Under Fire

There Were Two Trees in the Garden

Charles Smoot — Fri, 09 Oct 2026 16:05:40 +0000

Examining the Roots of Democratic Socialism and Neo-Marxism

“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

—Genesis 3:4–5, KJV

The book of Genesis has been called the “seed plot” of the Bible’s major doctrines. As the book of origins and beginnings, it introduces civilization and the institutions that became foundations of society: marriage, family, human government, and religion. It also establishes themes such as justice, mercy, grace, personal moral responsibility, and accountability—foundations that inform our understanding of life, liberty, and property.

Among the first scenes we encounter is the Garden of Eden, where two trees are specifically named: the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Human flourishing, free choice, sin, and suffering are central to what occurred there.

The First Lie

There is something revealing in the serpent’s words to Eve: “Ye shall not surely die.” The tempter did not present disobedience—or the forbidden fruit—as evil. He presented it as enlightenment and human advancement. Beneath that appeal, however, he challenged the clear warning of God’s Word, minimized the consequences, and redirected Eve’s attention toward an attractive and seemingly attainable result.

The forbidden tree was not repulsive. It was beautiful. Scripture describes it as “good for food,” “pleasant to the eyes,” and “desired to make one wise” (Genesis 3:6, KJV). Its danger was not obvious from its appearance; that is what made the deception effective. Beneath the appealing promise were consequences that brought sin and death.

Many years ago, the Lord impressed a simple thought upon me: There were two trees in the garden.

Two Trees in the Garden

Genesis specifically identifies the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God told Adam he could freely eat from the trees of the garden, but one tree carried a prohibition. God warned that eating from it would bring death.

The contrast is striking. One tree was associated with eternal life. The other appeared attractive but carried deadly consequences that could not be seen merely by looking at its fruit.

That distinction provides a powerful illustration for examining political ideas in our own time. Genesis was not written as a prophecy about modern political movements. The text concerns God, man, obedience, temptation, disobedience, sin, and death. But the picture it gives us remains useful: something may appear attractive on the surface while carrying destructive consequences beneath it.

That principle matters whenever we examine modern political theories.

Looking Beneath the Surface

Democratic socialism, Marxism, neo-Marxism, and related ideological movements rarely introduce themselves through language that sounds threatening. They come wrapped in beautiful promises using words such as equality, justice, fairness, liberation, compassion, equity, security, and social transformation.

Those words carry emotional power because they speak to legitimate human concerns. People want justice, relief from suffering, opportunity, and fairness. They want their children and grandchildren to inherit a society in which they can live with dignity.

But a promise wrapped in attractive language is not enough. The fruit of a political argument may look good while beneath the surface its roots tell another story.

“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

—Proverbs 14:12, KJV

What seems right must still be examined. The sincerity of those who embrace an idea, and the attractiveness of what it promises, do not settle the question of where it leads.

Why the Roots Matter

That is why the UNDER FIRE Truth Framework asks us to look beneath the surface of political claims. In the T—Theories portion of the framework, the visible position is only the beginning. We must examine the worldview, assumptions, philosophy, ideology, and definitions beneath the argument, and then trace its historical development and consequences.

The fruit of a political position or ideology does not appear out of nowhere. It grows from deeper beliefs about God, man, morality, government, property, power, freedom, justice, and human nature. Those beliefs are the roots. The ideology is the trunk. The policies, slogans, movements, and political positions are the fruit. If we examine only the fruit, we may never understand the tree.

Consider worldview. Every political theory rests upon some understanding of reality. It answers, whether explicitly or implicitly, questions about who man is, where rights come from, whether moral truth is objective or relative, what government is for, and what limits should exist upon political power. Those questions are not academic trivia. They help determine how societies are organized and maintained.

Assumptions matter for the same reason. One theory may assume that human beings are naturally good and that social institutions are primarily responsible for injustice. Another may begin with the belief that human beings are morally fallible and that every concentration of power must therefore be restrained. Those two assumptions lead toward very different political systems.

Philosophy gives those assumptions an intellectual structure. It explains how a theory understands history, conflict, economics, authority, property, family, God, religion, and the individual. Ideology then organizes those philosophical ideas into a program for understanding society and changing it.

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

—Colossians 2:8, KJV

Paul’s warning gives Christians a standard for discernment: examine whether a teaching rests upon Christ or upon human traditions that draw us away from Him. A persuasive argument deserves examination, especially when it challenges the foundations by which we understand truth and moral responsibility.

Definitions are equally important. Political movements can use familiar words while giving them unfamiliar meanings. Words such as justice, equality, freedom, democracy, rights, oppression, equity, and liberation may sound universal, but their meaning depends upon the philosophy behind them. That is why definitions must always be examined carefully.

Following Ideas Through History

Once those roots are identified, we must follow the theory as it appears through history. Ideas have origins, teachers, philosophers, movements, organizations, revolutions, and institutions. Their language may change, their public presentation may soften, and their terminology may be revised. Yet the underlying assumptions can remain surprisingly consistent.

That historical development matters because political ideas eventually move beyond books and classrooms. They become programs and policies that influence institutions. Those institutions exercise power, and the exercise of power produces consequences.

Marxism and the Historical Record

This is where Marxism, socialism, and communism must be examined with particular seriousness. Although these terms are related, they are not interchangeable. Democratic socialism must also be distinguished from social democracy and from the one-party communist systems that claimed Marxist foundations. A careful examination asks what a particular movement actually believes and proposes.

Marxist theory has often been presented through promises of equality, liberation from exploitation, economic justice, and a society freed from oppressive class structures. Those promises can sound compassionate. They can appeal especially strongly to people who see genuine injustice and want to correct it.

But the appeal of the promise does not remove the obligation to examine the roots of the tree. Marxism rests upon a distinctive view of history, class, property, conflict, religion, power, and human relationships. Its descendants and adaptations have carried many of those assumptions into later political and cultural movements, even when the language has changed.

That is why the historical record cannot be separated from the ideology and what it promises. Communist regimes claiming Marxist foundations have repeatedly been accompanied by repression, confiscation of property, suppression of dissent, forced labor, religious persecution, political imprisonment, severe economic failures, famine, and immense human suffering.

The point is not that every person attracted to socialist ideas desires those outcomes. Many are motivated by sincere concern for others. The point is that good intentions cannot substitute for sound foundations. Each proposed system must be examined for its treatment of individual rights, its concentration of power, its safeguards against abuse, and its demonstrated consequences.

Back to the Garden

Eve did not take the fruit because she believed she was choosing death. She took it because what the fruit offered appeared attractive, desirable, and attainable—and because the consequences had been denied. In a few words, she was deceived.

“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

—1 Timothy 2:14, KJV

Paul explicitly identifies deception in Eve’s transgression. His statement does not excuse Adam; it distinguishes the circumstances of their disobedience. Eve accepted the serpent’s false account of what God had said and what would follow.

Elsewhere, Paul draws upon that same event to warn believers about being led away from Christ:

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

—2 Corinthians 11:3, KJV

The serpent’s argument was essentially this: You have been warned about consequences that will not really happen. Paul’s warning reminds us that deception can work through subtle persuasion, corrupting our judgment while appearing to offer something desirable.

That pattern should make us cautious whenever a political ideology tells us that history is irrelevant, that previous failures do not count, or that this generation will finally be able to exercise enormous power without suffering the abuses that accompanied that power before.

We should be particularly cautious when we are told that liberty may safely be surrendered in small increments for the sake of equality, security, justice, or social transformation. A beautiful promise does not guarantee a beautiful outcome.

“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.”

—Proverbs 22:3, KJV

Prudence requires us to consider danger before suffering its consequences. Warnings deserve thoughtful examination, even when the promise before us is appealing.

The Two-Tree Illustration

The Tree of Liberty and the Tree of Marxism, examined from fruit to roots. Select the image to view it full size.

In the accompanying image, the first tree represents liberty. Above ground it is healthy, fruitful, and life-giving. Its roots represent the worldview, assumptions, philosophy, ideology, and definitions that support ordered liberty, while its historical development and consequences help us judge what that system produces over time.

The second tree represents Marxism. Above ground, it is not intentionally ugly. Its fruit is colorful and its appearance appealing. That matters: if destructive ideas always looked destructive, deception would be easy to recognize. The danger is precisely that the fruit can be pleasant to the eyes.

Below ground, however, the picture changes. The poisonous roots are darker. The historical development is different. The consequences are different. What appears attractive above the surface must therefore be judged by what lies beneath it.

These trees are an illustration of the argument, rather than a substitute for examining evidence. The same scrutiny must be applied to any political system, including one that speaks in the language of liberty.

A Framework for Discernment

That is the central lesson of the UNDER FIRE Truth Framework: Do not judge a political theory only by its promises. Examine its roots.

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

—1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV

Paul’s instruction calls believers to test what they encounter and retain what is good. Applied to our examination of political claims, that habit of discernment requires more than accepting a slogan or reacting to an emotional appeal.

Ask what a theory believes about human nature, what it assumes about power, and how it defines justice. Examine the philosophy that produced it and how it developed historically. Then look at what happened when those ideas were implemented.

Jesus said:

“Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”

—Matthew 7:16, KJV

The immediate context concerns false prophets, but the illustration reminds us to examine what claims and teachings actually produce. Political theories do not remain theories forever. They become systems and institutions that shape people’s lives. Their consequences must therefore be part of our judgment.

Conclusion

There were two trees in the garden. One was associated with life. The other looked good, promised wisdom, and carried death beneath the promise. That image should stay with us whenever we are offered a political vision that sounds too attractive to question.

The question is not merely, “Does the fruit look good?” The deeper question is, “What kind of tree produced it?” And beneath that: “What are its roots?”

That is where discernment begins. That is where political theory must be tested. And that is where the UNDER FIRE Truth Framework takes us.

When the fruit looks good, examine the roots.

Continue the Examination in UNDER FIRE

The questions raised in this article deserve more than a passing glance. In UNDER FIRE: A U.S. Marine’s Stand Against Democratic Socialism and Neo-Communism, Charles E. Smoot examines the ideological foundations, historical development, and consequences of political movements that continue to shape our world.

Order Your Copy of UNDER FIRE on Amazon

THE MYSTERY OF THE SHELTER HALF

Charles Smoot — Sun, 13 Sep 2026 17:42:27 +0000

As we mark the first anniversary of the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, I dedicate this article to his memory and legacy.

THE MYSTERY OF THE SHELTER HALF

What Marine Corps Brotherhood Taught Me About Shared Sacrifice—and the Dangers of Cultural Marxism and Critical Race Theory

The Lesson of the Shelter Half

One of the most important truths I learned in the United States Marine Corps was the meaning of teamwork and brotherhood.

The principles of teamwork and shared sacrifice are embodied in one of the simplest pieces of equipment a Marine carried: an olive-drab canvas shelter half.

Why does this simple piece of equipment matter today? Because it embodies a lesson about shared responsibility that reaches far beyond the field.

From Civilian Identity to Marine Brotherhood

From the moment you step onto those yellow footprints, Marine Corps recruit training begins the deliberate process of replacing the visible markers of your civilian life with a common identity.

You pass through receiving and shed your civilian clothes; you sit in a barber’s chair and watch your civilian hairstyle fall to the floor; you take a hasty shower; you enter the supply barracks, where you are issued an ill-fitting but regulation uniform; and you receive a large seabag filled with identical items.

Before you close your eyes again, you realize that nothing visible remains to distinguish you by your social class, ethnic culture, or former life. You are now a Marine recruit. You are no longer the center of your own story—you have become part of something greater than anything you have ever known.

Whether your recruit training takes place in the barren hills of San Diego, California, or among the swampy woodlands, quicksand, and palm trees of Parris Island, South Carolina, every recruit is issued the same basic equipment. Your boots, belt, rifle, uniforms, and even your skivvies are identical. You are no longer known by your first name—your identity is reduced to a laundry number or “Private So-and-So.”

From day one, however, one thing is clear: until graduation, every task and personal interaction is designed to transform individuals from different backgrounds and cultures into a highly disciplined, highly trained, cohesive fighting unit.

Somewhere along the way, you are introduced to the mystery of the shelter half.

The shelter half is little more than a single piece of olive-drab canvas. As its name suggests, it cannot fulfill its purpose alone. Another recruit carries the matching half, and the two pieces must be joined before either can provide shelter.

By intentional design, when the two shelter halves are joined and staked to the ground, they become a temporary living space shared and maintained by two Marine recruits.

The mystery of the shelter half illustrates the importance of tactical teamwork and brotherhood:

The shelter I need is in the hands of another Marine, and the shelter he needs is in mine.

More often than not, the recruit carrying the other half might not look like you. He might not share your race, ethnicity, cultural upbringing, or religion.

But none of that matters. Why?

Because Marines are taught that there is only one color that matters. It is not black, white, red, or brown.

It is green—Marine Corps green.

One Standard, One Mission

The shelter-half lesson taught us this: regardless of our former identities, the Corps treated us alike. We dressed alike, ate the same chow, ran the same miles, hiked the same terrain, carried the same load, faced the same obstacles, and were held to the same standard.

Circumstances and outcomes may differ, but every Marine has the opportunity—and the obligation—to meet the same standard.

No Marine receives special treatment, an exception, or an exemption because of race, class, religion, cultural upbringing, family identity, wealth, poverty, privilege, or hardship. The same standard applies to every Marine.

That does not mean every Marine is perfect or that personal prejudice never exists. Marines are human beings, and human beings are fallen.

What it means is this: racial prejudice and discrimination are incompatible with our purpose and mission and contrary to the brotherhood we are trained to defend.

In the field—and especially in combat—discipline, courage, competence, and loyalty matter far more than the social and ideological categories that so often divide people in civilian life.

The mystery of the shelter half taught me that a Marine was never intended to serve alone. I had to bring my half, and my fellow Marine had to bring his.

It taught me that my preparation affected his safety, and his faithfulness affected mine. If either of us refused to carry his part, we would both be left exposed.

History is filled with accounts of Marines who ran through enemy fire, placed themselves in mortal danger, threw themselves upon grenades, and made the ultimate sacrifice to save a brother Marine.

In those sacred moments, no one stops to calculate race, class, gender, social status, victimhood, or cultural hegemony.

A Marine is in danger—a brother needs help—and that is enough.

A Standard for Judging Worldviews

The shelter half therefore offers more than a lesson in fieldcraft. It provides a standard by which to judge any worldview: does it strengthen shared duty and trust, or does it divide people into competing identities?

This lesson from the Corps stands in contrast to influential currents in American public life, including cultural Marxism, racial identity politics, and Critical Race Theory (CRT).

This framework—science falsely so called—does not embody the principles of truth, sacrifice, and brotherhood. Instead, it interprets human relationships primarily through ethnic and minority-group identities and through categories of power, privilege, oppression, and victimhood.

When people are viewed primarily through these categories, a neighbor, coworker, or fellow human being created in the image of God can be reduced to labels such as privileged or marginalized, oppressor or oppressed, without sufficient regard for individual character, conduct, choices, or circumstances.

Despite the prejudices and divisions that persist in human institutions, the Marine Corps taught me something better than hatred, racial prejudice, suspicion, entitlement, victimization, or permanent racial division.

It taught me that people from radically different backgrounds can be united under a common identity, held to a common standard, entrusted with a common mission, and bound by a shared commitment to depend upon one another.

The Biblical Foundation

The Bible establishes an even greater foundation for this shared duty and equal dignity:

“So God created man in his own image.”

—Genesis 1:27

That gives every person equal human dignity—not because government granted it, but because God ordained it.

“Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow.”

—Ecclesiastes 4:9–10

What America Needs Now

America does not need an ideology that teaches us to distrust the person beside us. We need a renewed understanding of equal dignity, individual responsibility, shared standards, mutual dependence, brotherhood, and sacrificial love.

We need to remember that unity does not require everyone to look alike, come from the same background, or share the same personal history.

Unity requires a truth and a mission greater than our differences.

The mystery of the shelter half is an object lesson in trust, responsibility, equality, and brotherhood.

Purposefully incomplete pieces of canvas became a complete shelter only when two Marines joined them together.

Staked firmly to the earth, the joined halves provided temporary shelter while representing something far more enduring: the bond of brotherhood.

The canvas may have sheltered us for only a night, but the bond of brotherhood lasts a lifetime.

Faith and freedom rise or fall together.

—Charles E. Smoot

Author of UNDER FIRE: A U.S. Marine’s Stand Against Democratic Socialism and Neo-Communism

The Battle for America’s Soul: How a Nation Is Changed from Within

Charles Smoot — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 00:06:53 +0000

“Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.” (Ezekiel 33:7)

Brothers and sisters, America is under fire. Not from invading armies. Not from missiles launched from some foreign shore. The battle confronting America is more subtle, and in many ways more dangerous. It is a battle of ideas.

It is being fought for the mind, heart, and soul of this country. It reaches into our schools and universities, our churches and government, our media and entertainment, our corporations, our homes, and increasingly the screens our children carry in their hands.

At stake is something far greater than the outcome of the next election. This is a battle over what Americans will believe about truth, God, freedom, human nature, morality, family, responsibility, and the proper role of government. It is a battle over what kind of nation we will leave to our children. And make no mistake: this battle did not begin yesterday, and it will not be settled in a single election cycle.

Infiltration From Within: How a Nation Can Be Changed Without Being Conquered

History teaches us a sobering lesson: a nation does not always have to be conquered from the outside. Sometimes it is transformed from within.

Institutions change. Language is redefined. History is reinterpreted. Long-standing moral convictions become objects of ridicule. Ideas once regarded as radical gradually become mainstream, while beliefs held by generations before us are increasingly portrayed as backward, oppressive, or dangerous.

This is the nature of ideological warfare. It rarely arrives wearing a uniform. It comes through ideas, language, education, culture, entertainment, policy, and institutions. And often it arrives wrapped in appealing words: justice, equality, compassion, tolerance, inclusion, and progress.

Those words can represent legitimate and noble concerns. Christians should care deeply about justice, compassion, human dignity, and the treatment of our neighbors. But words can also be detached from objective truth and biblical morality. When that happens, familiar language can become the vehicle for an entirely different worldview. Jesus warned:

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing.” (Matthew 7:15)

Deception rarely announces itself as deception. It succeeds precisely because it looks close enough to something good to be accepted. That principle applies not only to theology. It applies to ideology.

The Art of Ideological Warfare: Capture the Mind and You Can Change a Nation

Traditional warfare captures territory. Ideological warfare captures minds. Change what people believe about truth, and eventually you change what they believe about morality. Change their understanding of morality, and you change the laws and institutions they are willing to accept. Change what children are taught about history, family, authority, faith, liberty, responsibility, and human identity, and within a generation you can change the character of an entire nation.

That is why the struggle before us cannot be reduced simply to Republican versus Democrat or one election against another. Scripture tells us:

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:12)

Our neighbors are not the enemy. Americans who vote differently from us are not the enemy. People who have been persuaded by ideas we believe are wrong are not the enemy. But ideas have consequences. Worldviews shape individuals. Individuals shape institutions. Institutions shape cultures. And cultures eventually shape nations.

That is why the Christian response cannot be hatred, intimidation, rage, or political idolatry. Our weapons must be truth, discernment, courage, prayer, wisdom, grace, and faithfulness.

That conviction lies at the heart of Under Fire: before we can defend freedom intelligently, we must understand the ideas competing to define it.

America Fast Asleep: How a Nation Can Sleep Through Its Own Transformation

Here is the question that should trouble us: Where were we while all of this was happening? For decades, many Americans became comfortable.

Prosperity made vigilance seem unnecessary. Entertainment kept us distracted. Parents became overwhelmed by work and daily responsibilities. Churches sometimes avoided difficult cultural questions because controversy was uncomfortable. Citizens assumed the freedoms inherited from previous generations would somehow perpetuate themselves.

But freedom does not maintain itself. It never has.

Jesus described an enemy who came while people slept and “sowed tares among the wheat.” (Matthew 13:25)

Notice when the enemy acted: While men slept. While America was distracted, institutions changed. While parents were busy, other voices gained greater influence over their children. While churches avoided difficult conversations, the surrounding culture increasingly supplied its own definitions of truth, morality, sexuality, justice, identity, family, and freedom. A civilization can undergo enormous transformation while its citizens are preoccupied with everything except the transformation itself. That is why vigilance matters.

The High Cost of Silence

Many Americans know something is wrong. They feel it. They see confusion in the culture. They encounter it in schools, workplaces, media, entertainment, government, and online. They discuss it privately with friends and family. And yet millions remain silent. Why? Some are exhausted. Some fear what speaking publicly might cost them. Some believe one person cannot possibly make a difference. Others are so overwhelmed by work, social media, entertainment, financial pressures, and the constant noise of modern life that they have little energy left to investigate what is happening around them.

And some Christians have been persuaded that speaking plainly about difficult moral or cultural issues is somehow incompatible with love. But Scripture presents a different picture. Silence is not always love, and silence is never neutral.

God appointed Ezekiel as a watchman (Ezekiel 33:7).

The watchman did not create the danger. His responsibility was to recognize it and sound the alarm. A watchman who sees danger approaching but refuses to speak because the warning might make people uncomfortable has abandoned the very purpose of the watchtower. There are moments when love comforts. There are also moments when love warns. Wisdom requires knowing the difference.

Who Is Raising Your Children? A Question Every Christian Parent Must Answer

Perhaps no question is more important for Christian parents today: Who is raising your children? The instinctive answer is, “We are.” But consider how many hours children spend under the influence of schools, social media, streaming platforms, music, celebrities, influencers, peers, video games, algorithms, and digital culture. Every one of those influences communicates a worldview. Whether parents recognize it or not, children are constantly being taught something about God, sexuality, authority, family, race, justice, history, government, human identity, morality, and truth itself. There is no completely neutral worldview.

Somebody will help fill that intellectual and spiritual space. If parents surrender that responsibility, someone else will gladly accept it. Scripture places the responsibility for forming children squarely upon the family:

“And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children.” (Deuteronomy 6:7)

Proverbs tells us:

“Train up a child in the way he should go.” (Proverbs 22:6)

And Paul instructs fathers to raise their children:

“In the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:4)

Christian parents cannot outsource discipleship and then be surprised when another worldview fills the vacuum. Whoever shapes the next generation helps shape the future of the nation. Period.

The Slow Death of a Civilization

Civilizations rarely collapse because of one decision made on one terrible afternoon. Decline is usually slower. A little truth is surrendered here. A little liberty there.

A responsibility once carried by families or communities is gradually transferred elsewhere. Moral boundaries become negotiable. Faith retreats from public life. Historical memory fades. Personal responsibility weakens. Government becomes increasingly expected to solve problems that politics alone can never solve.

No individual compromise appears large enough to threaten a civilization. That is precisely what makes gradual decline so difficult to recognize. Freedom seldom disappears through one dramatic act of surrender. More often, it erodes through a thousand small concessions, each appearing tolerable when viewed alone, until citizens awaken to discover how much has changed.

While Men Slept: A Warning to This Generation

Those words from Matthew should ring in our ears: While men slept. While fathers slept, who discipled their sons? While mothers slept, who shaped their daughters? While pastors slept, who discipled their congregations? While citizens slept, who shaped their institutions? While Christians remained silent, who supplied the culture’s definitions of truth? God has not called His people to panic. He has not called us to hatred. He has not called us to make an idol out of politics. But neither has He called us to indifference.

Jesus said His followers are “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-16).

Salt preserves only when it comes into contact with what needs preserving. Light fulfills its purpose only when it shines into darkness. Retreat is not the answer. Faithful engagement is.

Who Will Go for Us? The Question Every Generation Must Answer

The words of Isaiah confront our generation:

“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” (Isaiah 6:8)

Isaiah answered:

“Here am I; send me.”

That question has not disappeared. Who will teach truth to the next generation? Who will speak when remaining silent would be easier? Who will study history well enough to recognize old ideologies when they return wearing new language? Who will defend biblical truth without descending into hatred? Who will defend liberty without turning politics into a religion? Who will walk onto the cultural battlefield equipped with Scripture, wisdom, courage, discernment, grace, and love? Somebody has to stand. Somebody has to teach. Somebody has to warn. Somebody has to go. Every generation eventually faces the same question:

Is the inheritance handed to us worth preserving for those who come after us? Our generation is answering that question right now.

How Under Fire Answers the Call

The warnings above are not offered merely to provoke concern; they explain why this message had to become a book. If the battle is ideological, spiritual, cultural, and generational, then Christians and citizens need more than outrage. They need discernment, historical memory, biblical courage, and a clear understanding of the ideas competing to define America’s future.

That is why I wrote Under Fire: A U.S. Marine’s Stand Against Democratic Socialism and Neo-Communism. I did not write it simply to add another political argument to an already deafening national shouting match. I wrote it because I believe Americans, and Christians in particular, must understand the ideological battle for America’s culture that is unfolding around them. We need to understand where influential political ideas originated and how they developed. We need to recognize how ideology can become something resembling a substitute religion, offering political salvation where Christianity proclaims spiritual redemption.

We need to understand what happens when government becomes the final authority, truth becomes negotiable, families weaken, faith retreats from public life, and a generation loses enough historical memory that it can no longer recognize ideas humanity has encountered before.

But recognizing the battle is only the beginning. Under Fire is ultimately a call to courage, discernment, faithfulness, and action.

Christians must learn again to take “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Parents must disciple their children. Pastors must preach the whole counsel of God, including the parts that make modern culture uncomfortable. Citizens must understand the freedoms they inherited and the responsibilities that accompany them. Believers must put on the whole armor of God and refuse to surrender truth simply because truth has fallen out of fashion.

And all of us must remember the warning of Romans 13:11:

“Now it is high time to awake out of sleep.”

Perhaps no command is more appropriate for this moment. Wake up. Not in fear. Not in hatred. Not in despair. But in truth. In prayer. In discernment. In courage. In faithfulness. America is under fire. But the battle is not over. Our institutions may be struggling. Our culture may be confused. Many Americans may remain unaware of the ideological forces competing for their allegiance. But history, and Scripture, reminds us that extraordinary change often begins with ordinary men and women who are willing to stand when their moment arrives. The question God placed before Isaiah still confronts us:

“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”

And now the question belongs to us.

Who will answer the call?

Semper Fidelis

Beware of the Social Gospel: Marxism, Social Justice, and the Modern Church

Charles Smoot — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 23:57:37 +0000

The modern Church is facing a subtle but serious challenge: the temptation to redefine the Gospel in the language of political activism, social reform, and cultural transformation. This danger rarely announces itself as a rejection of Christ. More often, it appears under admirable words such as compassion, justice, equality, mercy, and concern for the oppressed.

Those words matter. Christians should care deeply about the poor, the vulnerable, the suffering, and the mistreated. Yet biblical concern becomes dangerous when it is detached from biblical truth. When social concerns are elevated above the message of sin, repentance, the cross, and reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ, the Church is no longer merely emphasizing good works. It is in danger of preaching another gospel. That is why the Social Gospel must be examined carefully, biblically, and without compromise.

What Is the Social Gospel?

It is called the Social Gospel because it shifts the primary emphasis of Christianity from reconciliation with God toward the reformation of society. Rather than focusing first on humanity’s greatest need, salvation through the finished work of Jesus Christ, it places increasing emphasis on solving social, economic, and political problems through human effort, institutional reform, and collective action.

This distinction matters. Christianity certainly has social consequences, and a person transformed by the Gospel should demonstrate compassion, mercy, generosity, justice, forgiveness, and love toward others. But the Gospel itself is not a program for reorganizing society. The Gospel is the proclamation that sinful humanity can be reconciled to a holy God through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

That is the starting point.

Distinctions Within the Movement

Those who promote Social Gospel ideas are not all the same. Some openly reject the authority of Scripture and historic Christian doctrine. Others sincerely profess faith in Jesus Christ and affirm the Bible, yet interpret Christianity in a way that places social justice, economic reform, political activism, or cultural transformation near the center of the Church’s mission.

Sometimes these concerns are placed alongside the Gospel, and sometimes they gradually move ahead of it. That distinction is important because not every person advocating social reform should be labeled a Marxist, nor should every Christian concerned about injustice be treated as though he or she has abandoned biblical Christianity.

But every teaching must still be tested. Scripture commands believers, “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). Sincerity is not the final test. Compassion is not the final test. Political popularity is not the final test. The Word of God is the final test.

Marxism and Its Influence on Modern Christian Thought

The Social Gospel movement emerged during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, during a period when socialist and Marxist ideas were gaining increasing influence within Western intellectual life. It would be historically inaccurate to claim that every early Social Gospel leader was a Marxist. Most were not Marxists in any formal sense.

Nevertheless, important areas of conceptual overlap developed between Marxist social analysis and later forms of religious social activism. Marxism begins with a fundamentally different understanding of the human problem. In classical Marxist thought, the central conflict of society is rooted in material conditions, economic relationships, class conflict, ownership, and systems of power.

The solution is therefore largely structural. Marxist theory seeks to change the economic order, redistribute material power, restructure institutions, and transform relationships between social classes. In this framework, redemption is primarily political, economic, and material. Human beings seek to liberate human beings through collective action and the transformation of social structures.

The biblical Gospel begins somewhere else entirely.

Scripture teaches that mankind’s deepest problem is sin. “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10). “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). The human heart itself is described as “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9).

This does not mean that unjust institutions do not exist. They clearly can. Sinful people can create unjust laws, oppressive governments, exploitative businesses, corrupt churches, discriminatory practices, and abusive systems. Christianity does not deny institutional evil. It identifies its ultimate source. Sin exists in human beings before it appears in human institutions.

That distinction is critical.

Two Different Diagnoses of the Human Condition

The difference between Marxism and biblical Christianity is therefore deeper than political disagreement. It begins with the diagnosis of the human condition. Marxism primarily locates the problem in social and economic structures, while the Social Gospel can make those structures the primary arena in which redemption is pursued.

The Bible locates mankind’s deepest problem in sin and separation from God. The biblical Gospel proclaims redemption through the atoning work of Jesus Christ alone. This is not merely a difference of strategy. It is a difference of worldview.

If the human problem is primarily structural, then salvation must come primarily through structural transformation. But if the human problem is ultimately spiritual, then no political system can provide the final answer. No government program can forgive sin, no redistribution of wealth can reconcile a sinner to God, no political revolution can regenerate the human heart, and no legislation can produce the new birth.

Only Christ can accomplish that. “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17).

Horizontal Salvation and Vertical Salvation

Marxism ultimately offers what may be called a horizontal salvation. Human beings seek to redeem human beings through revolution, redistribution, political power, economic restructuring, and collective action.

The Gospel offers something fundamentally different. It begins vertically. God reconciles sinful humanity to Himself through Jesus Christ. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Cor. 5:19).

That vertical reconciliation then changes how redeemed people live horizontally toward one another. Christians forgive because they have been forgiven. They show mercy because they have received mercy. They care for the poor because God cares for the poor. They pursue justice because God is just, and they love their neighbors because Christ commanded them to do so.

But the order matters. Social transformation does not create the Gospel. The Gospel creates transformed people.

Good Works Are the Fruit, Not the Root

Christians are unquestionably called to good works. We are commanded to “do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly” with God (Mic. 6:8). We are told to care for those in distress (Jas. 1:27), and we are instructed to “do good unto all men” (Gal. 6:10).

But these works must be placed in their proper biblical order. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,” and believers are then described as being created in Christ Jesus “unto good works” (Eph. 2:8-10).

The sequence is unmistakable. Grace produces salvation. Salvation produces a transformed life. A transformed life produces good works. Good works are the fruit of salvation, not the cause of it.

We do not feed the hungry in order to be reconciled to God. We feed the hungry because we belong to Christ. We do not pursue justice in order to earn salvation. We pursue justice because we serve a righteous God. We do not demonstrate mercy in order to become Christians. We demonstrate mercy because the mercy of God has transformed us.

When acts of compassion become the message of salvation rather than the result of salvation, the mission of the Church has been fundamentally altered.

The Biblical Gospel

The biblical Gospel is clear. Mankind’s deepest problem is sin and separation from God, and mankind’s only hope is reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ. Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

We are justified freely by God’s grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:23-24). God demonstrated His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8). This is the message entrusted to the Church.

Paul summarized his own ministry with remarkable clarity when he wrote, “I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). That must remain the center.

Any message that shifts the Church’s primary mission from proclaiming Christ crucified toward achieving human redemption through political, social, or economic means must therefore be examined carefully in the light of Scripture. Paul warned the Galatian church about those who would distort the Gospel and called such distortion “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9).

That warning should be taken seriously.

The Great Commission Has Not Changed

Jesus did not leave His Church without instructions. He commanded His disciples to go into the world, make disciples of all nations, baptize them, and teach them to observe all that He had commanded (Matt. 28:18-20). That is the Great Commission.

The Church certainly influences culture. It may confront injustice, defend the vulnerable, speak prophetically to governments and institutions, and establish hospitals, schools, charities, ministries, and missions. But none of those activities can replace the central mission Christ gave His Church.

We proclaim Christ. We make disciples. We teach the Word of God. We call sinners to repentance and faith, and we live out the implications of the Gospel before a watching world.

Discernment in an Age of Ideology

The modern Church is surrounded by competing political and ideological systems. Marxism has its categories. Socialism has its categories. Progressivism has its categories. Conservatism has its categories. Political parties have their platforms, and social movements have their slogans.

The Church must never allow any of them to become the lens through which Scripture is ultimately interpreted. Our definitions of sin must come from Scripture. Our understanding of justice must come from Scripture. Our understanding of human nature, salvation, and the Church’s mission must come from Scripture.

The believers in Berea were commended because they searched the Scriptures daily to determine whether what they were hearing was true (Acts 17:11). That same discipline is desperately needed today.

Test the Spirits

In the Marine Corps, wearing the uniform did not place anyone beyond accountability. Orders mattered. Authority mattered. The chain of command mattered. The Church needs that same discipline.

A teaching does not become biblical merely because someone quotes Scripture. A movement does not become Christian simply because it speaks about justice. An ideology does not become the Gospel because it uses words such as compassion, liberation, equality, reconciliation, or human dignity.

Everything must be tested against the Word of God. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). That command remains as relevant now as when it was written.

The Church’s True Mission

The Church best serves the world by remaining faithful to Jesus Christ. She proclaims the Gospel, makes disciples, cares for the poor, defends the vulnerable, demonstrates mercy, confronts evil, practices generosity, loves her neighbors, and lives as salt and light in the world (Matt. 5:13-16).

But all of these things flow from the Gospel. They do not replace it.

The Gospel changes people. Changed people influence families. Changed families strengthen churches. Faithful churches influence communities, and transformed communities can influence nations.

This is why the order matters so much. Social transformation is not the Gospel. It is one of the possible byproducts of lives transformed by the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

The grace of God teaches believers to deny ungodliness, live righteously, and become “zealous of good works” (Titus 2:11-14). That is biblical transformation. It begins with God, proceeds through Christ, transforms the heart, and from the transformed heart reaches outward into the world.

In the end, the issue is not whether Christians should care about suffering, injustice, poverty, or human need. Scripture makes clear that we must. The issue is whether those concerns will remain rooted in the Gospel or whether they will be allowed to redefine it. Once the message of Christ crucified is moved from the center, even noble causes can become dangerous substitutes for the truth that saves.

The Church does not need a Marxist gospel, a socialist gospel, a progressive gospel, a conservative gospel, a Republican gospel, or a Democratic gospel. It needs the Gospel of Jesus Christ: the message that sinners are saved by grace through faith, that Christ died for our sins, that He rose again, and that all who belong to Him are called to live as faithful witnesses in a dark and confused world.

Therefore, the Church must guard the message entrusted to her. Test every ideology. Reject every counterfeit. Hold fast to Scripture. Make disciples. Love mercy. Do justice. Walk humbly with God. But above all, preach Christ crucified, risen, and coming again.

Semper Fidelis.

America Under Fire: The War of Ideas and the Crisis of Truth

Charles Smoot — Wed, 29 Jul 2026 22:56:13 +0000

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
—Ephesians 6:12

Political division. Economic anxiety. Cultural unrest. Civil disorder.

These are the visible signs of conflict in America. But beneath what we see lies a deeper struggle—a war of ideas and a crisis of truth.

This conflict is being fought wherever people learn what to believe, how to define right and wrong, and where to place their trust. It is unfolding in classrooms, churches, newsrooms, entertainment, government, social media, and increasingly within the family itself.

You see…

Ideas shape institutions.

Institutions shape culture.

And culture shapes the way people think, believe, and live.

The question before America is therefore much deeper than which political party will prevail or which candidate will win the next election.

The deeper question is this:

Which understanding of truth, freedom, justice, human nature, and authority will govern America’s future?

Scripture teaches that our ultimate struggle is not against flesh and blood. That does not mean political movements, institutions, or human decisions are unimportant. It means the conflict cannot be fully understood through politics alone.

The Struggle Behind the Struggle

Behind every political system is a particular view of humanity.

Behind every economic theory is a belief about justice, property, responsibility, and power.

Behind every cultural movement is either an acceptance or rejection of objective truth.

And behind every promise of liberation is a deeper question:

Liberation from what—and submission to whom?

The Bible teaches that human beings are created in the image of God and therefore possess inherent dignity.

“So God created man in his own image.”
—Genesis 1:27

But Scripture also teaches that humanity is fallen. Therefore, no individual, political party, economic class, collective, or government devised by man can be trusted with unlimited power.

Ideologies that reject God must eventually place ultimate authority somewhere else. They may place it in the state, the political party, the collective, the expert class, or supposedly enlightened leaders who claim to know what society needs.

But when man attempts to become his own god, he does not build heaven.

He usually constructs another form of bondage.

Counterfeit Liberation

The most dangerous ideologies rarely introduce themselves as instruments of oppression.

They arrive dressed in attractive language.

They speak of compassion.

They promise equity.

They appeal to justice.

They offer security, equality, unity, and progress.

But noble language can conceal destructive assumptions.

A movement may promise equality while demanding greater control over individual choice. It may promise justice while abandoning impartial standards. It may promise unity while treating disagreement as intolerance. It may offer security in exchange for liberty and describe the transaction as compassion.

History repeatedly demonstrates that utopian promises can produce dystopian realities. Political systems that claimed to liberate humanity have concentrated power, suppressed dissent, weakened families, restricted religious liberty, and treated faith in any authority higher than the state as a threat.

Socialism, communism, Marxism, and their modern descendants must therefore be examined beyond their slogans.

We must ask:

What do these ideologies teach about God, human nature, private property, the family, justice, and political authority?

What happened when their ideas were implemented?

And how are those assumptions being repackaged for a new generation?

Ideas must be judged not only by their stated intentions, but also by their worldview and consequences.

When Words Lose Their Meaning

One of the most effective weapons in a war of ideas is the redefinition of language.

When words lose their established meaning, truth becomes increasingly difficult to communicate. When truth cannot be communicated clearly, it cannot be defended effectively.

Eventually, truth is replaced by whatever narrative best serves those exercising cultural influence and power.

Consider what has happened to several familiar words.

Justice once commonly referred to applying the same moral and legal standards impartially. Today, it is often used to demand equality of outcomes.

Tolerance once meant allowing people with whom we disagree to live and speak without persecution. It is increasingly defined as affirming beliefs and conduct that Scripture identifies as sin.

Progress once suggested movement toward something demonstrably better. Today, it can simply mean movement away from biblical truth and traditional moral standards.

Rights were once widely understood as inherent and granted by God, with government obligated to protect them. They are now frequently treated as benefits that government may create, redefine, regulate, or withdraw.

Once the definitions change, the debate itself changes.

Those who continue using the older meanings are portrayed as hateful, ignorant, or extreme—not because their arguments have been answered, but because the vocabulary has been altered around them.

Isaiah warned of this moral reversal:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.”
—Isaiah 5:20

Moral confusion does not always sound cruel.

Sometimes it sounds compassionate.

That is precisely why discernment is necessary.

The Institutions Shaping Belief

The war of ideas is not confined to elections or legislative chambers. It is being fought through the institutions that shape human conviction.

Some classrooms teach children to view their national and religious heritage almost entirely through the lens of oppression.

Some media institutions treat traditional Christian belief as outdated while presenting moral confusion as enlightenment.

Political leaders offer government solutions to conditions rooted in spiritual, moral, familial, and cultural decline.

At the same time, some churches have adopted political language without examining the worldview behind it. Terms such as social justice may be repeated without distinguishing biblical justice from ideological frameworks rooted in Marxist thought.

A social gospel focused primarily on political activism can speak endlessly about changing structures while saying increasingly little about sin, repentance, redemption, regeneration, and the transformation of the human heart.

Political engagement has a legitimate place. Scripture does not require Christians to withdraw from public life.

But government cannot accomplish what only God can do.

Government may restrain certain forms of evil, administer justice, and protect ordered liberty.

But it cannot redeem the human heart.

Public policy can influence behavior.

It cannot produce spiritual rebirth.

No political program can replace the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Cost of Comfortable Silence

The failure of cultural institutions is serious, but the silence of spiritual leaders may be even more consequential.

Some leaders choose silence over confrontation. They exchange conviction for acceptance, biblical authority for cultural approval, and uncomfortable truth for institutional comfort.

Silence may preserve temporary peace, but it does not protect people from deception.

God has never called His people primarily to be comfortable.

He has called us to be faithful.

“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.”
—2 Timothy 4:2

Faithfulness does not require hatred, reckless language, or partisan manipulation. Political opponents are not enemies to be despised. Remember, our struggle is not against flesh and blood.

But refusing hatred does not require surrendering discernment.

Loving people does not require affirming every idea they embrace.

Speaking the truth in love still requires speaking the truth.

Faith and Freedom Rise or Fall Together

Faith and freedom are deeply connected.

Freedom without faith eventually deteriorates into license—the belief that liberty means the absence of moral restraint.

Faith without freedom can be reduced to a private ceremony permitted only where it offers no challenge to cultural or governmental power.

A free society requires citizens capable of governing themselves. Self-government requires moral discipline, personal responsibility, and recognition that liberty carries sacred obligations.

Political freedom cannot remain secure when people surrender responsibility in exchange for provision, independence in exchange for protection, and conscience in exchange for approval.

Only God can make a person truly free.

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.”
—Galatians 5:1

Government has a legitimate, God-ordained role. But government cannot save humanity, create righteousness, or establish heaven on earth.

Every political promise of total liberation is therefore a counterfeit.

From the Briefing Room to the Battlefield

Recognizing the conflict is only the beginning.

A Marine who identifies a threat does not remain exposed. He takes cover, assesses the battlefield, communicates clearly, and prepares to respond.

The Christian response to ideological warfare must likewise involve more than anger or alarm.

It requires clarity.

Courage.

Conviction.

Prayer.

Disciplined thought.

And personal faithfulness.

Scripture commands us to challenge every idea that exalts itself against the knowledge of God:

“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.”
—2 Corinthians 10:5

That means examining political and cultural claims through a biblical worldview rather than allowing Scripture to be interpreted through the ideology of the moment.

The weapons of spiritual warfare are not hatred, intimidation, or violence.

They are truth, prayer, courage, obedience, wisdom, and faithfulness.

A Crossroads For America

America stands at a crossroads, but the choice before us is deeper than electoral politics.

Will truth be treated as objective, knowable, and grounded in God—or constructed by those in power?

Will rights be recognized as gifts from the Almighty—or permissions granted by government?

Will justice remain impartial—or become an instrument for enforcing ideological outcomes?

Will churches equip believers to discern the times—or remain silent to preserve comfort?

Will citizens accept increasing control in exchange for promises of security?

And will Christians recognize that the conflict around us is spiritual as well as political?

Under Fire was written to examine this ideological and spiritual battlefield—the nature of the threat, its historical development, its modern manifestations, and the biblical response required from the people of God.

It is not merely a warning.

It is a call to clarity, courage, conviction, and disciplined action.

The battle for America’s soul will not be won through panic, rage, or political idolatry. It will require faithful people who know what they believe, understand the forces shaping their culture, and refuse to bow when truth becomes costly.

The briefing is ending.

The battlefield is before us.

And the time for comfortable neutrality is over.

Faith and freedom rise or fall together.