The De-Christianization of the West Was About Loosening the Restraints of Would-Be Tyrants

"The Western world, in its vain pursuit of 'liberty' from Christianity, shaped for itself a society ripe for tyranny."

Ideas have consequences. That’s especially true when those ideas seek to reshape, redefine, or replace the most fundamental pillars of society—how we discover truth, arbitrate justice, and define what’s morally good.

In other words, we cannot alter what George Washington called a nation’s “indispensable supports” of prosperity and well-being without profoundly affecting every aspect of society. For Washington, those supports were Christianity and morality. To undermine one is to weaken the other, and to remove both is to erode the very foundations of truth and justice.

Abolitionist William Wilberforce gave a similar warning, noting that “the loss of the Church… would itself be attended with the most fatal consequences.” He said, “No prudent man dares hastily pronounce how far its destruction might not greatly endanger our civil institutions.”

Have we not already witnessed this? The Western world was convinced that Christianity had no authority in defining concepts such as truth, justice, and morality. Alongside this, it was deluded into believing that the Christian faith had no place in limiting the power and reach of civil government over the lives of its citizens.

It had not been sold to the public in those terms, but that was the inevitable implication. The systematic rejection of Christianity had instead been marketed under the promise of pluralism, religious freedom, moral relativism, and sexual liberation. Yet ideas had consequences, and to a disastrously large extent, the Western world had bought it—hook, line, sinker, and then some.

The heirs of Christendom thought that they were fighting for liberation from the archaic restraints of the Christian religion, when, in fact, they were only loosening the chains of their would-be tyrants and wannabe dictators.

The only liberty many Westerners were convinced was worth fighting for was the liberty to sin against God—to defy the Christian faith, to blaspheme what was holy, and to desecrate what was sacred. Consequences be damned.

But by then, it appeared the Western man was arousing from his self-induced slumber, only to find that without God over government, the shackles that once restrained the state now restrained the people. What many are discovering is that nature hates a void. If, in the public mind, you vacate the highest throne in the universe, someone or something else will seek to occupy it.

In essence, to reject Christ as the highest authority over a nation is, in practice, to enthrone the state in His place.

As Peter Hitchens argued in The Rage Against God, there is only one reliable force standing in the way of the power of the strong over the weak—namely, Christianity.

“In an age of power-worship,” he said, “the Christian religion has become the principal obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power.”

Thus, the removal of Christianity from the public square was ultimately about the enthronement of the state, and nothing more. The affirmation of sexual desires and preferred pronouns was simply one of many means used to normalise this shift with public consent. At its core, the aim was to reduce Christianity to one option among many—none of which is permitted any exclusive claim to truth, justice, or morality.

The de-Christianisation of the West was presented as moral liberation and the empowerment of the people. What was purchased, however, was in many respects the opposite. If Jesus does not define the limits placed on personal behaviour, then he does not restrain the behaviour of governing authorities either. If he does not shape the laws, then he does not limit the state.

Do away with Christianity, and with it the conviction that governing authorities are bound by biblical limits, and what is left is a society governed by the arbitrary will of those in power—able to legislate any idea they desire, and without higher moral restraint or accountability.

In the end, might makes right—and that is a system always favoured by those who refuse to serve a higher authority and instead seek to become the highest authority themselves. Once enthroned in that position of supremacy, the state becomes the final arbiter not only of moral behaviour, but also of what counts as basic human rights and freedoms.

The Western world, in its vain pursuit of “liberty” from Christianity, shaped for itself a society ripe for tyranny. And suddenly, without warning, it found there was no higher court to appeal to, no higher standard by which to hold Caesar accountable, and no meaningful measure by which to cry, “Injustice!”