Point of View October 5, 2026 – Hour 2 : Greenland Deal Update, How to Think Like Jesus

[00:00:04] Across America, Live, this is Point of View. And now, Dr. Merrill Matthews.

[00:00:20] And if you've been following the news lately, you have heard that President Trump at the UN was able to finalize an agreement with the country of Greenland, the island of Greenland, which is part of Denmark, a subsidiary of Denmark. And so when we heard this, we looked at this and said, we've had a treaty there. Is this a better treaty than what we've had all along?

[00:00:47] And our next guest says it is, in fact, an improvement. Our guest for this next segment, two segments, is Mike Cote. He's a reporter, a freelance writer, and a podcaster and historian specializing in foreign policy, geopolitics, and European history. He's the creator of the Rational Policy blog and contributes to publications like National Review and The Dispatch. And we're going to talk to him about his recent article came out on September 29 in The Dispatch.

[00:01:17] The title of it is The Greenland Deal is Good, Actually. Mike, thank you for joining us. Thank you so much for having me. Well, I was really interested to see your article because, like I mentioned, you know, we've had a treaty with Greenland for a long time. And when Trump came out and said this is a much better treaty, I was, OK, is it really much better, just a little bit better or what? You have a perspective on this. Why is Greenland so important to the United States?

[00:01:45] So there's a few reasons. I mean, historically, it's always in some place that's obviously very close to us geographically. That's not too far off where we've used as fishing grounds going back to the colonial times. But in modern day, it's super important to us because of its defense potential, especially with respect to the Western Hemisphere and the U.S. homeland. If you look at a map, that's always helpful to do when you're talking about foreign policy and geopolitics.

[00:02:08] Greenland is basically sitting at the gateway from the Arctic to the Atlantic Ocean, right down to the eastern seaboard of the U.S. and our major population centers. Not only would that help control maritime access from places like the Arctic, whether that's Russia coming through the Arctic and down, which was really the big challenge during the Cold War, or countries like China as well today.

[00:02:29] And it's also super important because it is the closest and shortest route that ballistic missiles, whether nuclear-tipped or not, coming from either Russia, Iran, or North Korea would hit the eastern seaboard. They'd basically take the shortest route possible, which is over the polar ice cap. So that's a very important area for stationing early warning systems as well as potentially missile interceptors. Now, when President Trump came into office, he started talking about Greenland.

[00:02:58] He wanted the U.S. to take over Greenland, perhaps buy Greenland. I noticed at the time Mike Pence, a former vice president under Donald Trump, and I suspect there are some tensions in between them. But Mike Pence sent out a note saying he thought Greenland was strategic and very important and that moving to try to address this issue was important. But Trump, I don't know, I think he kind of stepped on his message some by the way he did this.

[00:03:27] What's your thinking about this? I completely agree about that. I think he has a good idea here in terms of focusing on hemispheric security, on bolstering our presence in Greenland. But again, the way he went about doing it, I think, was counterproductive. I can understand that Denmark was maybe uninterested in changing the status quo here, same with Greenland. But, you know, we're close allies with them. We've had a long-lasting relationship, and clearly we're the more powerful, stronger partner here.

[00:03:55] So with diplomacy, we could have gotten a deal like this done possibly much earlier than now. But I think some of the bluster and some of the threats, frankly, to put it that way, were a bit counterproductive. They kind of alienated some of the decision-makers on the other side. Again, those are the kind of folks that you need to work out a new deal like the one we ended up having. But, you know, unfortunately, although it was a difficult time in the relationship, thankfully at this point we do have a new deal. It's not something that is an irreparable break between the U.S. and Denmark or Greenland.

[00:04:25] And I think this new deal gives us an opportunity to kind of rebuild some of those positive attributes of the relationship by working together on security issues. One of the things I see in the news fairly often is there is a gradual decline in Arctic ice. I sometimes will see a news story saying, well, it's actually increased a little bit here, but it does seem to be that it has declined.

[00:04:46] And as I understand it now, China and Russia are both using or looking at the Arctic to be able to navigate areas around there because there's more seawater now than there is Arctic ice in places. And they'll be able to do that. Is that playing – does that issue make Greenland a more important strategic factor than it might have been in the past? Yes, it certainly does. Yes, it certainly does. Not only the decline in Arctic ice.

[00:05:12] Unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is not a continental landmass. It is largely just floating sea ice on top of some islands. And so that is very navigable either when that ice melts or with especially new technologies like nuclear-powered icebreaker ships. The Russians have invested in those significantly, much more so than we have. And now the Chinese are getting into the game as well, as you mentioned. And they've been working on this for quite some time. Obviously, Russia is a polar nation simply geographically. China is not.

[00:05:41] So China's involvement here really does – it should raise some alarm bells. It's not purely scientific as they've made it out to be. It is both economic and military. They're working with Russia to, you know, bolster their economic partnership.

[00:05:54] And one of the ways that's easiest to do that is by shipping via the Arctic around the northern part of Russia across and down into the Pacific, which allows them kind of to avoid some of the maritime choke points that, you know, otherwise would harm Russian trade with China, whether that's in the Baltic Sea or the Black Sea. Obviously, Russia has made lots of enemies in Europe. And so they don't really have as free access as they used to to get out of those traditional maritime passages.

[00:06:23] So now that the sea ice is melting a bit more, now that they have these new icebreakers and a reliable and willing partner in China, they are investing a lot more in this route. And that is something that does matter a lot for us and does make Greenland more strategic. What does our – we had a previous agreement with them. What did that look like and why do you think that really was not sufficient going forward?

[00:06:49] So, honestly, it was quite a good deal generally, especially for the time that it was made. This was a deal signed in 1951, kind of at the peak of the beginning of the Cold War. We were on the back foot compared to the Soviets in terms of conventional military force. They had, you know, just got nuclear. So there was a lot of tension there. And so Greenland, obviously, again, still a strategic point on the map at that point in time as well. We basically had a deal with them that was under the auspices of NATO. It was kind of a corollary to the NATO treaty that had been signed a few years earlier.

[00:07:18] And it was intended to, you know, secure joint U.S., Danish, and NATO interests on the island of Greenland. So it was very much dedicated to those specific security concerns, kind of our joint security concerns, versus ones that are specific to the United States. It also was one that allowed Denmark to essentially have veto power on a lot of the things that we'd want to do. At the time, not very important.

[00:07:44] Obviously, again, we had very, very linked interests in 1951 and also the same shared enemy that we both agreed on very, very well. And so that was not really something that would have been an issue, right? I don't think the Greenlanders or the Danes would have said, hey, you know, if we had a concern about Russia, they're not going to follow our lead. But things have changed. You know, the Soviet Union ended in 1991. This is a long time since then, and the threat picture has really changed.

[00:08:12] So I think the deal that we previously had, that kind of foregrounded Danish sovereignty, allowed them a veto power over some of our desires, even though they may not exercise it and have not really in the past. That existing was kind of a potential issue for us. And again, falling under specifically the NATO agreements. Again, that works in the past. That may work in the future. But having more control over it as the United States, a sovereign country is pretty beneficial.

[00:08:38] Mike, when we come back, I'd like you to talk a bit about why you think the new treaty, where it makes some advancements. So stay with us. We'll be back with Mike Cote in just a minute. This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. In his video, John Stossel asked people on the street,

[00:09:07] if you could spend $30 billion trying to solve the world's problems, how would you spend it? As you might imagine, the most common answer was fight climate change. John Lomburg of the Copenhagen Consensus Center has much better answers. In the past, we have talked about his several books on the environment and climate change. He says he's not surprised at the answers since we live in a rich world. But when he has put together experts from the UN, NGOs, and the university to address the world's biggest problems, they give very different answers.

[00:09:36] In his new book, Best Things First, he says that spending $35 billion in the poorest part of the earth could save 4.2 million lives every year. That would include screening for tuberculosis and getting medicine to people who need it. Hundreds of thousands die from malaria. Buying bed nets with insecticides that kill mosquitoes also would save lives. In a speech he gave at the Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar, he shows a graph of deaths from climate.

[00:10:04] These climate-related deaths from floods, drought, storms, wildfires, and extreme temperature dropped from 500,000 a year in the 1920s to 11,000 today. A major reason for the decline is the fact that we have become wealthier. We have better technology and better predictive capabilities. His latest writing and speeches are a reminder that we should be thinking smarter about how to spend our scarce economic resources.

[00:10:30] Thinking smartly also requires a recognition that the earth is not tittering on the edge of an environmental apocalypse. We need to focus on the best things first to make this planet an even better place to live. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view. Go deeper on topics like you just heard by visiting pointofview.net. That's pointofview.net.

[00:11:00] You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. And welcome back to Point of View. My guest for one more segment is foreign policy expert Mike Cote. We're talking about a new article he has written for the dispatch on the Greenland Agreement Treaty that President Trump signed at the UN back in September. And we have access to that article. You can go to pointofview.net.

[00:11:29] We have a link for that so you can get it there and take a look at it. It's excellent. So, Mike, why do you think the new treaty improves? What specific points does it improve on? So there's a few. I think the first one and the most kind of basic one is that it kind of abstracts it from the NATO agreement that it was previously kind of related to. And I'm someone who's a big proponent of the NATO alliance. You may dead bury on that.

[00:11:54] But the idea that our domestic security concerns in Greenland are under the aegis of separate alliance and not just under our own government is concerned. Not only because Greenland may one day become independent and leave NATO, the US may leave NATO. NATO itself may cease to exist for various reasons. So having access to Greenland for security purposes outside of that and in perpetuity.

[00:12:21] Because previously the agreement said it was lasting as long as the North Atlantic Treaty did. So it was, again, reliant on another treaty. So if we're able to separate that and allow us access for security reasons in Greenland in perpetuity, that is a huge benefit. Another one, I think the other really big one here, is to add in some clauses about excluding foreign rivals that are not in NATO. Obviously, in the past, like we were speaking about, the Soviet Union was always a threat in the Arctic.

[00:12:49] But it was also one that really was a direct military threat. It was not an economic threat necessarily. And the potential for dual use, which are basically something that is both has an economic slash civilian purpose and a military purpose. Those didn't really exist to the same extent in, you know, the 1950s, 60s, 70s as they do today in terms of technological changes and the ability for foreign adversaries to use things that may seem, you know, anodyne, like investments in communication infrastructure for malign purposes.

[00:13:19] And so this new deal basically allows us to have our own veto on any sort of foreign non-NATO economic or military activity on Greenland. Again, that may not have been something that was ever necessary. Right. You know, the Danes have never allowed Russia to be part of Greenland. They may not allow China to. But may is not good enough in a case like this, given the threat that China poses and what they've been trying to do in terms of their economic warfare against the West.

[00:13:46] It's a good point because even though China didn't have a base on Greenland, I suppose it's conceivable that they might have tried to talk to Denmark to see if they might end up being able to put something on there, offering Denmark some other things or something in return. But that, I guess, at least was a possibility. Yes, it certainly was. And even if not a military base, right, a scientific base could be used for espionage or surveillance. Sure.

[00:14:13] Even economic investment, whether that's, you know, like I said, investing in the communications infrastructure. Huawei is a Chinese essentially government owned company, and it's been used by the Chinese government in the past to insert spyware or other various espionage sort of tactics to control information. And when the U.S. has important military bases on Greenland, our adversaries would be chomping at the bit to have access to the information that passes through that place and allow possibly even some sabotage potential there.

[00:14:44] At one point, President Trump was talking about having access to the natural resources there at Greenland. You know, he talked about that with Ukraine also. And I was reading some stories at the time that Greenland is so big and so cold and so unpopulated, just sort of raw land with a lot of ice on it, that trying to reach the natural resources in there and extract them would be very expensive and not that practical. What's your thinking on that?

[00:15:13] As of now, I don't think that's incorrect. But things do change rapidly. We were talking about the changing picture of sea ice in the area and Arctic ice generally. That can open up some new avenues. And just with the pace of technological innovation and invention, it does open up lots of different ways that we can access resources that were previously unavailable. I mean, if you think back 20 years, I don't think fracking was something that people thought was going to be as powerful a technology as it was

[00:15:40] to open up so much natural gas that we're a net exporter of energy now. And so technologies like that come out of nowhere, it feels like sometimes. And I think having the ability to extract resources potentially in the future is beneficial. And especially the biggest thing here is the ability to exclude rivals from doing the same thing. So even if we're not necessarily the ones who are pulling this out, say no one's doing it.

[00:16:03] At least it's not the Chinese doing it, especially given the type of resources that are in Greenland, rare earth metals and minerals and things like that, that are super important for various high technology uses, whether that's silicon chips or various military applications as well. The Chinese essentially have a monopoly on the global market there. So if we have more access than we used to to a place that is close to us and that we can exclude them from, that is a benefit on our end.

[00:16:29] I think there were some polls taken last year, maybe early part of this year, of Greenlanders and asking whether or not they supported the U.S. coming in, taking over Greenland, buying Greenland or whatever. And it was huge. I think like 83, 85 percent of the Greenlanders oppose that. Is Greenland, are the Greenlanders, the citizens, are they generally amenable to Americans?

[00:16:54] Do you think it's created a bad taste in their mouth and there will be some, I don't know, some contention with our people moving in? There certainly could be. I mean, it is one thing that we've been there for quite some time. We've essentially had a military presence there uninterrupted. There's only one base here. It's only been one base for a while, hasn't it? Yes, it has. We basically downsized. We had the ability to have several bases there.

[00:17:18] But at this point, it was essentially just one, like you said, Ptufik air base, space base, actually, which used to be Thule Air Base back in the day. And that is a sizable base. It is one that does have some economic activity in Greenland. But the ability to build several new bases, which are also in this treaty, would boost economic activity in Greenland. It is a relatively poor place. So the ability for the U.S. to come in and bring potential jobs, other economic activity to Greenland and some development there, I do think would be beneficial.

[00:17:47] As of now, it does seem like we did put a bad taste in their mouth with the way that we went about doing this. But I don't think that is necessarily permanent. I think through investment, through investment of time, money, bringing jobs that will be used to help build these facilities that we're going to be constructing. I think that is going to be beneficial. And I would believe that that will change some of the relationship here. But generally, honestly, if we have the ability to control our own destiny in Greenland, I think that is the most important thing here.

[00:18:15] You raised an interesting point when you talk about investment because we've crossed $40 trillion in debt. We're at around $2 trillion in the deficit in this last fiscal year. Is this going to cost taxpayers a lot of money? I don't think it will cost a lot of money. If you look at our defense budget, it is already quite sizable. This sort of investment will be increased. Don't get me wrong. It will increase the defense budget and thus the overall budget.

[00:18:44] At the same time, it is one that is relatively minor compared to some of the other major investments we have, not only in defense but in entitlement programs. And given the general push towards Arctic security, honestly a bipartisan push. We've been investing more, at least on paper, in things like icebreakers than we have in the past. And so some of that money being transferred from programs like that to ones that are specifically intended to build new facilities on Greenland, I don't think is going to change the overall budget picture meaningfully.

[00:19:14] We've got a couple of minutes left, Mike. How quickly do you think we will act on this? Is this something where you sign a treaty and then five years from now we say, well, they've done a little surveying, but they haven't really done anything? Or do you expect this to be engaged with very quickly? My hope of that we will be engaged with quite quickly. Like I said, I do think there is a bipartisan consensus on increasing our security presence in the Arctic, whether it's in Greenland or elsewhere.

[00:19:43] So I think that does militate towards moving this forward a little bit quicker. I also think the fact that we already have base locations that were preexisting that we can now kind of rebuild is beneficial as well, given that we don't need to kind of find brand new locations for this. I do think the Trump administration has been foregrounding the Western Hemisphere. His big golden dome project of missile interceptors is something that he clearly does care a lot about. That is something that would be stationed in Greenland.

[00:20:12] So I would be very surprised if there was not significant movement on that before the end of his term, especially, I think, given the potential for an administration to come in next that is not necessarily favorable to many of his projects. I think he would try to push to get this done sooner rather than later. Very good. And I do think, given this type of deal, I think we have the ability to do that. It's more just the willpower. Well, Mike, thank you so much for joining us and sharing your thoughts about Greenland.

[00:20:41] That article is available on the Point of View website, pointofview.net. So you can go there, and I encourage you to take that. You can find out more information about Mike Cote there and other things that he's doing. Mike, thank you so much. Hey, thanks so much for having me. I always love it. Thank you. And when we come back, we're going to be going to Dr. George Bonner. He is a longtime friend of Point of View, and he's got a new book out now on how to think like Jesus. That's an interesting concept.

[00:21:09] How do we think like Jesus? We'll be going with Dr. Bonner here just in a few minutes. And I found the book just very, very interesting. I've got little tabs stuck all through the book as I went through it. Stay with us. We'll be right back with Dr. George Bonner. It almost seems like we live in a different world from many people in positions of authority.

[00:21:39] They say men can be women and women men. People are prosecuted differently or not at all depending on their politics. Criminals are more valued and rewarded than law-abiding citizens. It's so overwhelming, so demoralizing. You feel like giving up. But we can't. We shouldn't. We must not. As Winston Churchill said to Britain in the darkest days of World War II, Never give in. Never give in.

[00:22:08] Never, never, never. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. And that's what we say to you today. This is not a time to give in, but to step up and join Point of View in providing clarity in the chaos. We can't do it alone, but together, with God's help, we will overcome the darkness.

[00:22:32] Invest in biblical clarity today at pointofview.net or call 1-800-347-5151. Pointofview.net and 1-800-347-5151. Point of View will continue after this.

[00:22:54] You are listening to Point of View. The opinions expressed on Point of View do not necessarily reflect the views of the management or staff of this station. And now, here again, Dr. Merrill Matthews. And welcome back to Point of View.

[00:23:19] I'm excited that we're going to be able to have Dr. George Barna join us to talk about one of his new books. He is the director of research and co-founder of the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University, where he's also a professor. He spent more than four decades with the Barna Group as he conducted cutting-edge research in areas of worldview, faith, and culture in America. And I know, Dr. Barna, you've been a longtime friend of Point of View.

[00:23:48] And Kirby frees at you often. He's done so when I've been here. And so your research has been just a sort of a point of something that we here at Point of View have cited many times. Thank you for joining us. Well, thanks for having me, Dr. Matthews. And, yeah, I cite Kirby's research as well. So I'm a big love for SDR. Yeah, it's great. Well, you've written a new book, How to Think Like Jesus. And I was, you know, I went through this.

[00:24:18] I'm going to hold it up so our viewers can see it who are watching online. Because I've got little tabs all stuck all through this thing on various points that you make. And what's interesting about this is you've got seven cornerstones. We want to talk about that. You start each chapter with some of your research that sort of sets the stage as to why this is so important. So start out by telling us, why did you write the book, How to Think Like Jesus? Well, it was kind of an outgrowth of a couple of things.

[00:24:48] One of those is we have an online assessment that people can take of their worldview. And what the assessment does is it tells a person whether or not they have a biblical worldview. If they don't have a biblical worldview, it will tell them what worldview they do have. But it also gives them an assessment of these seven cornerstones.

[00:25:12] Because the idea behind the seven cornerstones is that they are a foundation to build a complete biblical worldview upon. And after thousands and thousands of people took the assessment online, it became obvious that not many people have a strong foundation. So the book is partly based on that insight, looking at how many people really don't know the basics,

[00:25:39] the fundamentals of their faith. The other reality is that this originally came about, and the reason that we have the seven cornerstones studied in the online assessment in the first place, is that I was doing research on people's worldview and discovered that people who own, that is they don't just give mental assent to, but they really own these seven cornerstones as part of their identity,

[00:26:07] part of their lifestyle, part of what they're all about. Well, 83% of those people are likely to develop a complete biblical worldview. But if a person rejects even one of these seven cornerstones, and it doesn't matter which one, but if you reject one or more of these seven cornerstones, the chances of you going on and developing a complete biblical worldview drops to just 2%.

[00:26:35] So these are very critical as a foundation for all believers who want to be disciples of Jesus. You know, Kirby frequently uses the term worldview here on Point of View, but take a minute just to explain what exactly a worldview is, and why it needs to be consistent.

[00:26:58] Well, maybe the simplest way of thinking of it is that your worldview is your decision-making filter. Every day you make thousands of decisions, and you've got to base it on something. Well, the something that you're basing it on is your worldview, which is kind of the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual filter through which you experience, interpret, and understand and respond to the world. So everybody has a worldview.

[00:27:28] You need to to get through the day because you're going to be making decisions, and you have to make it based on something. And what my research years ago discovered was that a person's worldview starts developing at 15 to 18 months of age and is completely developed by the age of 13. So that 12-year window of time when we're children is critically important, not just for us to have a good time, to establish friendships,

[00:27:57] and feel like we're part of a great family, but it's most important perhaps because that's when we develop a worldview, this decision-making filter that we're going to carry with us for the rest of our life. I did a longitudinal study. We tracked people's spiritual journey. One of the things that came out of that research was that a person's worldview barely, if ever, changes after the age of 13. Some people's worldview will change completely.

[00:28:25] The Holy Spirit can change anybody at any time. But, again, I'm a sociologist, so I'm looking at the averages. And what I find is that a huge, huge majority of people never really change their worldview after the age of 13. They may refine it. They may figure out how to articulate it better. There may be a few things within it that they alter, but by and large, it stays with them. I could see somebody saying,

[00:28:52] But, Dr. Barna, I'm not a religious person, so I don't have a worldview. You don't agree with that, do you? No, absolutely not. It has nothing to do with whether or not you're a religious person. You're a person. That's the key statement there. And as a person, you're going to make decisions.

[00:29:12] And you've got to make it on the basis of something that you deeply believe and that you believe so much that you want to act that out in your life. And that's what your worldview is. One of the things that I teach our students here is you do what you believe. And so your worldview is that combination of beliefs that you really are sold out to so much so that you're going to convert them into behaviors.

[00:29:41] And those things that you not only believe but you act on them, those are the basis. Those are the elements of your worldview, whether you're religious or not. America has tens of millions of non-religious people. Every one of them has a worldview. Every one of them had a worldview that developed when they were young.

[00:30:01] If you were going to address this, would you say that is there a most common worldview or maybe most common elements of a worldview? What's the most common thing that you find out there with regard to worldview? Well, we study about 13 or 14 different worldviews in America.

[00:30:24] Every year we do something called the American Worldview Inventory, which is a large nationwide survey where we evaluate what is the worldview that Americans possess. We've been doing this for years. And right now we know that only 4% of adults have a biblical worldview. So what do most people have? It's a worldview called syncretism, which most people have never heard of. And if you read worldview books, you're probably not going to find it in there.

[00:30:55] Syncretism essentially is where you just cut and paste parts of different worldviews together into your own nuanced, customized, very personal worldview. And the way that we determine what to put in that worldview is we look at all the choices that we have. We can take elements from postmodernism, from secular humanism, from Eastern mysticism, from biblical theism, the biblical worldview.

[00:31:23] There are dozens of well-known, well-articulated philosophies of life or worldviews that are out there. But what we in America have become the champions of is saying, I'm not going to buy into any one of those because I don't like everything that any particular worldview promotes. What I'm going to do instead is I'm going to listen to what they have to offer, and I'm going to pick and choose the things that make sense to me,

[00:31:50] the things that I really like, the things that make me feel comfortable and secure, the things that might make me more popular or fit in. And so when we evaluate people's worldview, we find that they've got elements of, on average, six or seven different worldviews that are part of their personal worldview. And that customized worldview that doesn't fit in any of those other categories, that's what's known as syncretism.

[00:32:19] Right now, 94, 95% of adults in America are syncretists. So, and I would assume that many of those elements of their worldview are incompatible with each other. They're internally inconsistent. Yeah, it's really interesting because when you talk with people about their worldview, they'll say, well, I really believe this. And if you're listening closely, you say, well, wait a minute, 10 minutes ago, you told me you really believe that.

[00:32:48] How many times have I seen that? Oh, yeah. You know, and you confront them. You say, wait a minute, those two can't coexist peacefully. And most Americans aren't the least fit to stir by. They say, well, whatever, it works for me. Well, you know, you cite seven cornerstones of a biblical worldview. When we come back from the break, I want you to walk us through those and tell us what, and just give us a sense of what those mean in order to create a consistent biblical worldview.

[00:33:18] My guest for one more segment, Dr. George Barna. He has recently published his new book, How to Think Like Jesus. It is filled with good information, also facts about just how people approach a worldview, and everybody has one. Dr. Barna, stay with us. We'll be right back.

[00:33:36] You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth.

[00:34:06] And welcome back to Point of View. My guest for one more segment, Dr. George Barna. He is the director of research and co-founder of the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University. And for 40 years or so, he was just one of the leading research people in the terms of areas of worldview, faith, and culture in America. And we cited his information and statistics here on Point of View frequently.

[00:34:34] He's got a new book out now, How to Think Like Jesus. And, Dr. Barna, tell us about the seven cornerstones of a biblical worldview. You know, it's funny. When I first found these, as they emerged out of the research, I kind of laughed. Because at first I thought, oh, wow, I discovered something that's going to be really helpful to people. And then as I looked at them more carefully, I thought, oh, no, they're going to laugh at me because I discovered Sunday School 101.

[00:35:03] But, you know, the problem that I've discovered in the research is that even though people who have been attending church have heard all of these cornerstones, they say, oh, yeah, I believe that. I mean, we're not talking here about just giving a vague mental assent to it. We're talking about do you believe this so much that you're wrapping not only your lifestyle but your personal identity around these cornerstones

[00:35:30] because these should be the foundation of which you build your entire worldview. And so there are things like believing that the God of the Bible exists and is the creator and ruler of the universe and everything in it, that he's got a number of character traits that we can identify. He knows everything. He's all-powerful. He's ever-present. He's eternal. He's holy. He's perfect.

[00:35:56] And the list goes on, but you have to understand just how incredible and invincible and unique he is and that he loves every human being. That leads to a second cornerstone, which is about us. And that's that as human beings, all of us are sinful by nature. We're born into sin.

[00:36:18] And that sin has really significant moral consequences and considerations for us, which leads to a third cornerstone, which is that those consequences can only be dealt with through Jesus Christ. Your sin is going to destroy you eternally unless you acknowledge it, you confess it, you invite Jesus,

[00:36:42] you ask Jesus, you beg Jesus to be your Savior so that you don't have to pay the price for your sins. He's already paid it. And so if you embrace him as your Savior, that will change everything for you eternally. Cornerstone number four is, but wait a minute, how do we even know that there's truth? That, you know, how can there be sin if there's no truth? How do we know that there's truth, much less absolute moral truth?

[00:37:11] Well, cornerstone number four says, yes, absolute moral truth exists. Those truths are defined by God. They're described in the Bible. They don't change over the course of time. They don't change according to the culture. And that leads to cornerstone number five, which has to do with the Bible. Can we really trust it? And so I spend a lot of time in the book talking about how do we know that we can really trust the Bible? Because it is true. It is reliable.

[00:37:40] It is relevant for our lives today. And it's the best moral guide that any person could have in any situation they find themselves. And then the final two cornerstones are related, first of all, to our purpose on earth. All of us have a common purpose and a unique individual purpose, our calling, if you will.

[00:38:03] But that common purpose for all of us is that we exist to glorify God by knowing him, loving him, and serving him with all our heart, mind, strength, and soul. Something that Jesus himself told us to do. And then the final cornerstone is, well, how do you know if you're successful? And the Bible gives us the answer, basically tells us that the best definition of success is consistent obedience to God.

[00:38:32] It's not about your car, your house, your zip code, or anything else. It's really about your thoughts, your words, your actions, and whether or not they are in harmony with the way that God told us to live. So those are the seven, and they're not necessarily the ones that I would have picked. They're not necessarily the ones that certain pastors would pick. But these are the seven that came out of the research and say, man, if you want a solid foundation,

[00:39:01] that's going to give you a chance to really develop a complete biblical worldview. Because these seven do not form a complete biblical worldview. But they're a solid foundation on which to build a complete worldview that's biblical. And that ultimately is necessary because you want to be a disciple. But to be a disciple, you've got to think like Jesus. Why? Because we do what we believe. So if you think like Jesus, that will then enable you to live like Jesus.

[00:39:29] And that's what makes you a disciple. Well, as you sort of suggest, these seven principles are sort of like Christianity 101. But there are a lot of different churches in the country, different denominations, different pastors. Do you see, do you find many pastors actually consistently teaching these seven cornerstones? No.

[00:39:53] Now, I will say that many, many pastors will touch on some or even all of these elements. But the key here is to get people not just to hear it and take notes and walk out in agreement. It's to get us to own these principles, these truth principles that God gives to us in his word. Own them to such an extent that when people watch us, and people watch us all the time,

[00:40:21] but when they watch us, they can see these things in place. They may not understand it, but at least they'd be curious about, wow, what makes George do that? What makes Meryl do this? You know, and so there are critical elements of how we think and how we live, and they give us an opportunity to affect the culture through our conversation, through our behaviors, and so forth.

[00:40:47] Sadly, the research shows that some of these key things like sin. Pew did a study four or five years ago where they looked at what churches were preaching. They analyzed more than 50,000 sermons nationwide and found that very, very few down in the single digits. I think it was about 3% of pastors taught anything significant about sin. So, you know, we say, well, you know, everybody knows these things.

[00:41:17] No, we don't know these things. We've got two younger generations that have never been taught the Bible. They don't own Bibles. They don't read the Bible. They don't listen to the Bible. They don't believe in the Bible. And so we really have to go back to the basics if we're going to affect our culture. And how do we do that? Give me 30 seconds on how we might try to do that. Find somebody who's more mature in the Christian faith than you are.

[00:41:43] Somebody who you look at and you say, wow, he is so Christ-like. She is so Christ-like. Ask them to disciple you. Say, you know what? I've been watching you. I've been listening to you. And you're farther down the road than I am. I want to get there. Would you help me get there? Because that's how discipleship works. Take a look at Jesus' model. He took the 13 yahoos out of his own culture. And, I mean, they had nothing going for them culturally, intellectually.

[00:42:10] But he molded them into a world-changing force that had to be reckoned with. After Jesus left us on earth, they began the church as we know it today. And it was through one-on-one discipling that he did with them over the course of three years. That's the model for us to follow. Well, Dr. Barna, I want to thank you so much for writing this book. I think it is very influential. And it has a lot of information in there. And just thank you for all your years of research.

[00:42:40] Well, thank you. I appreciate that. We've got a link to the book on the website, pointofview.net, How to Think Like Jesus. Very good book. Thank you for joining us today. We covered several topics, both on space and Greenland. And also, Dr. Barna's great new book. So take a look at that. Go to pointofview.net. You can find out more about it there. You can also hit the Donate button. We encourage you to do that. Thank you for joining us here on Point of View.

[00:43:15] In 19th century London, two towering historical figures did battle, not with guns and bombs, but words and ideas. London was home to Karl Marx, the father of communism, and legendary Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon. London was in many ways the center of the world economically, militarily, and intellectually. Marx sought to destroy religion, the family, and everything the Bible supports.

[00:43:44] Spurgeon stood against him, warning of socialism's dangers. Spurgeon understood Christianity is not just religious truth. It is truth for all of life. Where do you find men with that kind of wisdom to stand against darkness today? Get the light you need on today's most pressing issues delivered to your inbox when you sign up for the Viewpoints commentary at pointofview.net.

[00:44:12] Every weekday, in less than two minutes, you'll learn how to be a person of light to stand against darkness in our time. It's free, so visit pointofview.net slash sign up right now. pointofview.net slash sign up. Point of View is produced by Point of View Ministries.