Advertise on podcast: New Persuasive Words

What if the deepest divide between conservatives and liberals isn’t simply about policy, but about time? Conservatives often locate America’s promise in an inherited past—its founding principles, traditions, institutions, and moral order. Liberals are more likely to locate that promise in an unrealized future: a more equal, inclusive, and just society that America has yet to become. In this episode, Scott and Bill explore these competing visions through the theological concepts of protology and eschatology. Protology asks about first things: creation, original order, and what went wrong. Eschatology asks about last things: redemption, fulfillment, and the destination toward which history is moving. Is the conservative project a search for a lost Eden? Does liberalism transform politics into a pursuit of the promised kingdom? What happens when the right romanticizes the past or the left treats progress as inevitable? Scott and Bill consider whether American politics can hold memory and hope together. A nation cannot live entirely in its memories, but neither can it survive without a vision of what it might become.

Scott and Bill head back to ancient Greece—by way of Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey. They explore what Nolan does with Homer’s strange, violent, morally complicated epic and take up a provocative debate sparked by Ben Shapiro and Ezra Klein: Has Nolan “Christianized” The Odyssey? What happens when a pagan story about glory, cunning, fate, and the gods is reframed around guilt, mercy, homecoming, and redemption? Is Nolan imposing a Christian moral universe on Homer—or revealing themes that were already hiding in plain sight? Along the way, Scott and Bill talk myth, movies, Christianity, modern politics, and why stories written nearly three thousand years ago still have the power to tell us something unsettling about ourselves.

In this episode of New Persuasive Words, Scott Jones and Bill Borror wrestle with one of theology's oldest and most unsettling questions: the scandal of particularity. Prompted by a provocative argument from Israeli philosopher Yoram Hazony, they ask whether the Enlightenment's quest for universal reason came at the cost of dismissing the particular people, stories, and traditions through which faith has always been lived. Hazony contends that Enlightenment thinkers viewed the Hebrew Bible as an obstacle to universal morality because of its stubborn insistence on a chosen people, a promised land, and a God who acts within the concrete history of a particular nation. Scott and Bill explore whether this critique gets the Enlightenment right—and whether Christianity itself can ever escape the scandal of God's choosing one people, one place, and ultimately one person in Jesus of Nazareth. Is particularity the enemy of justice, or the very condition that makes love possible? Can genuine universality exist without first embracing the local, the historical, and the embodied? Along the way, the conversation touches on Jewish-Christian relations, the legacy of the Enlightenment, nationalism and cosmopolitanism, and why every attempt to erase particular identities often creates new forms of exclusion. A conversation about election, universality, and the strange possibility that the path to what is truly universal always begins somewhere unmistakably particular.

What happens when theology stops shaping private belief and begins organizing public power? Scott and Bill examine the growing influence of Doug Wilson, the religious currents reshaping American conservatism, and the uneasy relationship between faith, politics, and democracy. Moving between current events, history, and theology, they explore how ideas once confined to the margins are finding new cultural and political influence—and what that means for the future of American public life.

In a cultural and political moment defined by outrage, division, and uncertainty, hope can feel naïve—or even impossible. But what if hope isn't wishful thinking? What if it's an act of courage? In this episode, Bill and Scott explore why hope matters now more than ever. Together, they wrestle with the temptation to give in to cynicism, the exhaustion of living through constant political conflict, and the challenge of remaining compassionate in a deeply polarized society. Drawing from faith, history, and personal experience, they discuss how hope isn't about denying reality but finding the strength to face it honestly while believing that a better future is still possible. Whether you're feeling discouraged by the headlines, weary from cultural battles, or simply looking for a reason to keep believing in people, this conversation offers an invitation to reclaim hope—not as optimism, but as a practice that can sustain us through uncertain times.

In this episode of New Persuasive Words, Scott and Bill wade into the moral fog of war, asking an old question that never quite stays settled: when, if ever, is war justified? Using the framework of Just War Theory, they unpack the escalating conflict between Donald Trump and Iran, and the public tension between Trump and Pope Leo. Is this war defensible under traditional criteria like just cause, proportionality, and last resort—or are those categories breaking down in real time? And what happens when political power collides with spiritual authority over the meaning of justice itself? Expect sharp analysis, a few irreverent detours, and a conversation that refuses easy answers. Because if Just War Theory is supposed to clarify our moral vision, this moment might be testing its limits.

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

Is the war with Iran actually a religious war? That’s the explosive question posed by Tucker Carlson in a viral clip that has ricocheted across the internet. In the video, Carlson suggests that beneath the geopolitical rhetoric—nuclear weapons, regional stability, national security—there may be something deeper and more dangerous at play: religious narratives about holy sites, prophecy, and the possibility of rebuilding the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. In this episode of New Persuasive Words, Scott and Bill react to Carlson’s question and ask what it reveals about the current moment. Are religious ideas actually shaping foreign policy—or is this just another conspiracy-flavored explanation for a complicated geopolitical conflict? Along the way, they unpack the strange alliance of nationalism, theology, and online discourse that now frames debates about Iran, Israel, and America’s role in the Middle East. Is Carlson raising an uncomfortable question… or just lighting another rhetorical fire? Scott and Bill dig in.

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

In this week’s episode, Bill and Scott unpack The Atlantic’s provocative analysis of how Charlie Kirk’s assassination has reshaped the conservative movement and exposed deep ideological fractures within the Trump-aligned right. Drawing from Yair Rosenberg’s Atlantic article, “The Second Death of Charlie Kirk,” they examine how Kirk’s absence has opened space for previously marginalized figures — including extremists and provocateurs — to vie for influence and redefine the coalition’s boundaries. Bill and Scott explore questions at the heart of contemporary American politics: • Was Kirk the glue holding together a diverse — if fraught — conservative coalition? • How are debates over antisemitism, ideology, and legitimacy playing out between figures like Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, and Nick Fuentes? • What does the rising prominence of antisemitic rhetoric within parts of the right mean for the future of conservative persuasion and political identity?

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

This week, Bill and Scott take on Ross Douthat’s conversation with Ryan Burge and ask whether the story we’ve been telling about America’s religious collapse is actually wrong—or at least wildly incomplete. If the “nones” are leveling off, what replaces the old secularization narrative? Is Christianity really dying, or just losing its cultural monopoly? And what does it say about us that astrology, psychedelics, and UFOs are filling the spiritual vacuum? Bill and Scott spar over the data, the myths we tell about belief, and what this weird religious moment reveals about the future of faith and American life.

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

In this episode of New Persuasive Words, Scott and Bill tackle one of the most provocative conversations of the moment: Ezra Klein’s interview with Texas State Representative James Talarico about reclaiming Christianity for the left and what that really means for the faith and for politics. Klein brings Talarico — a seminary student and rising national voice — onto his show to explore how his Christian faith animates his politics and his critique of both the “rage economy” and Christian nationalism. At the heart of the discussion is a fundamental question: How does Talarico define Christianity — and is that definition substantively theological, or simply a window into progressive public ethics? According to Talarico, the core of the Christian life is grounded in Jesus’ two great commandments — to love God and love neighbor — and this, he argues, should shape how we approach every civic issue, from health care to economic justice. Scott and Bill dive into this expansive, love-centered portrayal of the faith and ask whether it risks reducing Christianity to a set of progressive policy goals and public ethics. Talarico openly suggests that Jesus didn’t speak to many of the flashpoint cultural issues of today and that Christians need to derive moral bearings from broader commitments to neighbor-love and justice — a stance that many see as a meaningful reorientation, while others worry it sidelines core theological claims. The hosts also explore how Talarico’s faith-driven politics compares to traditional Christian doctrinal anchors and whether his version of Christianity stands as a distinct theological vision or rather a moral framing for left-of-center politics. This episode will be essential listening for anyone curious about faith in public life, the limits of religious language in pluralist politics, and whether Christianity can be persuasive without being partisan.

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