Why Some Voices Want to Separate "Judeo" From Christianity (Smith & Rowland Show Ep. 829)

Can Christianity stand without its Jewish roots? On this episode of The Smith and Rowland Show, Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland argue that the phrase Judeo-Christian is not a trendy label, it is a plain statement about where Christianity comes from. They also warn that the growing push to drop the "Judeo" part is not just a word game. In their view, it connects to replacement theology, anti-Israel rhetoric, and political movements that reshape faith to fit an agenda.

The episode mixes sharp humor with serious concern. Between jokes about sponsorships and "getting resurrected," the core message stays clear: remove the Old Testament foundation, and you do not end up with "pure Christianity." You end up with something else.

Why "Judeo-Christian" is under attack now

The episode opens with the kind of banter regular listeners expect. Smith and Rowland joke that they "never felt so alive" after visiting the ministry site, then poke fun at their ongoing sponsor gag (including "power cord"). It is light, but it sets the tone for what comes next: they are frustrated, and humor is how they keep from boiling over.

Smith frames the issue as a shift in online outrage. In his telling, some influencers and agitators have "worn out" older targets like Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, and Tucker Carlson, so now they have moved on to a new fight: tearing apart the idea of "Judeo-Christianity." What stings most is that the loudest attacks often come from people who still claim the Christian label.

Rowland pauses to name the deeper pattern they see: the sharpest attacks against Christians often come from those who profess to be Christians. Smith answers with a pointed, half-humorous comparison, jealousy and rebellion are old problems, even going back to the story of Lucifer (followed by a joke about a "Luciferian and Roland podcast"). Behind the humor, their point is simple: attacks that wear Christian language can confuse believers faster than open opposition does.

In their view, the phrase "Judeo-Christian" is being targeted because it anchors Christianity to history, Scripture, and Israel. That anchor is inconvenient for anyone pushing a faith that can be rewritten on demand.

What the term "Judeo-Christian" means in plain language

Smith notes that in his own quick research, the earliest usage he found cited was around 1820. He also stresses that the exact date is not the main issue. The meaning is.

For them, Judeo-Christian is shorthand for a basic reality: Christianity comes out of Jewish roots. The Old Testament is Jewish Scripture, and the New Testament is where the term "Christian" enters the picture. So when believers use "Judeo-Christian," they are not inventing a hybrid religion. They are admitting the foundation.

A few points they tie to the term:

• It acknowledges the Old Testament as part of Christianity's root system.
• It connects Christian faith to a real, traceable story, not a floating "new spirituality."
• It ties belief back to the God of the Bible, not to a made-up tradition.

Smith puts it bluntly: you can prove the tradition with the Holy Bible. Remove the "Judeo" piece, and you weaken that public link to Scripture and to the God revealed in it.

Why separating "Judeo" from Christianity affects faith and the country

Rowland argues that attacks on "Judeo-Christian" language are not only theological. He sees a political motive behind them. In his view, social conflicts keep pushing theology and politics closer together, and podcasters and online voices amplify that connection every day.

As they explain it, phrases like "Judeo-Christian ethic," "Judeo-Christian values," and "Judeo-Christian tradition" are often used in a simple way: to describe moral assumptions that shaped American life. Rowland points to the idea that much of the American judiciary and legal thinking rests on moral law that aligns with Scripture. He uses the classic example: "Thou shalt not kill" is not just a religious preference, it is treated as a truth that applies across societies.

Smith follows with a sarcastic jab that makes his point. If people keep rejecting anything that "sounds Israel," then "judiciary" might be next, because it sounds too close to "Judea." The joke is exaggerated, but the warning is serious: once a culture starts rejecting roots, it tends to keep cutting.

They also connect this to what they call a replacement framework. In their telling, dropping the "Judeo" part is not neutral. It is part of a bigger push to detach Christianity from Israel, and from the Old Testament, so the faith becomes easier to reshape.

"You're putting a plastic bag over the oxygen of America." Their warning is that removing the Judeo-Christian ethic suffocates what has sustained the country.

Replacement theology, Israel, and why dispensationalism is the dividing line for them

Smith and Rowland repeatedly return to one core idea: this whole debate makes sense, or falls apart, based on how someone views Israel and the covenants. They place themselves firmly in a dispensational reading of Scripture, and they treat replacement theology as the opposite.

Rowland gives one of their simplest lines to explain it: "Two includes one. One doesn't include two." In other words, they argue that Judaism can exist without Christianity, but Christianity cannot exist without Judaism. Christianity depends on the Old Testament promises, covenants, and story. They also state the obvious historical point that often gets lost in heated arguments: Jesus was a Jew.

Smith warns that if the United States abandons dispensational Bible teaching and embraces replacement ideology, the results will not stay inside church walls. He predicts "devastating effects" on the country, and he describes those effects as supernatural in the sense that no political leader could stop them, because you cannot fight against what God has said.

They also connect the discussion to America's purpose. Smith describes the United States as almost 250 years old, and he says he believes the reason the nation has endured is to evangelize the world. From that angle, he argues that spiritual opposition would naturally target the foundations that helped shape the country's identity and mission.

The Venezuela discussion: why they called Trump's move defensive

Midway through the episode, Smith shifts to current events. He says many people view Trump's move against Venezuela as too aggressive. Smith disagrees. He frames it as a defensive response to what he calls the metastasis of evil across the earth.

In Smith's telling, the threat is not abstract. He claims Venezuela is "coming against the United States," including concerns about voting machines. He also claims militants and insurgents have been positioned to disrupt the country, and he links that disruption to both Venezuela and Islam. Whether a listener agrees or not, this is how he connects foreign policy to the episode's main theme: pressure against America rises as pressure against Judeo-Christian foundations rises.

Smith then points to the scale of the action as proof it was defensive. He argues that an offensive move would have meant wide destruction and war. Instead, he describes a targeted action, taking "one man and one woman," which he identifies as Maduro and his wife.

Rowland reacts by speculating that Maduro may "sing like a bird," meaning he may reveal information. Smith goes further and suggests Maduro could expose financial ties, including claims about money given to people in the U.S. government. They treat this as one reason the situation matters beyond headlines.

To summarize how they connect these ideas, here are the threats they name in sequence:

1. Militant disruption tied to foreign actors.
2. Communist regimes in Latin America that threaten democratic society.
3. Outside backing they name, including China, Iran, and Russia, with mention of a Chinese envoy in Venezuela.

Smith and Rowland's point is not that foreign policy is the whole story. It is that the spiritual and moral roots of a nation shape how it survives pressure. In their view, undermining Judeo-Christian values makes the country easier to destabilize.

Why they say communism and Judeo-Christian values cannot mix

Rowland states the conflict in simple terms: communist thinking and Judeo-Christianity oppose one another. They cannot "coalesce," as he puts it. So if someone works to dismantle Judeo-Christian ethics while calling it Christianity, he sees that as aligning with the very forces that have historically opposed biblical faith.

Smith uses a stark image. Remove this ethical base, and the country loses oxygen. They also warn that once you rewrite religion to remove Israel and the Old Testament, the next steps come quickly. In their mind, it becomes easy to justify cutting away more Scripture, more doctrine, and more moral clarity.

Nick Fuentes, Catholic influence, and the push to drop "Judeo"

Smith and Rowland then name a current example they find alarming: Nick Fuentes. They refer to a long interview series, described as a 10-part set of discussions recorded in the fall and released weekly starting January 1. They mention a host or channel name that sounded like "NXT," and they focus on what they see as a repeated theme: separating Judeo from Christian.

Smith says he also saw an article they plan to address later about why some Christians, and specifically Catholics, do not embrace the Judeo part. They connect that theme to Fuentes, describing him as both strongly anti-Semitic and also Catholic, or at least someone who professes to be.

At this point, Smith shares a personal memory from early ministry. At 24 years old, preaching in Statesville, he taught from Revelation 17 about Babylon and said it referred to the Catholic Church. He recalls Catholic visitors being offended. Over time, he says he built relationships with them, and they were born again and joined the church. The story is not told to insult individuals. He uses it to show how preaching norms shifted. What was once common talk later became "You don't do that."

Rowland and Smith then make a broader claim about Catholic institutional authority and replacement theology. They describe Catholic teaching as locating final authority in the Pope. They also claim a long-standing pattern of replacement thinking and anti-Semitism, including opposition to Israel as a state.

They bring up Martin Luther as part of that historical thread, noting that Luther was Catholic, and they reference his writings as evidence of anti-Semitic ideas continuing early in the Protestant era.

The warning returns to politics. Smith argues that influential podcasters shape what leaders hear. If leaders listen to anti-Judeo rhetoric packaged as Christianity, Smith believes it will produce policies that are anti-American and anti-Bible.

Arthur A. Cohen's "Myth of the Judeo-Christian tradition" and their response

Late in the episode, they turn to an article titled "The myth of the Judeo-Christian tradition" by Arthur A. Cohen. Rowland gives background: Cohen earned a BA at 16 in 1946, died in 1986, and wrote an essay titled Why I Chose to Be Jewish (1959). Rowland says Cohen considered Christianity after reading influential Christian literature, but then connected with Milton Steinberg, described as a leading Jewish thinker, which led him deeper into Jewish education and away from conversion.

Smith and Rowland read Cohen's framing questions. Cohen asks how Christianity, seeing itself as successor and completion of Judaism, could take in Jewish teaching it viewed as defective. He also asks how Judaism could remain independent and unassimilated despite Christian pressure.

Their answer is consistent: these questions become "a non-issue" in their view if someone reads the Bible through a dispensational lens. In their approach, Judaism and Christianity relate in a defined way without erasing either one. They insist that Christianity does not cancel the Old Testament.

Smith then cites a quote he attributes to Abraham Lincoln: that it is impossible to govern a nation without the Bible, not just the Gospels or the New Testament. He uses it to support the claim that a nation cannot cut itself off from its full biblical foundation without consequences.

"It's impossible to govern a nation without the Bible." The episode uses this quote to argue for the importance of the whole Scripture.

For listeners who want to follow the show's ongoing discussions, the episode points people to the Kingdom Prophetic Society website and the Smith & Rowland Show daily podcast page.

Dispensationalism, the new birth, and why they say you can't remove the Old Testament

Smith and Rowland anticipate a common accusation: that dispensationalists "do away" with parts of the Bible. They reject that label. Smith even offers a clarifying line about their own view: their "brand of dispensationalism" does not do away with anything. They insist they defend the whole Bible.

Smith ties this to Jesus' own words about fulfilling the law, not destroying it. He also argues that if a dispensationalist claims God has "done away" with parts of Scripture, then that person loses the ability to argue coherently against replacement theology. In their view, once you start deleting pieces, replacement logic has already won.

Then they introduce what they see as the most ignored part of the debate: the new birth. Smith says many arguments miss the central Christian claim, "You must be born again." He says people who have not been born again cannot see what they are saying, because they do not have eyes to see, or the Holy Spirit.

Their proof is experiential and pastoral. People change. Someone blind becomes someone who sees. They echo the biblical idea, "I was blind, but now I see." From their standpoint, this personal transformation supports their broader theological structure.

They also reference Romans 11 and the idea that Israel, as a nation, has a kind of blindness for a time. That point supports their claim that Israel has not been erased, and the story is not finished.

From there, the main statement returns: you cannot separate the Judeo part from Christian. You do not have the New Testament without the Old Testament. Once you treat the old covenant as erased, they argue, you are set up to erase Israel, erase large sections of Scripture, and even erase apostles like Paul.

Smith gives a recent example that disgusted them: a podcaster claiming the apostle Paul is the "false prophet" Jesus warned about. They treat that as an extreme result of the same "cut it out" impulse.

Conclusion: the warning behind the jokes

Smith and Rowland keep joking about sponsors and cutting up, but they also explain why. They say they do it to keep from crying, because the issue feels dangerous to them. In their view, replacement thinking lulls congregations into apathy, and it can push believers toward a faith that cuts away most of the Bible.

The closing challenge is direct: if you remove the Judeo-Christian foundation, you do not get a stronger church or a healthier nation. You get a rewritten religion, and the costs show up in doctrine, culture, and policy. The episode ends with a simple call to stay awake, pay attention to who shapes public beliefs, and hold on to the whole counsel of Scripture.