We can hear echoes of the Good Religion from people of many different religious backgrounds. When questioned about his Hinduism before the 2024 elections, Rishi Sunak (the Prime Minister of the UK at the time) replied, “In Hinduism, there’s a concept of duty called dharma . . . that is something I was raised with, and that is also something that gives me the strength to deal with the things that you’re describing, because I get fulfilment from just doing what I believe is right. Work as hard as you can, do what you believe is right and try, and what will be will be”.^[10] Hinduism is reduced to being good and doing good in the hope of a good society. The other core beliefs of the religion – karma, samsara (cycle of rebirth), moksha, and its diverse deities – become unimportant, or perhaps just privately important.

The current leader of the UK Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch, also seems to embrace the Good Religion – as an agnostic. In a recent interview, Badenoch said “I used to believe in God very much, but now I describe myself as a cultural Christian. . . I don’t think it matters if people believe in God or not. What matters is what they do with the belief—or the lack of it”.^[11] The good religion, according to Mrs. Badenoch – no matter what the original belief system happens to be – is about the good people do in response to it.

We might easily look at “religions” such as Islam, Buddhism, and Humanism (a non-religion religion) from the prism of The Good Religion. But I suspect just two further examples will demonstrate how pervasive The Good Religion has become. The nation of Benin is working to recast the Voodoo religion in The Good Religion framework. Voodoo has “thousands of different deities, spirits and ceremonies”, including various animal sacrifices and the veneration of pythons.^[12] According to one Voodoo priestess, “Voodoo is about love. It is about being in harmony with nature”. “It is a good thing to be possessed,” according to another Voodoo priest. “It is a sign that the divinities have

become animated and that they like you – it is an honour.” For some of its practitioners today, Voodoo fits within The Good Religion framework, as it flows from a message of love.

Even Satanism has refashioned itself to fit within The Good Religion framework.^[13] According to some of its leaders, Satanism helps people engage in activism concerning issues such as gender, sexuality, and the environment. It helps people develop their own self-beliefs and self-realisation. Many Satanists do not worship the devil, but identify with him as the archetypal “rebel”. They attend Satanic rituals simply as something they are “enjoying and benefitting from”. According to one leader in Satanism, “I think our rise in popularity is founded on our having a set of principles and values that resonate with many people and our rejection of hypocrisy and corruption.” As some followers of Satanism show, people in Babylon could re-cast any religion within the framework of The Good Religion.

The Bad Religion(s)

Although Babylon accepts and affirms The Good Religion wholeheartedly, especially as a demonstration of its multiculturalism, Babylon does not accept or affirm all religious people. Instead, Babylon society labels every religious person or religious system which does not submit to The Good Religion as “extremist” or “fundamentalist”. Babylon considers all extremist religions and religious people to be alike, no matter what their actual religion is – Christian, Islam, Hindu, etc. Because these religious people or systems refuse to capitulate to The Good Religion, Babylon considers these extremists or fundamentalists enemies of the Good Life and the Good Society. Consequently, these people must be resisted and removed by Babylon society and the religious systems within that society.

Examples of how Babylon society resists these “extremists” abound in the UK. David Campanale was removed as a parliamentary candidate because he was a Christian who actually believed the Bible. King Lawal, a Christian Conservative councillor was suspended from the party for saying, “Pride is not a virtue but a sin”, which he claimed was biblically sound. Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, a charity worker, was arrested twice and charged for silent prayer near an abortion clinic. Dr David MacKereth, a Christian doctor, was sacked after “misgendering” trans patients because it violated his conscience. He later lost a discrimination claim against the Government, with the conclusion that his beliefs were not protected under the Equality Act.

One recent example involves Gozen Soydag, a Christian who worked as a school teacher. On her personal Instagram accounts, Ms. Soydag promoted her Christian beliefs – affirming the importance of the nuclear family, insisting that living together before marriage was wrong, and even suggesting that wives should submit to their husbands. The senior staff of her school deemed the content misogynistic and decided to terminate her employment. What makes this case so startling is that the school is a Roman Catholic school, with Bible verses and crosses in every room! What makes this case alarming is that there were no allegations that she had promoted any of her beliefs in the classroom. She only expressed them on her personal social media accounts. Yet, she had promoted a traditional view of marriage, so the Roman Catholic school in Babylon had no choice but to dismiss her.^[14]

No More Labels

Babylon is a deeply religious society, but it has become increasingly hostile toward historic, biblical Christianity – in any form. Even “Christian” denominations infected with Babylon often resist and remove Christians or Christian leaders from their various organisations. As authentic followers of Jesus, we must recognise how our world has changed so that we might connect with one another and support one another. I love something attributed to Benjamin Franklin at the time of the American Revolution: “We must all hang together or surely we shall all hang separately". I think this applies to authentic Christians living in Babylon today.

In my younger days, Christians and their leaders became caught up in their various labels – evangelical, liberal, Reformed, Pentecostal, charismatic, Baptist, etc. When you are living in Jerusalem, these labels seem to have supreme importance. However, the labels churches have used in Jerusalem have no relevance in Babylon. The Babylonian people do not care. Most authentic Christians do not care either, as they need to depend on one another as never before - despite the labels they once wore with pride.

When faced with The Good Religion of Babylon, when confronting the various images of gold Babylon sets up, when you are a strange alien living in Babylon, labels no longer matter. Only faithfulness to Jesus matters.

^[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Place, accessed 3 December 2024.

^[2] I am using “religion” and “religious” throughout in broader ways that would incorporate what many people mean by “spiritual” as well, as in “I’m spiritual but not religious”. “Spiritual” people are all “religious” in their own ways.

^[3] See previous article on Babylon’s Golden Images for more information.

^[4] See previous essays in this series for further information.

^[5] I have actually heard people say all these things, including in Christian sermons and teachings.

^[6] Christian Smith, “On ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’ as U.S. Teenagers’ Actual, Tacit, De Facto Religious Faith,” https://catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/on-moralistic-therapeutic-deism-as-u-s-teenagers-actual-tacit-de-facto-religious-faith.html, accessed 2024-12-5.

^[7] Ibid.

^[8] This entire section comes from the article, with all quotes not otherwise noted coming directly from the article.

^[9] I highly recommend reading the article in its entirety.

^[10] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/15/rishi-sunak-hindu-faith-election-campaign/, accessed 2025-1-18.

^[11] https://www.gistmania.com/talk/topic,610714.0.html#google_vignette, accessed 2025-1-18.

^[12] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/sword-wielding-priests-preaching-a-message-of-love-draw-tou/, accessed 2024-7-26. All the information in this paragraph comes from this article.

^[13] The information in this paragraph comes from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/14/young-people-turning-satanism-instead-stuffy-christianity/, accessed 2025-1-18.

^[14] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/09/catholic-school-sacked-woman-for-supporting-marriage-values/, accessed 2025-1-18.

With the inauguration of Donald J Trump^[1], we might think we hear the prophet saying, "“Fallen, fallen is Babylon; and all the carved images of her gods he has shattered to the ground.” (Is. 21:9 ESV). After all, in his inauguration speech Trump seemed to cast down many of the golden images^[2] that had been set up by the previous Babylonian emperor, Joe Biden. In one speech, Trump demolished the golden images of DEI, identity politics, transgenderism, multiculturalism, green energy, and others. In one moment, it seemed that the "Great Awokening"^[3] of the United States had ended.

Babylon Is Alive and Well

Despite the shattering of many golden images, the inauguration of Donald Trump does not represent the demise of Babylon. Babylon is alive and well. The presidency of Donald Trump merely represents the transition of power in Babylon from one emperor to the next. During Daniel's lifetime in the Old Testament, Babylon had several emperors including Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Nabonidus, and Cyrus (the Persian king). Each one of these emperors had their own way of governing, their own policies, their own leadership styles, their own mandarins, and their own gods and golden images. We might observe echoes of each of these leaders in the various leaders of our Babylons today.

During Trump's first presidency, many Christian leaders compared him to Cyrus, the Persian king who conquered and ruled Babylon. Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to Israel and begin rebuilding Jerusalem. Although Cyrus was not a Jew, he was a friend to God's people and helped re-establish them in their homeland. Certainly, the first Trump presidency, like Cyrus, was a friend to Christians and Jews not only in the US but also around the world.^[4] Initial evidence suggests that the second Trump presidency will continue its friendly association with Christians and Jews nationally and globally. Yet, just as in OT Babylon, the Babylonian leader today may act positively toward God's people without changing the nature of Babylon itself.

We see this pattern clearly in another Babylonian emperor, Nebuchadnezzar. In Daniel 2, following Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, “The king answered and said to Daniel, ‘Truly, your God is God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries. . .’” (Dan. 2:47 ESV). Then, in chapter 3, Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold and required God’s people to give homage to this image. But, after the incident with the fiery furnace, Nebuchadnezzar gave a decree that effectively protected all God’s people from harm. In chapter 4, Nebuchadnezzar praised God and testified to how God had blessed him. But later in the chapter God humiliated him because of his pride. Then God restored Nebuchadnezzar, pressing home the central message that “the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will” (Dan. 4:32 ESV). A Babylonian ruler who praises God is still a Babylonian ruler.

A Shift in Babylon

Although Babylon remains despite the inauguration of Trump, we have still seen a significant shift in Babylon. In the past three decades, since Babylon has been ascendant in Western nations, we have seen several unique varieties of Babylon. The first variety of Babylon we saw was "neoliberal Babylon". Neoliberal Babylon emphasised free markets, limited government intervention, deregulation, privatisation, and individual responsibility. Neoliberal Babylon promoted the expansion of the Babylonian values and mindset through globalisation and trade, expecting other nations to adopt these values. Neoliberal Babylon wrongly assumed that all nations of the world would do anything to participate in Babylonian prosperity. It assumed that all nations would want to adopt the Babylonian cultural mindset, embracing wealth, pleasure, and unrestrained capitalism. Neoliberal Babylon began to collapse with the Great Recession of 2008.

The second variety of Babylon we saw was "Progressive Liberal Babylon". Progressive Liberal Babylon embraced traditional liberal values such as individualism and equality, but sought to combine them with a focus on social justice, systemic reform, identity politics, antiracism, and redistributive socialist economics — among other issues. Progressive Liberal Babylon set up many golden images, such as DEI and antiracism, to serve as the new standards for public values. Progressive Liberal Babylon depended more on government directed capitalism than it did on free markets for economic development. Ultimately, people labelled the leaders of Progressive Liberal Babylon as "woke", with the "woke" ideology ultimately pervading both government mandarins and marketplace middle management. The first Trump presidency sought to demolish so-called woke ideology, but had limited success – for a variety of reasons.

Populist Conservative Babylon

With the second Trump presidency, we are seeing a shift to a third variety of Babylon: "Populist Conservative Babylon" (Popcon Babylon). In many elections around the world in 2024, populist conservative parties made significant electoral gains, with some even winning their elections outright. Popcon Babylon blends traditional conservative values — such as patriotism, national unity, limited government, and a positive view of one’s cultural heritage — with the populist focus on championing the concerns of ordinary people against the perceived elites. Popcon Babylon emphasises issues such as immigration control, economic protectionism, and promoting traditional social norms. Popcon Babylon distrusts globalism and anyone perceived to be part of the woke elites.

Popcon Babylon presents a serious challenge for biblical Christianity. In Popcon Babylon, conservatism becomes detached from historic Christianity, while maintaining some "echoes" of historic Christianity – enough to make Christians feel at home in the movement. The animating vision of Popcon Babylon is not a Christian vision of society, although many Christians would feel comfortable with it, nonetheless. The populist conservative vision feels familiar to conservative Christians because of its emphasis on things like “family values”, but that familiar feeling is a deception. To be sure, Popcon Babylon welcomes Christians to full participation in society, as long as those Christians maintain the “separation of church and state” and pledge allegiance to the Popcon Babylonian leader and his golden images.

Conservative Babylon Is Not Jerusalem

In the history of many Western nations such as the United Kingdom and United States, civic virtues and civic values were often based on Judaeo-Christian virtues and values. Although not everyone in these countries followed Jesus Christ, almost everyone in these countries would have knowledge of things such as the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. Leaders in both the UK and the US historically sought to base the civil laws on the Bible. From this commitment emerged many positive cultural values, such as working hard, meritocracy, getting an education, and honesty in business — among many other values. These nations became like “Jerusalem”, a society favouring Christianity and expecting people within that society to behave in a “Christian” way even if they were not Christians themselves.

For many Christians, Popcon Babylon will feel like a return to “Jerusalem”, but it is not. Popcon Babylon seeks the benefits of a “Jerusalem” society, without its Christian commitments, values and limitations. “Jerusalem” society promoted Christian values and behaviours such as lifelong monogamy, biblical sexuality, the right to life, honest weights and measures (economics), honesty, and patriotism. Popcon Babylon society will tolerate, and may even promote, non-Christian^[5] values and behaviours such as serial monogamy^[6], gay marriage, abortion on demand^[7], inflationary monetary policy, shrinkflation, over-leveraged financial products, deception in business, and ultra-nationalism. Although it does not promote Christian values and behaviours, nevertheless Popcon Babylon will feel very seductive to Christians, especially Christian leaders, as it promises a place at the table of influence – a promise which it never fully delivers. To be sure, Christians will have influence, but only so far.

New Images of Gold

Popcon Babylon will demolish the images of gold set up by progressive liberal Babylon, substituting its new images of gold in their place. An “image of gold” is an icon of humanity, crafted by people to represent human achievements, ideals or desires deemed essential for an individual’s or a society's flourishing and prosperity.^[8] Trump himself began the process of demolishing old images of gold and setting up new images of gold in his inauguration speech. In his speech, Trump told us the golden images that he would tear down and the golden images that he would build up. In his first 48 hours, Trump began to act on his promises, issuing numerous executive orders.

By executive order, Trump tore down several images of gold that progressive liberal Babylon had erected. He cancelled the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the government and put many associated federal employees on leave. He struck down gender ideology by declaring that the federal government would only recognise two genders — male and female. He revoked the Green New Deal, along with the country's involvement in the Paris Climate Agreement. He nullified multiculturalism and immigration, simultaneously praising the various ethnicities who supported him and declaring that the US would once again be colourblind. These were just some of the images of gold that he determined to eliminate.

In his inauguration speech, Trump was even more ambitious about establishing new images of gold for Popcon Babylon. Trump declared that this would be the "Golden Age of America", putting America first. He announced that there would be a restoration of American sovereignty, justice, safety, and prosperity. From now on, America would be "proud, prosperous and free". It would be a time to "make America great again" (MAGA). Although the Golden Age of America would be the most significant image of gold in Popcon Babylon, Trump mentioned other images of gold as well. These included American Manifest Destiny, meritocracy, national energy security ("drill, baby, drill"), tariffs, American Exceptionalism, and freedom (especially freedom of speech) — among others. DOGE — the Department of Government Efficiency — might turn out to be an image of gold as well.

Not the American Messiah

As I have surveyed the news articles since Trump's inauguration, I have chuckled at the number of articles that suggest Trump has positioned himself as America's messiah. (I played with this idea even in the title of this essay.) However, I find Trump's words have much more in common with Nebuchadnezzar than they do with Jesus. Trump said that he wants to be a "peacemaker" and a "unifier". Trump wants to be the "liberator of the nation". He intends to "make America great again". He believes that God delivered him from assassination so that he could lead the United States — which is probably true. He gives credit to God for the greatness of the United States as well as for his leadership – which is certainly true. These things sound like the ruler of Popcon Babylon – a new Cyrus, perhaps – not the one who sees himself as the Messiah.

Despite the election of Donald Trump as president, we are still living in Babylon. "Babylon" is a society that rejects authentic Christian beliefs, values, and perspectives, and expects everyone to submit to Babylon's ever-changing alternatives. Popcon Babylon may not reject Christian values as aggressively as Progressive Liberal Babylon did, but it will not actively promote those values either. Popcon Babylon is yet another in a series of macro alternatives for Babylon society. Babylon is attractive and seductive, promising freedom and pleasure. For Christians, Popcon Babylon seems to promise a renewed freedom to practise our faith in the public square, but that freedom is limited. Christians must remember that Babylon is also demonically inspired and energized. Spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (see Ephesians 6:12, for example) seek to control Babylon society, even Popcon Babylon. Babylon operates with an empire spirit that seeks to subvert and control all people and organisations in the society, including Popcon Babylon. What Babylon cannot control, it often seeks to destroy.

Living Faithfully

As Christians living in Babylon, God's primary call for us remains living faithfully as sojourners and exiles in a foreign land (see 1 Peter 2:11). We must not become too comfortable, especially in a Babylon that seems to align more with our Christian values. Our primary allegiance is always and only to Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. We must never compromise with Babylon, even a populist conservative one.

I believe the next few years will be a fascinating and exciting rollercoaster. We will see some incredible things — some good and some not so good. As I was writing, I continually wanted to write "popcorn" instead of "popcon". So perhaps it's time to grab a bowl of popcorn and watch the show in Popcon Babylon.

^[1] Although I am diving into the pool of politics, I do not intend this as a political essay per se. I pray for Donald Trump as the president of the US, and hope that he does well in office. The purpose of this essay is to continue refining the new reality in which we live in the West – Babylon. As Christian leaders, we must understand this reality to lead effectively.

^[2] See my previous essay, “Babylon’s Images of Gold”. An “image of gold” is an icon of humanity, crafted by people to represent things deemed essential for society's flourishing and prosperity.

^[3] See Musa al-Gharbi’s book We Have Never Been Woke.

^[4] I would not presume to judge whether or not Trump is an authentic Christian. It is not material to the substance of this essay.

^[5] Or possibly even anti-Christian.

^[6] You can be married to as many people as you want as long as you are only married to one person at a time. In other words, divorce and remarriage and divorce and remarriage.

^[7] Although many want to put some limits on abortion, few want to eliminate it altogether – as shown in several state referendums on the issue in 2024.

^[8] See my previous article “Babylon’s Images of Gold”.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

The American flag is a powerful image, an icon of the American Republic.  The flag symbolises an ideal to which Americans aspire, yet sadly have never fully realised.  The American national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner”, is a song about the American flag.  Even today, when I see an American flag, I thank God for our nation, despite its many flaws and sins.  The American flag stirs something in me that is good.

But the American flag has caused me a lot of trouble.  Many historic churches around the US have an American flag in their sanctuary, normally placed in a prominent location.  This tradition began around the American Civil War but accelerated during WWI, when many immigrant churches in the US still conducted worship in their native languages, such as German.  These churches chose to place a flag in their sanctuary to declare that they were loyal Americans.  The trend caught on, so that many churches put flags in their sanctuary as a reminder to pray for the nation.  Although a common practice, some have questioned whether a church should have national flags placed so prominently in their sanctuary.

In one church I led, our elders decided to make some changes in the sanctuary to reflect better our spiritual heritage as a church.  We removed the American flag from the sanctuary, placing it in a prominent position in the hallway leading to the sanctuary.  Several people immediately expressed their outrage.  We only survived because one elder, a godly retired military veteran, reminded people that our highest allegiance as Christians was to Jesus Christ.  Although proudly American and having served his country faithfully, he supported moving the flag out of the sanctuary.  The situation revealed how for many people the American flag was functioning as an image of gold.

Images of gold become highly problematic because they will ultimately demand an allegiance that overrides or undermines our allegiance to Jesus Christ as the Lord and Saviour.  The expectations from images of gold may often seem reasonable, and the ways they interfere with our Christian discipleship may often go unnoticed — until challenged by a precipitating event, such as moving a flag or being accused of disloyalty before the emperor.[1]  We might appreciate some images of gold because the ideas and values behind them they might benefit a society.  We must reject other images of gold outright, understanding they embody ideas and values contrary to the Bible.  In no instance may Christians bow down and pay homage to images of gold, even when that is demanded.  We must reserve our allegiance for Jesus alone – which will always bring us into conflict with the kingdoms of this world and their images of gold.

In my previous essay, “Into the Fire”, I described the origin of images of gold and their effect on Babylon society.  In this essay, I want to identify some images of gold in our Babylon.  I want to show how they function as images of gold, especially in the context of Christian leadership (meaning Christians who are leaders, not necessarily church leaders) and Christian churches (groups of Jesus followers).  I will not attempt to analyse these images of gold, or give a history of their development.  I will not provide a biblical framework for considering each image of gold.  I will not attempt to suggest any positive contributions the images of gold — or the ideas behind them — may have made to Babylon society.  All these are worthy tasks, yet far beyond the scope of a few pages.  I will simply identify them as images of gold, so that they might serve as examples.

Images of Gold Defined

In my previous essay, “Into the Fire”, I presented a provisional definition for images of gold:  An “image of gold” is an icon of humanity, crafted by people to represent human achievements, ideals or desires deemed essential for an individual’s or a society's flourishing and prosperity.  In Babylons today, images of gold are most often ideological instead of physical, primarily identified by labels and slogans instead of physical representations.  That said, these ideological images of gold will often have various physical representations that accompany them, such as flags, emblems, and items of clothing.

“Images of gold”, as presented in these essays, are not false gods or idols.  Our understanding of them comes from Daniel 3, where Nebuchadnezzar set up an image of gold, requiring that people would bow down and pay homage to this image of gold.  The text makes it clear that the image of gold was not a false god or an idol.  Most likely, the image of gold celebrated the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and how his reign was the source of flourishing and prosperity in Babylon.  It was a representation of his superior leadership – and ultimately an affront to God.  The closest parallel to Nebuchadnezzar’s image of gold today would be statues of Buddha in Buddhist countries.  Unfortunately, Babylon’s images of gold today are much more difficult to recognise.

Images of Gold Today

The governments and societies of Babylon produce images of gold at alarming rates.  These images of gold capture the general public’s consciousness, nudging them toward submission and compliance.  Once they become established in the mind of the general public, they become self-perpetuating and increasingly difficult to resist or change.  Sometimes, new images of gold replace older images of gold.  At other times, images of gold may begin to conflict with one another and battle for supremacy. 

Images of gold often seem like living things.  They come alive as people imbue them with their hopes and dreams for prosperity and the good life, for meaning and purpose, or for longing and identity.  They come alive as groups and organisations grow up around them to promote and perpetuate them, their values and their ideals.  They come alive as demons inhabit them to lead people astray or use them to direct people’s attention away from God and God’s ways.  Although often well intentioned, images of gold always become corrupted by human sinfulness and rebellion against God.

As Christians, especially Christian leaders, we must take great care regarding these images of gold because their demands are often very subtle as are the compromises we are nudged to make.  Yet, if we compromise and give in to these demands, then we will sacrifice our integrity and the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Images of gold often entice us with the apparent good that they seem to represent.  They invite us to give in just a little so that we might accomplish something seemingly good, making every compromise seem reasonable and just, especially when we fail to practice healthy discernment.

Perhaps one example might help to illustrate.  Although racism is an evil that every follower of Jesus Christ must actively oppose, to say “anti-racism work is gospel work”[2] is neither biblically nor historically correct (see 1 Corinthians 15.1-11).  Although well-meaning, the statement equates all anti-racist activities uncritically with the proclamation of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ by which we stand and are being saved by grace through faith in Jesus.  While people must repent of racism as sin, a sin against the Creator who made all people in His image, they must certainly repent of all sin, not just racism, in response to the Gospel.  In addition, some so-called anti-racist activities that people have promoted are themselves inherently racist and must be resisted.  Rather than elevating the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the challenge of that Gospel to all people to repent (especially of their racism!) and believe the Good News, saying “anti-racism work is gospel work” diminishes the Gospel and its command over all of life.  Images of gold work subtly to change our thinking and our perceptions according to their values, not according to the Bible.

Sample Images of Gold

I have chosen a random sampling of images of gold in Babylon today to serve as examples.  I will consider each one only briefly and superficially.  I will also try to present each one as neutrally as possible although, by identifying them as images of gold, I am suggesting that each one presents problems for Christian leaders who want to remain faithful to the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Safeguarding.  That “safeguarding” is even necessary in neo-liberal Western nations that once upheld Christian values shows the culture’s decline into Babylon.  The number of safeguarding scandals in churches across the world reveals serious issues at the heart of Western Christianity.  Undoubtedly, Christians must regard safeguarding as crucially important, and they must practice safeguarding diligently.  “Wolves in sheep’s clothing” and other predators abound amongst Christians, just as the Bible had indicated they would.  (See, for example, 2 Peter 2, Jude, and Acts 20.29-30.)  In such a context, safeguarding is essential and a primary responsibility for church leaders.

At the same time, safeguarding has become all-important to many people, to the extent that I have heard some from the mandarin class assert “safeguarding trumps everything else”.  A recent mainline denominational publication contended that “Safeguarding is an expression of the gospel of Christ’s resurrection”.[3]  Of course, we would agree that providing a safe and welcoming place is essential to a church’s ministry.  However, elevating safeguarding to the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ’s Resurrection shows that safeguarding has become an image of gold.  I know situations where “safeguarding” was used unjustly as a tool to remove people from leadership, not because they had violated safeguarding (they had not), but because some persons in the mandarin class simply did not like them.  The mandarin class persons used “safeguarding” as a convenient and unjust excuse to remove them. 

DEI.  DEI – diversity, equity, and inclusion – promotes itself as an organisational framework that aims for fairness and full participation for all people.  In practice, DEI focuses on those whom some people perceive have been underrepresented or discriminated against in society, especially those from racial or religious minorities, or those who are not sexually heteronormative.  DEI claims to create and sustain an inclusive environment by such things as avoiding gendered terms and using inclusive greetings, but such an inclusive environment intentionally excludes those who disagree with some things in DEI’s ideology or practice.  Those promoting DEI quickly exclude those who question the ideology of DEI or who hold to traditional moral standards contrary to those advocated by DEI.  Although DEI claims to acknowledge, embrace, support, and accept those of all racial, sexual, gender, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds, among other differentiators, the outcomes differ somewhat, especially regarding Christians, Muslims, and those with lower socio-economic status.  Raising questions around DEI issues often leads to significant problems, such as loss of accreditation and loss of employment.

DEI is an example of how images of gold mutate over time.  DEI itself developed from LGBTQ+ Inclusion as an image of gold.  LGBTQ+ Inclusion widened its scope to include what it perceived to be other groups of historically marginalised people to become DEI.  In business, DEI has replaced two previous images of gold.  The first was Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), a business model in which companies integrated social and environmental concerns in their business operations and interactions with their stakeholders instead of only considering economic profits.  CSR became ESG – Environmental, Social and Governance – a set of standards measuring a business's impact on society, the environment, and how transparent and accountable it is.  DEI has effectively replaced ESG as a dominant image of gold in business.  Some businesses have now begun to move away from DEI as a formal business policy, but we do not know what might replace it.

Gay Marriage.  "Gay marriage" arose from LGBTQ+ Inclusion to become an image of gold in its own right.  Although the UK had provided the Civil Partnership Act (2004) to promote the stability and durability of gay and lesbian relationships (and those of heteronormative couples who did not believe in marriage), the Conservative government chose to introduce “The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act” in 2013, despite the objections of many in Christian and Muslim communities.  The US Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide with the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in 2015.  Since the legalisation of gay marriage, many people have come to consider supporting gay marriage the same as affirming the validity of same-sex relationships, taking a stand against homophobia, and supporting equal rights for all people.  Although the issues are highly nuanced, many people assume that anyone who opposes gay marriage must be homophobic or mean-spirited fundamentalists.  Consequently, persons who voice questions or concerns regarding gay marriage are often excluded from political parties, the public sector, and some private sector jobs.  People who openly reject gay marriage might also experience social exclusion or criticism within the broader society.

The influence of gay marriage as an image of gold has extended into Christian denominations, even those that historically have affirmed marriage as a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman.  Intense theological and cultural debates have formed around gay marriage, causing deep divisions amongst Christians.  In the Church of England, the debate centers on the tension between traditional interpretations of scripture and evolving societal values, with some factions viewing the affirmation of same-sex marriage as a necessary step toward inclusivity, while others see it as a departure from biblical teachings.  Similarly, the Methodist Church has faced deep divisions, culminating in decisions that have led to schisms within the global Methodist community, as members grapple with whether to embrace or reject same-sex marriage.  This image of gold has become emblematic, not just of the struggle over LGBTQ+ rights, but of broader questions about the authority of scripture, the role of tradition, and the church's response to changing cultural landscapes.

Gender Ideology.  Scotland’s proposed Gender Recognition Reform Bill arguably led to the collapse of Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership in 2023.  Because of this bill, the government incarcerated a male rapist who self-identified as a woman in a women’s prison facility.  The resulting outcry brought down a government.  Although the Gender Recognition Reform Bill never became law, it did show how “gender ideology” had become an “image of gold”.  The gender ideology image of gold promotes the unquestioned acceptance of “gender” as a fluid, spectrum-based construct.  Gender ideology argues that gender is not exclusively a biological concept, so that individuals might have a gender identity that differs from the sex they were assigned at birth.  Gender identity becomes a deeply held sense of being male, female, or something else, that may or may not align with the biological or anatomical characteristics one had at birth.  As an image of gold, gender ideology sets a standard for gender identity and expression that must override individual perspectives and traditional views, compelling people to align with its principles as though it were an ultimate truth.  Gender ideology creates new societal expectations and cultural norms surrounding gender – such as choosing one’s pronouns – that become elevated to an almost sacred status, influencing personal beliefs and behaviours.

Recent cases show the power of gender ideology as an image of gold.  Dr David MacKereth, a Christian doctor, was sacked after “misgendering” trans-gender patients because it violated his conscience.  He later lost a discrimination claim against the UK Government, with the tribunal concluding that beliefs which restrict the fundamental rights of others are not protected under the Equality Act.  (Note how choosing one’s gender has become a “fundamental right”.)  Kevin Lister, 60, lost his job at a further education college after refusing to use a male name and pronouns to refer to a 17-year-old female pupil who identified as a boy.  He was later referred to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), which informed him that he would be banned from working with children.  Revd Dr. Bernard Randall was barred from preaching for five years after giving a sermon at a private school suggesting that children could question teaching on LGBT relationships.  Although he was cleared of wrongdoing – and although his teaching is consistent with the official positions of the Church of England – Dr. Randall has not been able to return to ministry because, in his words, “of my orthodox beliefs on gender and sexual orientation”.  Such cases show the potential consequences when Christians refuse to bow down and pay homage to Babylon’s images of gold.

Liberal Feminism.  Liberal feminism[4] is a social, political, and cultural ideology that seeks to achieve and promote gender equality while challenging the perceived systemic inequities faced by women.  As an image of gold in Babylon society, liberal feminism has reshaped attitudes, policies, and practices to ensure that women have equal rights and opportunities.  This image of gold has given women more opportunities and freedom, but it has not always benefitted women as promised.  The power of this image of gold often prevents people from seeing and embracing how traditional Christian sexual ethics might actually benefit women, as shown in books such as Louise Perry’s The Case against the Sexual Revolution.[5]  The book highlights ways that some feminist ideals and attitudes may not have actually benefitted women in Western societies. 

As an image of gold, liberal feminism has shaped and challenged Christian churches, groups and denominations.  Debates between “Complementarians” and “Egalitarians” have led to divisions and church splits.  In some denominations, liberal feminism has become an article of faith.  In these denominations, leaders might publicly question the bodily resurrection of Jesus, but they would not dare question whether women should be elders.  Even for churches who fully affirm the role of women in ministry, liberal feminism creates complex issues and challenges.

Liberal feminism shows how images of gold often come into conflict against each other.  The rise of gender ideology has caused a backlash against liberal feminism, especially as liberal feminists argue that biological sex matters.  Feminists have raised concerns about the way gender ideology as a socio-political concept is influencing politics, medical practice and safeguarding.  They have shared their concerns about the dangers of gender ideology to young people, as well as the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights.  Feminists who have expressed their concerns have often been subjected to hate mail, threats of violence, a climate of fear, being “cancelled”, and being labelled a TERF – trans exclusionary radical feminist.  When images of gold rise up against one another, the damage is considerable. 

Anti-Racism.  Racism is one of the great global evils.  Living in London has alerted me to the pervasiveness and diversity of racism.  Christians who believe that God has created all people in his image – no matter their skin tone or ethnic heritage – must oppose racism in all its forms.  That some churches have promoted or supported racism has damaged the cause of Christ in many nations.  Churches must become anti-racist – but not necessarily in the way that the anti-racism image of gold demands.  Christians must fight against racism wherever it occurs, even when it might arise in the name of “anti-racism”.

In its simplest sense, anti-racism is the active process of identifying, challenging, and opposing racism in all its forms.  The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement elevated anti-racism to an image of gold.[6]  “Taking the knee” became a quasi-religious ritual allowing people literally to bow down and pay homage to this image of gold.  For the past decade, many other anti-racist dogmas have become more accepted and more powerful.  These include things such as “decolonisation”, “slavery reparations”, and “white privilege”.  Those who even question the assumptions and assertions accompanying these dogmas are labelled as “racist” and summarily dismissed. 

Even Christian denominations are taking the knee to the anti-racism image of gold.  The Church of England committed £100 million to a nine-year programme of “impact investment, research and engagement” regarding the Church of England’s involvement in historic slavery, even though many church members questioned the wisdom of such expenditure in light of declining churches and questionable evidence.  Some historians, such as Prof Richard Dale, question whether the historical assumptions on which such decisions are based are even valid.  However, the anti-racism image of gold does not allow people to ask questions or consider historical evidence that might challenge the prevailing narratives.

Net Zero (Climate Change).  Ever since I was a boy, I remember discussions regarding the world’s climate and what we needed to do.  Over the past two decades, such discussions have taken on a religious fervour, as it has become more apparent that the climate is changing.  The felt urgency of the situation has led to the rise of “Net Zero” (or “climate change” more generally) as an image of gold.  “Net Zero” refers to balancing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere with an equivalent amount removed, resulting in no net increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.  People in the UK advocate for “Net Zero” with slogans such as “save the planet”, “climate justice = net zero”, “net zero or we’re toast”, and similarly apocalyptic outcries.  Yet, if the UK became “net zero” tomorrow, it would have no discernible impact on climate change.  Despite this, the demands of “Net Zero” as an image of gold only increase.  No one dare question it.

Bowing down and paying homage to “Net Zero” as an image of gold requires many sacrifices, no matter how senseless, even if they are a clear threat to public health and safety.  In the name of Net Zero, one council plans to remove street lights along a notoriously dangerous stretch of road.  In the name of Net Zero, the government is pursuing a national energy strategy that has led to greater dependence on energy imports and weakening energy security.  In the name of Net Zero, local governments introduce low emission zone charges that disproportionately affect the poor, have little impact on pollution, and inhibit the growth and prosperity of local businesses.  Even churches are required to bow down to Net Zero, as ministers are told to give people blankets instead of heating churches – despite the fact that failure to heat a church threatens the health and safety of people who attend, especially the elderly.  One diocese refused to allow a church to replace its broken gas boilers, despite no available alternative.  Church members have said that the lack of heating had posed a grave threat to the historic church building as well as the spiritual and physical health of its elderly congregation, all for the sake of paying homage to “Net Zero.”

Many, Many Others.  As we have become more and more like Babylon, the governing class and the mandarin class have raised more and more images of gold.  Each image of gold has an entourage of people to protect and promote it.  As images of gold proliferate, it becomes increasingly difficult to navigate the social and governmental landscape so as not to fall afoul of the demands the images of gold make.  It becomes increasingly difficult for Christians to maintain a faithful witness to Jesus Christ, refusing to bow down and pay homage to these images.

Learning from Jesus

In “Into the Fire”, I suggested how we might learn from Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego about standing firm when challenged to bow down and pay homage to an image of gold.  But as I was concluding this essay, I remembered again what Jesus said to his disciples in Matthew 16:

“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. . .  So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (Matt. 10:16-22, 26-33 ESV)

Although I am tempted to give some commentary, this essay is already longer than I had anticipated.  So I merely encourage Christian leaders to reflect on what Jesus said.  It applied to his disciples in Israel, but it seems to apply to his disciples in Babylon even more.

Like Athens, Only Worse

We are living in Babylon, not Jerusalem. 

And Babylon is filled with images of gold just as Athens was filled with idols (see Acts 17).  Christian leaders will often feel their spirits provoked within them by the various images of gold, but unfortunately there are few places in Babylon like the marketplace or the Areopagus where people might dialogue about these images of gold peacefully and respectfully.  The angry clamouring of social media prevents such dialogue, even amongst Christians.  Just as many mocked Paul in the Areopagus, so many in Babylon will mock faithful Christians who remain loyal to Jesus.  However, some may join us and believe.

[1] See my previous article, “Into the Fire”.

[2] Reference provided on request.  In some cases, I will not provide references in my essays because I do not like to make accusations or to challenge things with which I disagree strongly without giving someone a chance to reply.  In some cases, people say things that, upon further reflection, they would not have said, or they would have said differently.

[3] Reference provided on request.

[4] As distinguished from a feminism that advocates for women’s rights on the basis that God created both women and men in his image.

[5] We must note that Perry is a non-religious feminist, and her book is not a “Christian” book.

[6] Saying this is not a value judgment regarding BLM but a statement of its profound influence.

"Speak truth to power." Although often used — and perhaps more often abused – most people probably have no idea what the phrase actually means.  Fewer people know the origins of the phrase.  When I have heard people use this phrase, they speak it with an attitude of pride and belligerence, in an attempt to exercise power over others, silencing any healthy discussion, debate and disagreement.  Ironically, it is often those most powerful that say they want to speak truth to power.  The phrase feels like a club with which the wielder wants to beat whomever they accuse of holding power into submission.  I have never heard the phrase "speak truth to power" used with any sense of love or humility.  Yet, the phrase itself historically emerged from love motivated by faith in God.

The phrase “speak truth to power” is often traced back to a charge given to eighteenth-century Friends (Quakers), which urged them to “bear witness to the truth in all things, and to speak truth to power.” This charge was part of the broader Quaker commitment to living a life of integrity, justice, and peace.  The charge became the springboard for the pamphlet Speak Truth to Power, published by the American Friends Service Committee in 1955.  The concern of the Quakers in using this phrase was to see “the power of redemptive love as applied in real situations”.[1]  For them, “such acts of revolutionary love involve putting into action the laws of the Kingdom before the Kingdom has really come”.[2]  Knowing the actual origins of the phrase shows how often people misunderstand and misuse the phrase today.

Perhaps the most famous biblical story of speaking truth to power, respecting the real meaning and spirit of the phrase, occurs in Daniel 3.  And like “speaking truth to power”, I think most people misunderstand this story as well – or at least some key aspects of it.  When anyone talks about “facing the furnace” or standing “in the fire”, they are referencing this story.  Hillsong United’s song, “Another in the Fire”, comes from this story as well.  We know the story, but we do not always know what it means.

Into the Fiery Furnace

Most people probably have some knowledge of the story.  Nebuchadnezzar set up a golden image in Babylon.  He then instructed people to pay homage to this golden image.  Because some people in the mandarin class[3] resented God's people, they maliciously accused Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego before Nebuchadnezzar.  Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to obey Nebuchadnezzar and pay homage to his golden image.  So, Nebuchadnezzar had them thrown into the fiery furnace, a furnace so hot that it killed the guards who tossed them in the furnace.  Thinking they were cooked, Nebuchadnezzar looked into the furnace only to see four figures walking about in the fire.  Calling out to them, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego walked out of the fire unharmed.  As a result, Nebuchadnezzar praised God and promoted Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. 

When I was young, this was one of my favourite Bible stories — as it was for many kids.  We always considered the fourth man in the fire to be Jesus, but we were never encouraged to look much more deeply than that.  We assumed the rest of the story was rather straightforward.  But, living in Babylon now, I have come to see that a lot more is happening in the story.  The story speaks to our present situation as the people of God living in our own Babylon.  It provides us with some important clues to our situation and how we need to respond as Christians, especially as Christian leaders.  In considering this story, we often forget that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were actually leaders in Babylon, not merely citizens of Babylon.

Nebuchadnezzar’s Image of Gold

Most people looking at this story assume that the "image of gold" was an idol and that the command to pay homage to this "image of gold" was a command to worship a false god.  The image of gold was not an idol or a false god, but something much more subtle and more relevant to our Babylon today.  We can see this when we examine the story more closely, which distinguishes the “image” from the “gods”. 

Several clues in the story reveal this to us.  Nebuchadnezzar built the image of gold in a very public place, the plane of Dura, and not in a usual place of worship.  He summoned officials in his kingdom to oversee the image of gold and its dedication, but these officials were civil officials, not the religious offices we saw in Daniel 2.  Nebuchadnezzar assigned his civil servants to administrate his policy concerning the image of gold.  The accusations brought against Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in verse 12 were threefold — they did not pay attention to Nebuchadnezzar, they did not worship Nebuchadnezzar's "gods", and they did not pay homage to the golden image.  The accusations distinguished the charge of not worshipping the "gods" from the charge of not paying homage to the image of gold.  Clearly, the image of gold was not a false god or an idol.

Another indicator that the image of gold was not a false god is the word translated "image".  The word might refer to an idol on a few occasions, depending on the translation, but it is not one of the most commonly used words to refer to idols or false gods in Hebrew.  We can find a clue to this word's meaning in Genesis.  God says, "let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (v 26).  The word "image" in Genesis 1 is the same word as "image" in Daniel 3.  An “image” is something that bears the likeness of its creator.  An “image” is something that shows what its creator values.  An “image” reveals the values, priorities, and goals of its creator.  To honour an “image” is to pay appropriate homage to its creator and accept the values, priorities, and goals of its creator for oneself.  In the case of people, we bear the likeness of God, our Creator.  In the case of the image of gold, it bore Nebuchadnezzar’s likeness in some way.

We find another clue to this word’s meaning in 1 Samuel 5-6, which uses the same word “image”.  The Philistines had stolen the Ark of the Covenant, but in every city to which it was sent tumours broke out on the men.  They asked their diviners what to do, and the diviners suggested they send the Ark back to Israel.  But the diviners suggested they send the Ark with a guilt offering to honour God: 

And they said, “What is the guilt offering that we shall return to him?” They answered, “Five golden tumours and five golden mice, according to the number of the lords of the Philistines, for the same plague was on all of you and on your lords.  So you must make images of your tumours and images of your mice that ravage the land, and give glory to the God of Israel.  Perhaps he will lighten his hand from off you and your gods and your land.  (1 Samuel 6:4-5 ESV, emphasis added)

The golden tumours and the golden mice were “images” – not of some false god, but representing the leaders and what had happened to them.  They created these “images” because of what God had done, to honour God and as an act of contrition for taking the Ark.  Apparently, God received the honour as intended, based on the outcome of the story.

The size/significance, position, or materials used in the creation of an “image” demonstrated its importance to the image’s creator – whether the creator is God, the Philistines, or Nebuchadnezzar.  The fact that Nebuchadnezzar created an extremely large image, placed it in a very public place, and made the image out of gold, showed how significant this image of gold was to Nebuchadnezzar.  He considered it so significant that he required everyone in his kingdom to bow down and pay homage to this image.  I think the Bible intentionally does not describe the image exactly or reveal what it stood for, so that the image of gold becomes a prototype for similar images in other Babylons, including ours.

If the image of gold is not a false god, then we need to understand properly the word most often translated as "worship" in this passage.  Nebuchadnezzar's legal command is not that all people must "worship" his image of gold.  The word translated as "worship" is actually an Aramaic word, not a Hebrew word, meaning "to bow down" or "to pay homage to".  Although the word might be used in the context of worship, the word itself has a much broader meaning than “worship”.  The word simply means to bow down or to pay homage to someone or something perceived to be greater than you are.  It is an outward act of submission not an inward act of worship — although the two can be connected.  Unfortunately, almost all translations translate this word based on the assumption that the image of gold is an idol, thus using "worship".  The New English Translation is the only one I found to use the phrase "bow down and pay homage" instead of the phrase "fall down and worship" in this passage.  However, based on the analysis above, we can see that "bow down and pay homage" is the preferable translation.

I suspect that the image of gold was similar to the statue that Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream in chapter 2.  Daniel used the same word “image” when describing Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (see Daniel 2:31).  Daniel’s interpretation of the dream assured Nebuchadnezzar that his rulership would endure, that his was the head of gold in the image.  Since pride was one of Nebuchadnezzar’s presenting sins (see Daniel 4), it makes sense that he would create an image that represented his leadership and supremacy.  The image of gold functioned as a symbol of his authority, prosperity, and wisdom.  By crafting the image of gold, Nebuchadnezzar was not making himself to be a “god”, but he was expecting people to submit and pay homage to his plans, policies and purposes for his kingdom.  Although Daniel had strongly asserted that his kingdom came from God – and Nebuchadnezzar had seemed to acknowledge this – Nebuchadnezzar was effectively claiming that the prosperity of the kingdom had come from his wise rulership, not from God’s sovereignty.  People were expected to pay homage to, and submit to, that rulership over all others.  Bowing down and paying homage to the image was a loyalty test.  Frankly, Nebuchadnezzar was not terribly concerned about what gods people worshipped as long as they willingly submitted to his ways and his leadership.

Perhaps the closest parallels to Nebuchadnezzar’s image of gold in the world today are statues of the Buddha in Buddhist-majority countries.  Buddhism is non-theistic, so statues of the Buddha are not “idols” in the strictest sense of the word.  Buddhists create statues of the Buddha as symbols of respect and inspiration, reminders of his teachings.  These statues are not worshipped as “gods”.  Instead, they serve as focal points for meditation, reflection, and devotion.  The cost, size, and location of the statues indicate the level of devotion for the Buddhists.  When Buddhists bow or make offerings in front of (pay homage to) a Buddha statue, they are showing reverence for the qualities the Buddha represents to them, such as wisdom, compassion, and enlightenment.  The statue helps them connect with these ideals and cultivate these qualities within themselves.  The statues also help develop and maintain social cohesion in the community and nation.  Although not gods, Buddha statues are very significant for Buddhist societies, as shown by the strict national laws against showing disrespect to Buddha statues in these nations.

Images of Gold Today

From the above, we begin to understand images of gold and why they are so important in Babylon.  Considering this, let me suggest a provisional definition: An “image of gold” is an icon of humanity, crafted by people to represent human achievements, ideals or desires deemed essential for an individual’s or a society's flourishing and prosperity.  They may emerge from the ruling class, the mandarin class, or the general public.  If they emerge from the general public, they will often emerge through protests, petitions, and even threats of violence and terrorism – any of which the mandarin class may stir up.  In Western Babylons today, images of gold are most often ideological instead of physical, primarily identified by labels and slogans instead of physical representations.  That said, these ideological images of gold will often have various physical representations that accompany them, such as flags, emblems, and items of clothing.

The ruling class enshrines “images of gold” by elevating their specific related ideologies, values, or symbols through laws, cultural narratives, or public rituals.  They will institutionalise these ideals in education, media, and quasi-religious practices (such as clapping for the NHS, DBS checks for safeguarding, or moments of silence), making them central to society’s identity and aspirations.  By doing so, they create a sense of obligation or reverence around these symbols, encouraging the population both to affirm and submit fully to the established order, often under the guise of promoting unity, security, or prosperity.  The ruling class will often allocate social wealth toward the construction and maintenance of images of gold.  They will ensure the prominence of the images of gold in the society’s consciousness.

The mandarin class will work diligently and often furtively to protect and promote images of gold.  The ruling class might set up new quangos and civil-service agencies (organisations of the mandarin class) to serve various images of gold, ensuring that these groups remain outside normal democratic oversight and controls.  The mandarin class will compel the general public to pay homage to the images of gold, beginning with various forms of indoctrination and propaganda, then moving to social pressure, and then moving to professional pressure administered by various regulatory bodies.  If these approaches are ineffective, the mandarin class with move to fines, imprisonment or other means of force or coercion, often depriving uncooperative people of their livelihoods. 

Images of Gold Shape Society

Images of gold exert enormous influence on a society.  Images of gold condition people into a new social narrative, a new understanding of humanity and the self, and a new set of boundaries for thought and belief.  They modify people’s perceptions of reality and shape their worldview.  They are designed to create a new citizenry, one that adheres to the vision and values of the ruling class as mediated by the mandarin class. 

Because of their power and influence, the general public will bow down and pay homage to the images of gold instinctively, usually as nudged or directed by the ruling class and the mandarin class.  Because of the apathy and passivity among the general public in Babylon, people rarely question or challenge the images of gold.  The social pressure to conform often overwhelms people’s will.  At the same time, the general public will turn against anyone who resists the accepted images of gold or refuses to bow down to them, especially when they are stirred up by the mandarin class and the ruling class to do so.  The general public will generally accept images of gold uncritically, as long as they do not disrupt their perceived well-being and prosperity. 

Groups, associations, or organisations often arise around images of gold to ensure their promotion and preservation in society.  These groups may even form alliances to promote collectively their various images of gold.  Because of these groups, images of gold often take on a life of their own.  Images of gold may become the animating force creating new people-systems and recalibrating human relationships.  Over time, the ruling class might even officially recognise these groups, associations, or organisations, assigning them some authority or credibility to maintain the image of gold in society.

The meaning and symbolism of images of gold is never fixed and unchanging.  It is always adapting, shaped by human hopes, human sinfulness, and demonic influences.  Unlike the worship of gods, which is rooted in a history and a story told over time, paying homage to images of gold is transitory and shifting, as befitting the mood of the day and the needs of the hour.  This helps explain why conflicts may emerge amongst various images of gold and their supporters.  We see one such conflict played out between some feminists who maintain the authenticity of biological sex and transgender advocates who see biological sex as fluid and changeable.

Despite the fundamental issues with images of gold, they are not always evil.  As we see in 1 Samuel 5-6, such images of gold may even honour God.  Properly conceived, they may benefit a society.  A national flag might be one such image of gold.  The Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and war memorials (like the Cenotaph in London) are highly revered “images of gold” that promote social cohesion and a common identity that helps people remember who they are, recall their national history, and understand their place in the world.  However, people can distort and pervert any image of gold, even the positive ones.  People can also elevate positive images of gold to quasi-religious status, perverting their benefit to society.  Whenever images of gold demand our ultimate allegiance or obedience, or an allegiance higher than our allegiance to God, then they become harmful and corrupt.

God’s People and the Images of Gold

God's people will always have a strained relationship with images of gold, even with those not inherently evil.  God explicitly forbids bowing down[4] to any image:

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Ex. 20:4-6 ESV) 

Although the word for “image” is different than in Daniel 3, God’s command applies to both types of images.  God’s people must not submit to, worship, or serve images created by people.  Our allegiance belongs to God alone.

Because Christians cannot bow down and pay homage to images of gold, we will always come into a place of conflict with the ruling class and the mandarin class over these images.  The ruling class mandates how people must bow down and pay homage to its images of gold, expecting that the perceived public good of an image should override any private religious observance.  The ruling class will especially not tolerate any allegiance that supersedes paying homage to the images of gold.  As far as the ruling class is concerned, you can believe whatever you want privately as long as you bow down to its images of gold as prescribed publicly.  When we fail or refuse to pay homage to those images of gold as prescribed, we will experience negative consequences.

Because many in the mandarin class depend on various images of gold for their livelihood – and often their sense of personal identity and meaning – they will promote images of gold aggressively.  Most of the conflict Christians experience because of images of gold will come from the mandarin class.  For the mandarin class, it is not enough that we passively respect to the images of gold.  We must actively accept and affirm the images of gold as valid.  Consequently, the mandarin class will use images of gold to accuse and trip up God's people.  Both ruling class and mandarin class will mandate that we bow down and pay homage to images of gold according to the government's guidelines, paying careful attention to any violations, no matter how trivial.

Because we live in Babylon, Christians will encounter many images of gold.  As we see in Daniel 3, dealing with images of gold is literally a life and death matter.  Although people are not likely to lose their lives in Babylon today for resisting an image of gold, we have many examples of people losing their livelihoods, their jobs, their professional relationships, their families, and their resources because they stood up to an image of gold.  Standing up to an image of gold is the true demonstration of “speaking truth to power”.  We must learn from Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.

Learning from Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were brought before Nebuchadnezzar, who challenged them to bow down and pay homage to his image of gold in his presence.  Their answer provides three important insights for Christians living in Babylon today:

“O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter.  If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king.  But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” (Daniel 3:16-18 ESV)

First, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego recognised the futility of debating Nebuchadnezzar about the image of gold.  They said, "we have no need to answer you in this matter", which was not a refusal to answer Nebuchadnezzar but a refusal to justify themselves or defend themselves before Nebuchadnezzar.  They realised that they could offer no justification or self-defence that would satisfy Nebuchadnezzar.  They understood that disputing with the Babylonian ruling class would achieve nothing fruitful.  Nebuchadnezzar would not “agree to disagree”.  They chose not to debate the matter but simply take their stand with firmness and respect.

A few other observations flow from this first insight.  We need a community to survive in Babylon.  Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were standing together as they resisted Babylon's image of gold.  They did not do this alone.  God's people need a supportive community of faith in Babylon to stand against the images of gold in Babylon.  We cannot resist Babylon by ourselves.  We need to be together with God's people.  Although Daniel does not describe a community of faith in the book, the text consistently implies the presence of such a community.

We need to expect opposition and sabotage from the mandarin class in Babylon.  Members of the mandarin class in Babylon were the ones who maliciously accused Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.  People from the mandarin class of Babylon today will bring the primary opposition and sabotage to Christians living in Babylon, especially Christians in leadership.  We must expect this opposition and sabotage so that it does not catch us off guard and vulnerable.  Such opposition and sabotage may even come from those who claim to be "Christian", such as those serving in the mandarin class of denominations and other Christian groups.

We must not seek out conflict in Babylon, but we must not avoid it either.  We do not need to run to a battle over an image of gold, but we must not run from it.  Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were going about their business and conducting their lives with integrity when they were challenged about their failure to bow down and pay homage to the image of gold.  They did not draw attention to their refusal to submit, but they also did not deny it.  Sometimes, it seems that Christians will seek out arguments with others about the various images of gold in society.  They look for conflict and then use all the rhetorical weapons of the world when dealing with it, including dishonesty and personal attacks.  This was not how Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego behaved.

Finally, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego remained calm and respectful throughout their engagement with Nebuchadnezzar.  They did not act arrogantly or presumptuously.  They did not multiply their words in fine sounding arguments.  They did not aggressively “speak truth to power”.  They peacefully and clearly took a stand while showing due deference to Nebuchadnezzar as a member of the ruling class in Babylon.  They showed no hint of anger or animosity toward Nebuchadnezzar.

Putting Our Faith on the Line

Second, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego declared their faith in God, the God who was greater than both the fiery furnace and Nebuchadnezzar himself.  Nebuchadnezzar himself had testified to the greatness of this God in Daniel 2 (see v 47), but clearly he had forgotten.  In making this declaration before Nebuchadnezzar, they put their faith on the line, risking their very lives for their testimony.  They declared that they worshipped a God who was able to deliver them completely.  Whether they lived or died, they had testified to God.  They chose to trust God – even if the fire consumed them.

A couple more observations flow from this second insight.  Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego centred their lives on God.  God received their primary allegiance.  They demonstrated their faith in God by how they lived their lives — and even by how their lives might end.  For Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, God was not an "add-on" to their lives or ancillary to their lives but the primary focus of their lives.  They lived their faith boldly and consistently, so that it was known in Babylon.

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego also determined that God alone would receive the glory.  Their deliverance belonged to God, not a combination of God and their own effort.  They recognised that God alone had called them, and God alone could save them.  They faithfully sought to give glory to God despite the outcome, whether they lived or they died.

No Compromise

Third, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to compromise their obedience to God.  In many respects, the easiest solution for them would have been to bow down and pay homage to the image of gold as Nebuchadnezzar had requested, knowing that a brief taking the knee would have resulted in their freedom.  After that, in all likelihood they could have resumed their faithful service of God without challenge or question by the Babylonian mandarin class.  Instead, they refused to compromise even a little, accepting whatever consequences might come to them accordingly.

A few more observations flow from this third insight as well.  Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to compromise their personal integrity.  They were not haughty or arrogant.  They maintained humility.  But they absolutely refused to compromise who they were as God’s people even slightly.  They recognised that a little compromise would have given a big opening to the influence of Babylon.  They understood that their personal integrity was paramount in Babylon.  Christians and churches who compromise with Babylon ultimately become infected with Babylonian values and ideas, weakening both their integrity and their witness to Jesus Christ.

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego understood that "compromise" was dangerous in Babylon.  When we were living in "Jerusalem", a society that promoted Christian values, we could view compromise as a positive way to resolve various issues.  We could discuss and debate knowledge and ideas with an understanding that if we only worked together then we might achieve something that benefits everyone.  Such compromise is not possible in Babylon, where even the basis of knowledge and information is fundamentally questioned and challenged. 

Finally, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were willing to pay the price for their integrity, without complaining.  They understood that they could die.  The heat of the fiery furnace was evident and powerful.  If we stand against the images of gold in Babylon, then we might die — or lose our job, home, dignity, wealth, or freedom.  We might die — or we might get promoted, which is what happened to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.  However, their promotion only came after they refused to compromise and after God had delivered them from the furnace, a place of death.

Be Ready

We need to prepare ourselves as Christian leaders.  Increasingly, the mandarin class will use images of gold as loyalty tests and reasons to oppress, harass and exclude us when we refuse to bow down and pay homage to the images of gold.  If (when) Christians do compromise, people will use our compromise regarding images of gold as a reason to discredit or discount the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Bible as God’s Word.  The ruling class will use images of gold as litmus tests of our character and qualifications for leadership.  If we do not meet those litmus tests, then people will disqualify us from leadership.  This is already happening in Babylon today.  Christian leaders who stand firm and refuse to back down will go into the fire.  As we bear witness for the truth in our lives and speak truth to power – the truth that Jesus Christ is the Lord – we must trust God for our deliverance. 

[1] Speak Truth to Power: A Quaker Search for an Alternative to Violence, p 59.

[2] Ibid., p 70.

[3] See my essay in this series, “The People of Babylon”, for a description of the mandarin class.

[4] “Bowing down” here is a different word than “bowing down” in Daniel 3, more often (though not exclusively) used in the sense of “worship”.