An Attempt to Destroy Judeo-Christianity (Part 3): What Happens When We Stop Believing in Consequences?

By Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland

What happens to a culture when it stops believing actions have real outcomes? In this episode of The Smith and Rowland Show, Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland connect that question to a bigger fight over Judeo-Christian ethics, theology, and public life. Their main point is simple: grace is real, forgiveness is real, and consequences are also real.

They argue that when a society tries to erase consequences, it also weakens responsibility, justice, and moral clarity. That shift does not stay private, it shows up in families, relationships, and even national policy.

Why the fight over Judeo-Christian ethics feels louder right now

A big part of this conversation starts with what the hosts are hearing in media and podcast culture. They bring up Megyn Kelly and her comments about Jews, including the line "she didn't know why she favored the Jews," other than what she had been taught. The hosts treat that as a warning sign, not because questions are always wrong, but because the question often has a direction. When people "rethink" long-held moral ideas, the end result can be a break from the roots that shaped them in the first place.

They also mention hearing younger voices push back on foreign intervention. On one level, they agree. They do not want outside nations involved in America's internal affairs, and they also do not want America entangled in everyone else's affairs. Still, they warn that the topic can become careless fast, especially when the discussion turns toward Israel and the Jewish roots of Christianity.

A few themes they call out in what they are hearing include:

• A rising sense of entitlement, including frustration that older generations do not "get it."
• A broad rejection of outside influence, even when the reasons and history are complex.
• A willingness to flatten distinctions, treating every nation and every issue as if it carries the same meaning.

This episode is part three of their series on what they see as a brewing battle over Judeo-Christian values. In their view, the argument is not just political. It is also theological, and it is tied to a long-running debate inside the church.

Replacement theology and the fight over God's covenants

The hosts connect today's cultural conflict to a church conflict that goes back to the earliest centuries. They describe replacement theology as a false teaching that claims the church replaced Israel. They also connect it to Jesus' warnings that false prophets and false teachers would come.

One reason they think the debate stays confusing is language. People often choose nicer terms for hard claims. In this case, they point to the phrase "covenant theology" as a softer label that can hide what is really being said. Their complaint is blunt: if someone teaches that the church replaced Israel, then they are not defending God's covenants with Israel. They are opposing them.

They even make it memorable with a wordplay argument. If a person is against the covenants, how can they call it covenant theology? They say a more honest name would be "anti-covenant theology."

To summarize how they frame the issue:

1. Jesus warned about false teachers, and they see replacement teaching in that category.
2. Polite labels can mask hard claims, which makes debate harder to follow.
3. Bad theology has real-world effects, because what people believe shapes what they excuse.

For them, this is not a side argument for Bible scholars. It is part of the reason they think Judeo-Christian ethics is under pressure. When the church loses its grip on God's promises and covenants, society does not gain clarity. It gains confusion, and confusion rarely stays harmless.

Jordan Peterson's point: without Judeo-Christian ethics, something else fills the gap

The hosts mention hearing Jordan Peterson in a lecture from over a year earlier. His claim, as they describe it, is that the Judeo-Christian ethic in America helped save Western civilization from totalitarianism and Marxism. In other words, if that moral framework collapses, something else takes its place.

They treat that as confirmation of their earlier episodes. For them, the alternative is not "nothing." The alternative is another system of belief, and usually a system that concentrates power and punishes dissent. They put it even more sharply in one line: communism is all that's left without the Judeo-Christian ethic in government.

That statement is not presented as a technical policy paper. It is presented as a warning about trajectories. When a culture refuses moral limits, it does not become neutral. It becomes vulnerable to control, because the only thing left to settle disputes is raw power.

They also tie this back to the theme of the episode: consequences. If a society tears down its moral foundation, consequences follow. The bill may not come due the same day, but it always comes due.

Conservatives, liberals, and the question of consequences

A core claim in the episode is that people on the right tend to think more in terms of consequences, while people on the left tend to minimize them. The hosts connect this to personality and experience. A conservative, in their telling, often becomes conservative after living long enough to see what bad choices cost.

They describe the liberal mindset differently. In their view, it often sounds like, "I'm free, I can do what I want," while brushing off the idea that actions create lasting fallout. They also connect this to the biblical idea of sowing and reaping, which they call the law of sowing and reaping. If you deny that law, then you can start to believe you can live any way you want without paying for it later.

At one point, they read a short list of what people say could happen when Judeo-Christian ethics is destroyed. The list includes social and moral decay, diminished personal responsibility, erosion of law and justice, increased materialism over spiritual values, loss of cultural stability, and a rise in relativism. They also acknowledge that critics argue the term "Judeo-Christian" can be used in ways that hide historical conflict, and that some see a move away from it as a shift toward secularism.

Then they use a simple picture: water runs downhill. People do too. When resistance disappears, the default direction is usually not upward. That is why, in their view, a culture that stops believing in consequences will not stay stable for long. It will drift toward whatever feels easiest, even when "easy" turns destructive.

Grace and consequences: forgiveness is not a free pass

The most practical part of the episode is their attempt to balance grace with consequences. Both hosts describe themselves as "grace guys." They strongly affirm forgiveness through Christ, and they also refuse the idea that grace removes the built-in results of sin.

They lay out a few anchor points:

• Sin is forgiven at the new birth experience, past, present, and future, because Jesus paid for it by His blood.
• That forgiveness does not give a license to sin, because sin carries consequences.
• Those consequences often operate through the God-given law of sowing and reaping. You plant seed, and a harvest comes.

They also push back on a common picture of God. Many people, they say, imagine God waiting for a believer to sin so He can "whip" them. They question that view by pointing to Isaiah's statement that the chastisement for our peace was laid on Jesus at Calvary. In their view, believers are not punished to pay off sin. Jesus already did that. Still, consequences remain in life on a fallen earth.

Here is how they describe the two common extremes, along with the balanced middle. This table captures their point in a quick side-by-side view.

The takeaway is direct: forgiveness removes condemnation, but it does not always remove damage.

They use a stark example to make it plain. If a man gets drunk, wrecks a car, and loses an arm, then later comes to Christ, he can be forgiven and redeemed. That does not mean the arm grows back. Grace will meet him, but the consequence remains.

The progression of sin, the power of repentance, and the point of no return

Another key idea is that sin is often progressive. People tend to focus on the final act, but the hosts focus on what happens before the act. They argue that sin starts in the heart before it shows up in behavior. As a person moves down that path, the consequences begin early. A man becomes more callous to Scripture because he does not want to hear it. He tunes out the Holy Spirit because conviction feels like a threat to what he wants.

They apply this to adultery as an example. Long before physical adultery, something changes inside. Desire gets fed, conscience gets dulled, and the inner life shifts. Those changes are consequences too, even if no one else sees them.

Repentance matters because it can stop the direction of travel. They describe repentance as turning before you go too far down a road. If you stop early, you can avoid a future harvest that would have come from continued sin. At the same time, they stress that repentance does not always erase what has already been set in motion. They describe this as a "point of no return," where a bad harvest may still come even after someone wakes up.

They give examples that most people understand without a sermon:

• A man can murder in rage, repent afterward, and still face the consequences.
• A person can damage a relationship, apologize later, and still have to rebuild trust.
• A believer can turn back to God, and still have scars from choices made along the way.

Then they flip the principle to show it is not only negative. Sowing and reaping was designed for good. If a person pursues God, spends time in prayer, and feeds on the Word, consequences show up there too. Joy grows. Peace becomes steadier. Hardships do not vanish, but they feel different because the inside gets stronger.

Everyday consequences: anger, words, and the damage we pretend didn't happen

To bring it down to street level, they talk about everyday conflict. One example is the person who explodes in anger, then two or three days later acts like nothing happened. The hosts see that as proof that many people do not believe in consequences. They want the emotional release of bad behavior, and then they want instant reset.

They also point out something many people have lived through: forgiveness does not mean forgetting. A person can forgive a slap in the face, but they will still remember it. A relationship may heal, but it does not return to the exact state it had before the harm. The hosts even use a blunt line: you can turn the other cheek, but eventually you run out of cheeks. At some point, you may have to walk away.

One of their clearest practical warnings is about speech. They criticize the modern advice that says, "Don't suppress it, just speak what's on your mind," or "You just need to be transparent." They call that psychological mess when it becomes permission to sin with your mouth. Their counsel is simpler and older. Keep your mouth shut when you should, and do not give your "flesh man" permission to do what it wants.

They reinforce it with a mom-style proverb: if you do not have something good to say, keep your mouth shut. It is not a denial of honesty. It is a commitment to restraint, because words create outcomes you cannot always call back.

Forgiveness is real, but pretending nothing happened is not reconciliation.

They also bring the point back to Judeo-Christian ethics. The hosts say the blessings America enjoys are, in part, consequences of a founding shaped by Judeo-Christian values. On the other hand, corruption also has consequences. They mention the national debt, saying it was not God's intent for the country to be $34 trillion in debt. They tie that to choices, leaders, and even consequences tied to voting or refusing to vote.

When "no consequences" shows up in theology and politics

Late in the episode, they make a sharp connection: liberal thinking in politics and liberal thinking in theology share a common trait. Both tend to downplay consequences.

They also add a caution. A lot of people call themselves conservative, but they act like liberals when it comes to consequences. They may talk like they believe in moral cause and effect, but then they live as if nothing sticks.

Replacement theology comes back into the conversation here. The hosts call it a form of theological liberalism because, in their view, it does not think through the consequences of rejecting what God has said about Israel and covenant.

They also bring up a current cultural example. In the debate over gender transition, they say conservatives point to consequences, while the left tends to ignore them. They make a strong claim, stating that "about 100%" regret it and wish they had not done it. Whether a listener agrees with that number or not, the hosts' point stays the same: you cannot build a moral system on pretending outcomes do not exist.

Then they end with Jesus' own words from the cross: "Father, forgive them, they don't know what they're doing." The hosts treat that as a statement about consequences. People did not grasp what their actions meant. They also connect it to the ultimate consequence Jesus warned about, hell, which they describe as eternal separation from the Father. In their view, modern thinking often tries to erase consequences all the way up to erasing hell itself.

No magic pill: the harvest still comes

One of the episode's simplest warnings is also one of the strongest. People act as if there is a magic pill that wipes away outcomes. When a choice stops feeling good, they assume a quick switch will erase what was planted. The hosts reject that. You reap later than you sow, and you often reap more than you sow.

They even keep the tone light at times, joking about the phrase "to know you is to love you," and flipping it into "to not know me is to love me." The laugh is real, but the point behind it fits the theme. Relationships carry consequences, both good and bad, and closeness tends to expose what distance can hide.

This series is not finished. They close by saying they have only started talking about the consequences tied to destroying Judeo-Christian ethics, and more parts are coming.

Conclusion: Grace meets us, but consequences still teach us

A culture cannot stay healthy while it denies consequences. Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland's warning is that when Judeo-Christian ethics gets pushed aside, responsibility gets thinner, and confusion grows louder. At the same time, their message is not hopeless, because grace is real, repentance is real, and God still calls people back to better seed.

Watch the episode, then take an honest inventory of what you are sowing in words, choices, and habits. Grace is not permission to ignore reality, it is God's help to face reality and walk into something better.