November 11, 2024

The New Right-Wing Paganism: Bronze Age Pagan Masculinity

Ideological feminists and other modern Leftists routinely accuse biblical Christians and sociopolitical conservatives of misogyny on account of their support for biblical or traditional male-female distinctions. The guiding tenet of contemporary Leftism is egalitarianism,1 particularly sexual egalitarianism, which demands across-the-board equality of men and women, not legal equality (which has been pervasive in the West for many decades and reflects the biblical view), but existential equality — there are no ontologically rooted differences between men and women that dictate some distinct callings and roles.

In the creation order man and woman are equally made in God’s image, equally valuable in his sight, and equally charged with stewarding his creation — but are not called to do all things equally. The divinely established natural order itself (in biblical terms, creation) must yield to the Leftist utopian dream that differences between men and women are merely social constructions invented by a hegemonic patriarchy remedied by monstrosities like womb-encasing males and phalloplasty-re-engineered females.

The fact that anybody with two eyes can discern there are obvious and insurmountable differences between men and women, which no surgery can mask or erase, has done nothing to impede the bizarre Leftist ideology at war with the cosmos. The cosmos will win that war.

Since this Leftist egalitarianism has gained the upper hand in Western culture, the leading political component, in fact, of the larger Sexual Revolution since the 1960s, we should not be surprised at the emergence of a conservative counter-revolution reasserting male-female differences and traditional social hierarchies. The impulses behind this reaction are warranted: sexual egalitarianism assaults God’s creational order and sows social chaos.

However, since the counter-revolutionaries are usually not guided by the word of God but by alien, worldly presuppositions, they offer no cure for the disease, and in some cases, their alternative proposal is every bit as injurious as the disease itself. An ingenious insight of Christian philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd is that apostate thought always swings between a “dialectic” of opposing poles that absolutize some aspect of the temporal order. Since apostates deny the absoluteness of the word of God, they have only the shifting sand of the temporal world on which to stand.2 They end up with one foot planted and then quickly unsettled, only to plant a foot in the opposite direction, with equally unsettling results. The Leftist egalitarianism and the conservative counter-revolution are equally futile attempts at a foothold in quicksand.

Since, in review, Leftist egalitarianism is based in modern secularism, the conservative counter-revolutionaries look around for alternative foundations resisting it. Since they refuse to submit to the word of God, they are open to alien alternatives just as spurious as secularism. One of them is ancient paganism. Enter the Bronze Age Mindset.

The Bronze Age Mindset

Bronze Age Mindset (BAM) is both a book3 and a movement targeting young white right-wing males. The author (who also hosts a wildly popular website of the same name) designates himself the anonymous Bronze Age Pervert. He has since been widely identified as the Romanian-American far-right figure Costin Vlad Alamariu. He holds a Ph.D. from Yale, and his dissertation was titled “The Problem of Tyranny and Philosophy in the Thought of Plato and Nietzsche.”

BAM romanticizes, embellishes, and seeks to revive the spirit of the ancient pagan world in countering the evils of modern Western civilization, which it sees as terminally diseased and fit only for a quick and violent death. Christians who have correctly pinpointed the emergence of neopaganism from the Left,4 notably in its sexually egalitarian feature, might be surprised at the seemingly out-of-nowhere emergence of a competing right-wing version. But BAM is every bit as pagan as Leftist neopaganism and by far more explicit. The book is a rambling, punchy, raunchy, occasionally intellectually coherent argument against modernity, feminism, human equality of all sorts, and, notably, biblical Christianity. To BAM, the hope for humanity is a revival of a very pagan past.

The Bronze Age Males

The vanguard of that pagan revival is a cadre of robust, muscle-bound, beautiful young males animated by the “life force” of nature. BAM is animist (a supernatural principle pervades all life), pantheist (god is nature itself), and vitalist (life is dependent on a principle beyond chemical or physical forces). It holds that to deny the one God is not to deny the gods. Indeed, the beautiful young white muscular males will themselves become the new gods (“[m]any of the Greek heroes and gods had fair hair and blue or grey eyes,” Alamariu alerts the reader). They will cultivate their deity by “sun and steel”: lying in the sun every day and soaking up its health-producing power and, in fact, becoming sun-worshipers. In tandem, they must take up a regimen of weightlifting to enhance the godlike beauty of their physique. “Only physical beauty,” Alamariu opines, “is the foundation for a true higher culture of the mind and spirit as well. Only sun [worship] and steel [weightlifting] will show you the path.” Beautiful male bodies are the pinnacle of nature, “the body in its glorious and divine beauty.” In this Bronze world, females are subordinate creatures whose consummation of sexual desire drains young males of life-force. Therefore, girlfriends and marriage should, at best, be a tangent, necessary evil. Life’s real focus should be the formation of a camaraderie of young, white, muscular pirates and the domination of all inferiors, that is, all who are not other Bronze Age Males.

Pirates? Yes. They do not support themselves by work or vocation but rather by piracy — they pillage and take at will. Work, sweat, and toil are debasing; the pirate is the original form of the “free man.” They revel in a world they create, a world of absolute freedom on which they impose their will to power. Parents must, therefore, allow sons freedom from any oversight to express their life-force in our otherwise decadent world. Eventually, they will grow up to create a white ethnostate of their own, separate from the rest of human civilization, which they will visit occasionally to solve its recurrent problems and to exert their inexorable will. Let it never be supposed, therefore, that utopianism is an exclusively Leftist concept. BAM is right-wing pagan utopianism at its zenith.

The ultimate cause of all modern decadence is feminism, Alamariu contends, and we live in a “gynocracy,” the rule of women. The only way out of this “absolute hell” and “iron prison” of modernity is a reversion to ancient pagan animas and pantheism, recognizing that the basic truth of humanity is the life-force we must cultivate in impressionable but spiritually, psychologically, and sociologically hungry young men.

Modifying Darwin and Aping Nietzsche

BAM argues a modified Darwinist but almost entirely Nietzschean view of history.  Alamariu agrees entirely with Darwin’s naturalism that the world is nothing but materiality. However, he accuses Darwin and Darwinists of lacking the courage of their convictions in the reluctance to support their survival of the fittest thesis as it consistently applies to humans. Of course, the original Social Darwinism, in its commitment to eugenics, was more consistent and courageous, though insufficiently so. BAM, by contrast, champions a Darwinist teleology (design toward a goal). Nature itself has its own goal, the triumph of superior humans, that is, young, beautiful, muscular white males. That is the Darwinism the Bronze Age Males must revive and commandeer.

History is not a natural progression from benightedness to enlightenment. Rather, as Nietzsche believed, it is cyclical. We will always have the enlightened and unenlightened with us, and the ancient world was populated by wiser and more enlightened individuals than exist today (“supermen”). This is why BAM espouses reincarnation. The conscious goal of the BAM is to revive their spirit. “Because of reincarnation,” he declares, “greatness can be instantaneously reborn.” Therefore, though naturalistic, BAM must advocate vitalism: the very old theory that a mysterious life principle within the natural order relentlessly impels it toward a self-sustaining and -perpetuating goal. BAM meets its paradox of holding simultaneously to both naturalism and teleology (how can a purely materialistic nature possibly have a design or goal?) by suggesting that while humans are biologically determined, we are still responsible because there is no one else to be responsible. There is nothing but nature, yet nature always favors Bronze Age Males, destined for world domination. This is the teleology and eschatology of BAM. We cannot successfully fight nature, but we can harness it.

BAM apes Nietzsche in insisting there is no transcendent morality given by God or his revelation in either creation or the Bible. The only morality is biological hierarchy. The superior humans, the supermen, impose their will on the rest of the world. In the Bible, the basic human impulse is the God-given cultural mandate (Gen. 1:28–30), exercising benevolent dominion over the non-human creation under God’s authority and for his glory. For the youthful Bronze Age Males, the cultural mandate is perverted into the quest for more “living space.” Young men need room to exercise their superiority, and they expropriate it as warriors akin to ancient pirates. (This sounds precisely like the rationale for war in most traditional societies.)

BAM epistemology (view of knowledge) reflects the deep imprint of Nietzsche. The intellect is simply an expression of will, which is a concentration of life-force. Channeling the Nazi court philosopher Martin Heidegger, Alamariu writes, “Direct perception is already intellectualized.” He means that how we perceive things is determined by the kind of being we are. The more of the life-force we concentrate and cultivate, the more we perceive the world as it really is. We do not experience the world and then interpret it; our embodied being makes our particular interpretation possible, an interpretation impossible to a different, lower kind of human being. Alamariu states, “The intellect is a purely physical quality like muscular strength.” By becoming physically superior, we become intellectually superior. (The quadriplegic Stephen Hawking must have been an outlier.)

The Western world, like the ancient world, despises Bronze Age Males, and works to deprivilege, subjugate, and crush them whenever possible. Its leaders hatch conspiracies to control and subjugate everyone else. They rewrite history such that what we today recognize as objective historical fact is actually a sophisticated modern myth. History rightly grasped is actually an account of the battles and triumphs of Bronze Age Males and their superior world.

In its place have emerged the “bugmen,” who suppress the life-force and misdirect and pervert that natural energy into attacks on human superiority. These conspirators have crafted the calm, tranquil, egalitarian society of human rights, freedom within law, and equality of all humanity, including women. This is simply hatred for nature itself. BAM believes natural law should prevail everywhere and that law, if observed, will lead to the ubiquitous superiority of beautiful young white muscular males. He writes, “Youth and beauty are universally hated in all human societies in history. These societies are run by decrepit, sclerotic old men.” What constitutes youth? Well, you are over the hill if you’re in your 30s — middle-aged bodies nauseate nature. BAM counsels its young acolytes not to reason with their opponents (he laments the Western “development of logos and reason”) but to ridicule them: “[M]ake the enemy look ridiculous … dour, old, sclerotic, ugly, and pedantic,” and never to underestimate the value of “a good prank.”

One way the Bronze Age Males disrupt the current egalitarian regime is to capture the spirit of cultural chaos — prostitutes, drug addicts, rapists, and murderers. The superior males must immerse themselves in the deepest depravity to tap into nature’s power to sow chaos, which they must unleash to gain world control: “a whore puts cocaine on your tongue, and you feel true power.” They must spend time with this despised underclass, which manifests in suppressed form the genuine spirit of the life-force that has been marginalized by the Western egalitarian regime. “In your life,” Alamariu declares, “you can break their [the bugmen’s] power and ascend to a chaos of joy and destruction.” Nihilism never sounded more delicious — the ecstasy of the destruction of everything and the return to nature and natural law spawned by the impulse within society’s most depraved.

The real world is not civilization and culture. The real world is uninhibited nature. The natural society is a “brotherhood of the free youths.” There must be a “holy war” against the enemies of the youthful gods and their uninhibited life-force. Natural law must triumph.

Bronze Age Politics

BAM envisions a rigidly hierarchical social order with a certain kind of superior human (the Bronze Age Male) at the apex. But every social order implies a secondary yet important political order, and the Bronze Age political order coheres precisely with its social vision. It cannot be democratic, and by this BAM does not mean the sort of pure democracy that the Anglo-American tradition deplored, but, rather, precisely the sort of classically liberal order espoused by England and the United States and the modern West: the rule of law; constitutions and bills of rights; religious, political and economic liberty; negotiated politics; peaceful political transitions; and so forth. This classical liberalism leads to the egalitarian decadence we see around us, including ethnic heterogeneity. There is no way to create the BAM ethnostate without eliminating this Western, Christian-shaped constitutional democracy.

In the piratical world of the BAM, “the only right government is military government… We need warlord rule,” Alamariu advises. And in actuality, the rationale for classical liberalism is just a conspiratorial veneer designed to cover up its own sordid will to power. The U.S. Founders, for example, were merely seeking “dominion and freedom of space to expand.” They couldn’t care less about a constitution, individual rights, free speech and press as they altruistically claimed. Like Nietzsche, BAM suggests that behind the curtain of every political rationale is the wizard imposing a will to power. While the most biblical political order possible in a fallen world is one of principled liberty and self-government within the bounds of law (ultimately God’s law), the BAM political order is government by the young, beautiful, body-building, sun-worshiping elite gods imposing their will on their inferiors. The only free citizens must be the governing pirate class.

The Bronze Age Mentality Versus Christianity

BAM’s conspiratorial view of history leads it to distrust Christian history. Actually, suggests Alamariu, Christianity likely began as paganism and was only later contorted into a theological system at the center of which rules a single deity imposing universal ethics. This was the nefarious work of Christian theologians and historians. Because of the instability and subjectivity of Christian history, argues Alamariu, “Christianity is a versatile faith, capable of many interpretations.” Not that Christianity lacked any exhibition of paganism at all. Most Christian historians and theologians are ashamed (for example) of the conquistadors, but they, in fact, manifested the pagan life-force under the guise of the Christian Faith. Still, Christian history, in general, is designed to crush the life-force in man. (This also was Nietzsche’s take, by the way.)

By its very nature, therefore, BAM must repudiate the heart and soul of Christianity. The Bible is a texture of myths. Christ is not a hero because true heroes never sacrifice; they take territory. Man is not created in God’s image, because there is no God to create anything. There is no creation. Matter is eternal. There is no resurrection, only reincarnation. Perhaps Alamariu’s most explicitly anti-Christian tenet, however, is found in his statement that

So much of this [monotheistic] story makes time a line and makes matter conditional on a deity or creator that lives outside it: the creation of matter out of nothing, the creation of your soul out of nothing. Matter is dead, and in some ways, homogeneous, and its meaning is “divine” only in the sense that it reveals the creation of the external deity, or even better, just the laws he made to govern. It seems and feels wrong, or runs against the immediate perception of the world, so it requires faith, a concept unknown to ancient pagans of all kinds. For this reason, the Romans considered Christians and Jews to be no different from atheists. (emphasis in original)

BAM is thoroughly existentialist. There is only this material world and what we (especially the Bronze Age Males) make of it. There can be no faith. WYSIAYG: What you see is all you get. And what you get is a divinized nature: there is no benevolent, sovereign Creator and Redeemer God behind it and working within it all.

But God’s word tells us that without faith, it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). Therefore, BAM is blatantly contra-Christian. The reason the imperial Romans considered Christians atheists is not because the Christians believed in faith but because they repudiated all the false gods of the ancient world and demanded allegiance to the one true God.5 In other words, the primitive Christians were considered atheists precisely because of their explicit repudiation of the kind of religion BAM is trying to revive.

The Bronze Age Mentality Christians and Conservatives

This contra-Christianity has not prevented BAM from influencing modern sociopolitical conservatism and conservative Christianity. Just as androgynous paganism has deeply infiltrated the Left, so Bronze Age paganism has influenced significant sectors of the Right, including the Christian Right. Matthew Continetti has shown how the New Right6 has become suspiciously like the New Left in its statist lunge. The New Right is an influential, mostly younger segment of American conservatism convinced the American Founding Protestant experiment of liberty under law has been a failure (“as momentous as this founding was, it is also where our current trouble began” 7) and must be supplanted by a new conservative statism that crushes its Leftist enemies by any means possible.8 Continetti says:

The first thing to say about the New Right is that it can get weird. Its ranks are composed almost entirely of men. They inhabit a social-media cocoon where they talk a lot about manhood, and strength, and manliness, and push-ups, and masculinity, and virility, and weight-lifting, and testosterone. “Wrestling should be mandated in middle schools,” write Arthur Milikh and Scott Yenor in the [New Right] collection Up from Conservatism. “Students should learn to build and shoot guns as part of a normal course of action in schools and learn how to grow crops and prepare them for meals. Every male student should learn to skin an animal and every female to milk a cow.”9

The influence of BAM is palpable, whether most in the New Right have read the book or not. The New Right is not simply opposed to sexual egalitarianism (as it should be). In addition, it advocates “muscular” politics, meaning the abandonment of the biblical idea of the rule of law applying to all equally, checks and balances on political power (since politicians, too, are depraved, even those on “our” side), and the state’s role as limited to protecting life and liberty and property. The New Right wants to out-Left the Left at its political power game. Virtue is the exercise of coercive political power. Virtuous liberty be damned.

Conservative Christianity has not been spared the poison tentacles of BAM. A leading platform is the American Reformer, a cadre of youngish Protestants who blame the Protestant political philosophy of classical liberalism (liberty under law) for the evils of modern culture. Human freedom leads to sin; therefore, freedom must be abolished. (Apparently, God himself was mistaken to give Adam and Eve free will in the garden.)

“Christian Vitalism”

Christian Winter writes in American Reformer that young men are attracted to BAM because it offers a counter to the confines of modernity in its non-hierarchical, egalitarian order. What we need is a modified vitalism, not BAM’s pagan version, of course, but a revival of nature, which leads to human flourishing. We need to set before the eyes of young men, not the heroes and gods of ancient Greece and Rome but Christian forefathers of masculine fortitude.

Winter argues that theory and theology are insufficient to persuade these young men. They need before their eyes muscular, masculine, overcoming Christian heroes they can emulate. The idea of enlisting Christian heroes is indeed a noble objective (just read Hebrews 11), but the quick, makeshift strategy of “Christian Vitalism” in the face of the popularity of BAM as the best way to appeal to young men and forestall their gravitation to pagan vitalism is what Francis Schaeffer called a “form of the world spirit.”10 It seems a “seeker-sensitive” program for the 21st century among the very people who would have derided Bill Hybels of Willow Creek and Rick Warren of Saddleback for fashioning an ideal faith to appeal to the unchurched “seekers.”

While correlation is not causation, it is highly suspicious that “Christian Vitalism” just seemed magically to appear after and as a consequence of BAM. And it would seem less selective or even disingenuous if its heroes included obese Christian intellectuals like G. K. Chesterton, emaciated Christian prisoners like famed Bulgarian pastor Haralan Popov, and urbane and modest Christian poets like Gerard Manly Hopkins. I suspect, however, that these mighty Christian men are not the sort of male Christian heroes Winter has in mind.

This Christian-modified vitalism veers toward a new syncretism, the attempted fusion of biblical faith and pagan religion. If unchecked, it will be no less poisonous than the syncretism of ancient Israel when it attempted to fuse biblical-covenantal faith to the religion of the surrounding pagan nations. God abhors syncretism, and he sent his prophets to both plead with Israel and fulminate against its apostasy. Let us pray that “Christian Vitalism” reconsiders before it walks itself into the syncretist camp.

Recently Jeffery J. Ventrella, Senior Fellow of the Ezra Institute and noted Christian leader, posted on Facebook a reminder to the young Christian masculinists talking so much about the necessity of weightlifting that physical fitness, while creditable, is not a fruit of the Spirit. I re-posted his statement. The pushback was swift and severe. One of the nation’s young Christian masculinist leaders wrote privately begging me not to support this warning since I would alienate my audience of young men influenced by Christian masculinity (which, in reality, is the syncretistic “Christian Vitalism”). I responded that truth is truth and my interest has never been in avoiding offending a sector of my audience succumbing to sinful, worldly temptations.

It is, moreover, difficult to believe Christian-modified vitalism has grappled with the issues surrounding how the Bible’s teaching on masculinity (what of it there is; 95% of the Bible’s commands are not sex-specific) applies in an informational and postindustrial world. The Bible’s exhortations to and expectations of strength with reference to men are not arguments levelled against the sort of egalitarian and androgynous society presently afflicting the West. To argue, as many conservatives today, for the proper “roles” of men and women is to surrender the battle already. In the words of David Polansky:

Once we acknowledge the need to establish masculine roles is more pressing than the need for masculinity itself, the cat’s already out of the bag. We can argue, for example, that certain gender roles are salutary or desirable, but having admitted to ourselves that these are in fact roles, they necessarily lose their seriousness. It all becomes a kind of elaborate game. This is, incidentally, why the “trad” [traditionalist] accounts one finds on social media [like BAM] have the feeling of camp. The men are caricatures of manliness, just as the women are caricatures of womanhood. They have the same uncanny feeling one gets from encountering AI.11

In God’s creational world (even a fallen one not overrun by egalitarianism), masculinity is not a “role” to be recovered but a natural existence. How that looks in an age divinely blessed with labour-saving devices like automobiles and smartphones is not identical to how it looks in a premodern age that requires most men to skin a sheep for clothing, forge a wheel for transportation, or fall a tree for shelter. If it is necessary to revive an age that requires robust physical strength for everyday tasks, the Bible’s authority and application are severely emaciated. The man’s strength as a customer-serving warrior in the economy of contemporary culture and the wealth of free markets with which God has blessed the West, for example, is just as masculine as his strength had to be in premodern cultures. Assuming the physical strength necessary for modern bricklayers is the sort young Christian men need to aspire to impoverishes the Bible’s authority and dismisses vast areas of contemporary culture that require a different kind and measure of man’s strength.

If young Christian men are seeking guidance in our apostate egalitarian age, they should start with the book of the Bible, written specifically and explicitly to young men: the book of Proverbs. This book teaches that the true man is the man of God, and the man of God is the man of wisdom. Not a muscled physique but a righteous life is the mark of the true man. Care for the body is, of course, a biblical imperative since the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (we must never be body-hating Gnostics). However, physical fitness is not a fruit of the Spirit, and if young males wish to become true men, they must begin with the fear of the Lord, not with a CrossFit regimen. This syncretistic adaptation of BAM to Christianity, the book of Proverbs, would identify as folly, whose end is destruction.

Conclusion

Opposition to the pervasive egalitarian, sociocultural regime of our time is a Christian imperative. Biblical Christianity is simply not compatible with sexual egalitarianism, but in Jerry Bowyer’s metaphor, we cannot simply put the car in reverse; it is futile to traverse backwards on the road that led us to our present debacle in the first place. Rather, he suggests, we should do our best to “loop around” to get back to a biblically hierarchical time — which is by no means identical to a pagan anti-egalitarian time.

In this sense, we must be non-egalitarian and not anti-egalitarian. Anti-egalitarianism carries in its bosom not just an aversion to the sexual egalitarianism of our time but also concessions both to the kind of thinking that got us here and to the battle tactics necessary to combat the present destination. In other words, anti-egalitarianism is a unique modern position possible only in the aftermath of egalitarian apostasy. It is not an older biblical non-egalitarianism. Although we cannot pretend as though the apostasy never occurred, we should do our best to restore the sort of thinking culturally prominent before egalitarianism came along. That certainly is not modern pagan anti-egalitarianism.

Non-egalitarianism is rooted in the creational order: recognition of men and women equally bearing God‘s image but created to fulfill diverse callings as they share the cultural mandate. The woman was made for the man, and the man was not made for the woman, but the man knows he is incomplete without the woman and knows that his very life is bound up in hers, just as hers is in his (1 Cor. 11:8–12). Therefore, he leads, and he doesn’t dominate. Non-egalitarianism, therefore, is just as distant from the Christianized version of the Bronze Age Mindset (which is not the simple restoration of an ancient pagan way of thinking but rather the appropriation of that thinking to very unique, postmodern circumstances) as it is from modern apostate sexual egalitarianism.

Machismo and the misogyny it spawns are the marks of a mindset no less revolutionary than secular egalitarianism and the ideological feminism it exhibits. Both spring from rebellion against God’s word and Christ’s Lordship. The destiny of apostate thinking is to swing incessantly between two or more poles of intellectual insurrection, assuming it can avoid one by adopting its opposite. In reality, all contra-biblical thinking is of the same species — man’s rebellion against God and his revelation doomed for destruction and judgment apart from repentance.

Within the present secular egalitarian regime, the imperative of biblical Christians is to resist anti-egalitarianism (and its attendant Christianized version of the BAM) and work to restore non-egalitarianism. That restoration will equally restore truly biblical masculinity.

Footnotes

  1. Kenneth Minogue, The Servile Mind (New York and London: Encounter Books), 2010, 296.
  2. Herman Dooyeweerd, Roots of Western Culture (Ancaster, Ontario, Canada: Paideia Press, 2012), 12–15.
  3. Independently published, 2018. I’m working from the Kindle edition.
  4. See Peter Jones, Capturing the Pagan Mind (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman, 2003).
  5. Larry W. Hurtado, Destroyer of the Gods (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2016), 37–76.
  6. James M. Patterson, “Is the New Right Fascist?”, Religion & Liberty, Summer 2003, 14–25.
  7. Jason Michael Morgan, “The Pernicious Myth of ‘Two Americas,’” Chronicles, October 2017, 12.
  8. Derek Suszko, “The Problem of Libertarianism,” The St. Croix Review, Vol. LV, No. 4 [August/September 2022], 4–8.
  9. Matthew Continetti, “The Left of the Right,” https://www.commentary.org/articles/matthew-continetti/new-right-vs-conservatism/?fbclid=IwAR1dvXqqGBECuQCKivGb3E9PfJ-C140sQMH3HTwzMD9mWjv4LYs-997IALM_aem_ASWQgQFCU42Uamu1iPt4WV2TBzP-0oHCrgfPuT9rACuFPtVzs22MJ_v3ay3Plr8qswg, accessed October 2, 2013.
  10. Francis A. Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway, 1984), 111–140.
  11. David Polansky, “No End of Men,” Washington Examiner, October 3, 2023, 54.
Resource Type:
Series:

N/A

Scripture:

N/A

Media Format:

N/A