Why Judeo-Christianity Can't Be Separated From Christianity (Smith and Rowland Show, Ep. 830)

People throw around the phrase "Judeo-Christian" like it's optional, or like it's just a political slogan that can be edited for the times. On this episode of The Smith and Rowland Show, Alan Rowland and Jeff Smith argue the opposite. If you cut the "Judeo" out, you do not end up with a cleaner Christianity. You end up gutting the faith at its roots.

Their discussion moves fast, from family humor to serious theology, then into why the phrase "Judeo-Christian" still matters in American life. Along the way, they connect the Old and New Testaments, Israel's place in the story, and why attacks on biblical ethics usually come with a push for more control through the state.

Podcast banter that sets the tone (and the catchphrase that keeps coming back)

The episode opens the way many Smith and Rowland conversations do, with laughter, a little teasing, and a lot of personality. The show is "brought to you by Mouse," which is played for humor, as if mice around the world are eager to sponsor the podcast. Then the running phrase lands, and it keeps showing up: "There's that."

"There's that," they joke, is the kind of line people will hear a lot. It becomes their verbal period, the way they punctuate a thought and move on.

From there, they swap quick life updates. Jeff says he might need to stop watching the news for a while. Alan agrees and ties it to the way the news makes him feel. Then the talk turns personal, in a way that makes the serious parts easier to hear.

A few memorable moments stand out:

• Son-in-laws and the "High Tower": Jeff mentions his two son-in-laws, Casey and Chad. He also says one of them might move closer to where they record, which could mean a future guest spot on the show.
• Grandkid nicknames: Jeff mentions his granddaughter "Swamp Creature" and grandson "Tax Credit."
• The "Tax Credit" story: Jeff explains the nickname came from something his grandson said when he was about six: "I could possibly move in with them, but I couldn't do it taxfree." Jeff's point is simple, how does a six-year-old even know to say that?

That light start matters because it frames the rest of the episode. They are not trying to sound academic. They are trying to speak plainly, and keep regular believers alert to what they see happening.

Why Christianity can't exist without its Jewish roots

After the laughs, they circle back to what they had been discussing the day before: Judeo-Christianity and why it matters. Alan says they've been asking each other a basic question: how can anyone claim Christianity while trying to remove "Judea" from it?

Jeff answers with a line that becomes the backbone of the episode: you can't have the New Testament without the Old. They also say it in a sharper way.

The Jewish nation can do without Christians, they argue, but Christians can't do without the Jewish nation. Their reason is direct: without Israel, there is no Jesus, no Messiah, no Savior "from that line."

They point to Matthew 1, where the Gospel opens with a genealogy. God "made a big deal," they say, out of Jesus' lineage, tracing it from Abraham onward. The family line is not trivia. It is part of the claim Christianity makes about who Jesus is.

That is also why they treat the attempt to strip out the "Judeo" as more than a minor wording debate. For them, it is an attack on the foundation.

One analogy in the conversation makes the point in plain language: trying to remove Judeo from Christianity is like taking the "O" out of H2O and still calling it water. You can say the word, but you no longer have the thing.

They also compare it to another "removal" Christians would never accept, taking Paul out of the New Testament. In their view, pulling Paul's writings would choke the gospel's spread to the Gentiles. In the same way, pulling out the Jewish roots breaks the story Christianity depends on.

If you knock the foundation out from under a house, it's not going to stand.

That is why they keep repeating a simple line: what they are defending is not a slogan. They are defending the faith itself.

The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants as the framework beneath the gospel

A major part of the episode focuses on two covenants Jeff says sit at the front of the New Testament story: the Abrahamic covenant and the Davidic covenant. In their view, modern Christians often talk as if these covenants are "old" and therefore optional. Alan and Jeff argue they are not optional at all.

They describe each covenant in a simple way, then connect it to how people talk about Israel today.

Before the comparison, they stress a key definition: a covenant is everlasting. That is especially true, they say, when the covenant is made with God.

Here is the way they frame the two covenants side by side:

After laying that out, they tie both covenants to the gospel message itself. Jeff says you cannot have "the gospel of the grace of God," the message of the cross, and the resurrection, without those two covenants as the framework underneath.

They also bring in a point they attribute to Missler: Muslims oppose the Abrahamic covenant most strongly, while the church often opposes the Davidic covenant. Whether a listener agrees or not, the purpose is to highlight pressure coming from two directions.

• On one side, they see opposition to Israel's right to exist and to be blessed.
• On the other side, they see churches teaching replacement theology, which they believe dismantles God's promises tied to Israel.

Their warning is not subtle. If a believer treats these covenants as disposable, that believer will eventually treat parts of the gospel as disposable too. In their minds, the logic collapses fast once you start cutting pieces out.

"Judeo-Christian" as a political phrase, and why they say that's not a problem

Alan reads from an article-style summary about Judeo-Christianity. It mentions shared roots in the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) and themes like one God, human dignity, and divine law. It also notes debates about the term, including claims that it is a historical construct, and that it has been used to include some groups and exclude others.

The conversation then turns to a distinction the hosts really want listeners to hear: they do not treat "Judeo-Christian" as a clean theological label. They treat it mainly as a political and moral shorthand, especially in American history.

Jeff says the term becomes a problem only when people pretend it erases the obvious theological differences between Judaism and Christianity. Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah. Jews do not. That difference is real, and it does not vanish because a politician uses a phrase.

So what do they mean when they defend the phrase? Jeff's answer is blunt: America's legal and moral framework has been built on Judeo values, and, in his view, the United States was founded as a Christian nation that accepted Jesus as Messiah and promoted the preaching of the gospel to Jews and Gentiles.

That leads to another argument. Jeff says theology and politics are not separable in real life. Political worldview flows out of theology. Even people who claim they have no theology still live out a belief system, and that functions like theology.

This matters because, in their view, the current attacks on the "Judeo-Christian ethic" are not just about word choice. They are about removing the moral base that shaped American law.

They also connect this to what the term did in the mid-1900s, as a way to unite Protestants, Catholics, and Jews against communism. Whether a person likes that history or not, Alan emphasizes the idea: Judeo-Christian values stood as a shared wall against a system that demanded the state replace God.

The Judeo-Christian ethic, spelled out in principles people can test

To keep the conversation "between the ditches," they read through a set of principles tied to Judeo-Christian roots. They do not present it as an exhaustive list. Still, it is specific enough to test, and practical enough to connect to everyday life.

They start with a claim most Christians recognize right away: Judeo-Christian roots promote reliance on the providence of God. Alan asks what born-again believer would deny that.

From there, they list principles that touch law, rights, and social order. The takeaway is not that every person in America obeys these principles. The takeaway is that these ideas shaped the country's moral vocabulary.

Here are the principles they name, with the same emphasis they give them:

• Reliance on the providence of God
• The law of God forms the basis of good human laws
• Religion and morality form the basis of liberty
• The equality of man
• God-given human rights
• Government authority by consent of the governed
• Sanctity of contract
• The principle of two witnesses
• The principle of no corruption of blood
• The Sabbath day accepted
• Separation of church and state
• Teaching the law of liberty to the next generation

Alan and Jeff also contrast these ideas with what they describe as life under Sharia law. Alan says plainly that there is no equality of people under Sharia, and that if he were doing this kind of free speech podcast in a Muslim-run country, he believes he would be killed.

That comparison supports their larger point: the Judeo-Christian ethic, even when imperfectly practiced, has produced a "more user-friendly" society, with more freedom of speech and more stability for ordinary people.

Why they connect attacks on Judeo-Christian values to communism, replacement theology, and control

Near the end, the episode shifts from defining Judeo-Christian values to warning about efforts to dismantle them. Alan points to an "uprising against the phrase Judeo-Christian," and he names groups he believes oppose that ethic, including the LGBTQ+ community and the abortion crowd.

Then the political claim becomes sharper. Alan and Jeff connect the push to deconstruct Judeo-Christian values with democratic socialism and communist thinking. They mention recent elections and point to places like Minnesota, New York (including someone Alan calls "Mom Donnie"), and the West Coast (Portland or Seattle gets mentioned as an example).

They also repeat a line associated with Barack Obama, "fundamentally transform America," as a way to describe the goal they believe sits behind these movements.

Jeff ties this back to a biblical view of government. In his view, God gives civil government a limited role: protect people, protect property, and protect freedoms. He even uses Israel in 1948 as an example of what that protective posture looks like on the world stage.

From there, he makes a critique that aims at the church as much as the state. He says government has moved into areas the church should have handled. When the church neglects its job, he argues, something fills the void, and the state steps in.

That, in his view, becomes a pipeline into communism because communism needs the state to become the provider, the moral center, and the final authority. Once that happens, the Judeo-Christian ethic has to be removed because it competes with state control.

"There is not a government on the earth that can make someone free. Only Jesus can."

They end this section with another theme: sight versus insight. Alan says people may look at these principles and think a man made them up. Yet to "see in it" takes insight and discernment. He connects that to 2 Peter 1 and the idea of divine nature, saying believers should walk in a heaven-shaped nature now, not later.

That's also where Jeff shares a story from a friend, Justin Parker with Samaritan's Purse, who served in Iraq. Jeff says people were waking up "born again" after encountering Jesus in dreams, and then they would pray prayers of affirmation, even though they already believed when they woke.

Don't be deceived, and know when arguments stop being fruitful

The closing minutes return to a direct pastoral warning. Alan says the church can be "ignorant enough" to fall asleep in a fight for truth. Jeff agrees and frames the issue as contending for the faith, including teaching clearly that the church has not replaced Israel, and that believers have an obligation to bless Israel tied to the Abrahamic covenant.

Then Alan shares a farm-style analogy to describe the frustration of constant debate. A Christian, he says, is like a honeybee. Sooner or later, the honeybee stops trying to convince the fly that honey is better. The fly wants what stinks.

That does not mean Christians stop telling the truth. It means believers recognize that some resistance is not about evidence, it is about nature and desire. So the call becomes simpler: speak the truth, stay awake, and refuse deception.

They close with what they call Jesus' first warning about the last days: "Don't let no man deceive you." Then the podcast signs off in its usual style, circling back to the catchphrase one more time.

Conclusion: Hold the foundation, because the house depends on it

Alan and Jeff's message is consistent from start to finish: Christianity does not survive if you remove its Jewish roots, because God tied His redemptive story to real covenants and real history. They also argue that "Judeo-Christian" matters in public life because it names the moral assumptions behind law, rights, and limited government.

Even if the phrase gets misused, the solution is not to erase it. The solution is to understand what it means, and why people want it gone. The practical call is simple: don't fall asleep, don't be deceived, and don't let anyone knock out the foundation and tell you the house will still stand.