The mission of Issues in Perspective is to provide thoughtful, historical and biblically-centered perspectives on current ethical and cultural issues. In line with this mission statement, several times I have addressed the issue of what does it mean to be a “conservative” in the 21st century? A label that captures my personal convictions is the phrase “principled conservativism.” The views and convictions I expressed in the 17 January 2026 edition of Issues are a helpful summary of what I believe. In this edition of Issues, I want to think about the future of the conservative moment in America.

As the national debt of the US is a few months from reaching $39 trillion, and perhaps $40 trillion by the end of this year, “ it is puzzling how unperturbed the political class is,” writes George Will. Writer and political agitator Upton Sinclair (1878-1968) said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Will concludes: “There are no long-term fiscal gains without intense short-term political pains. So, because today’s congressional careers do not yet seem likely to coincide with coming dire consequences, let them come.”

Over the last six months I have been reading the details as they unfold about Jeffrey Epstein. Words like disgusting, revolting, perverted, debauched come to mind. It is nauseating and horrifying. But this entire phenomenon tells us a great deal about the rich and powerful in America—indeed in much of the world. For so many of these rich and powerful there is a façade that hides a depravity that is now being exposed.

n the new world order emerging in the 21st century, Russia and Iran will continue to play a leading role. It is important to step back and reflect on these two pariah nations. Each one has the potential to bring the world into a larger conflict with devasting consequences. Furthermoe, as the Republican Party deals with these pariah nations during the administration of Donald Trump, there is evidence that the Party is shifting from a pro-Israel stance to an anti-Israel one.

In the history of the church, the relationship between church and state—two institutions God created—has been difficult. In the early church, the Roman Empire of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries tried to eradicate the church. Hence, martyrdom was often the norm. With Constantine in the early 300s, that relationship changed. He ended persecution and brought Christians into his government. But, as you study the next 1,000 years, church and state became intertwined such that the church served the state. Even after the Reformation, various rulers chose which brand of Christianity the state would be and then enforced those commitments with the power of the state.

President Trump has repeatedly argued that America must assume control over Greenland—an interest that dates back to his first term. His comments have been met with sharp pushback, with Greenland’s government rejecting a U.S. takeover under “any circumstances.” NATO allies have also warned that the use of U.S. military force to seize Greenland, which Trump initially threatened but has since ruled out, could put at risk the decades-old transatlantic alliance. Trump’s escalating rhetoric prompted Denmark to increase its military presence in and around Greenland, alongside several other European countries.

In the Pastoral Epistles of the Apostle Paul (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) the phrase “sound doctrine” appears nine times. The Greek term translated “sound” means that which is conducive to health—in this case spiritual health. Paul connects sound doctrine with godly living; in God’s eyes, sound doctrine produces righteous living. For that reason, the church needs to review the command of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20: “make disciples” by going, baptizing and “teaching all that I have commanded you.” This is the task of the church, and making disciples involves teaching what God has revealed in His Word. How is the church doing in fulfilling this part of the Great Commission? How is it doing in teaching and promoting sound doctrine?

The world order put together by the United States after World War II is coming apart. For example, last year marked the 80th anniversary of the 1945 United Nations Charter, a document signed by 51 nations at the close of World War II. The signatories pledged to act “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” The great powers have not gone to war with one another since, and no U.N. member state has disappeared because of conquest. But over the past decade, that peace has begun to unravel.

One of the most precious terms of the American Republic is liberty. This Republic’s founding documents are rooted in expressing and protecting individual freedom. In the Declaration of independence, Jefferson argued as a “self-evident truth” that we are “endowed by our Creator” with certain “inalienable rights” and among those are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The Bill of Rights (the Constitution’s first Ten Amendments) articulates and guarantees a set of rights each citizen enjoys. “Liberty” is indeed a precious and unique dimension of this Republic. But, in 1992, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the famous Casey abortion ruling, posited a re-definition of human liberty: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

In early December 2025, President Trump’s administration issued its “National Security Strategy” (NSS) document. The 33-page paper is the Administration’s most complete attempt so far to explain its thinking on national security. Editorially, the Wall Street Journal observed: “Eight years ago, in his now-distant first term, President Trump laid out a national security strategy recognizing the new world of great power competition. It was a welcome effort to articulate emerging global threats. The new strategy . . . is an all but explicit retreat from that competition. It will please China and Russia but discomfit America’s allies. The strategy isn’t an isolationist document that you might read at a libertarian think tank. But it is clearly a declaration that America can no longer afford to, and shouldn’t in the national interest, bear the burden of global leadership.”