Paul Warburg’s Latest Video Points to Him Being a Post-Theological Christian Moralist Verging on a “Good Samaritan Christian”
- john raymond
- Aug 6, 2025
- 4 min read
If I were to be called a Christian—having been raised and confirmed Catholic—then let it be said that I would identify as what I call a Good Samaritan Christian. That is, one who regards the parable of the Good Samaritan as not only Christ’s finest moral teaching, but as the defining principle of what it means to walk in moral alignment with the Son of Man.
Greater even than the parable of the talents, which speaks to courage and initiative, the Samaritan parable cuts deeper: it exposes the hypocrisy of institutional piety, demands action over ritual, and teaches that one’s neighbor is defined by mercy, not blood, nation, or creed.
In this framing, morality is not found in churches or temples, nor in oaths to doctrine, but in whether we act righteously toward those in need, even at personal cost. That is the standard by which I evaluate Paul Warburg’s moral arguments.
Which brings me to Paul Warburg and his latest video...
In his most recent video, Warburg takes aim at one of the most persistent and pernicious lies surrounding the Russia–Ukraine war: the idea that Russia is a morally superior society, resisting the supposed decadence of the West. But rather than merely scoffing at this narrative—or rebutting it with geopolitical statistics—Warburg undertakes a different task.
He dissects it morally, and he does so by speaking theologically. He invokes the Bible. He quotes Proverbs. He engages directly with the logic and language of those who claim that Russia is waging a holy war. But what emerges is not fundamentalist dogma. It is something far more potent: a Christianity that is ethical, humanist, and stripped of political vanity. It is, I believe, the work of a post-theological Christian moralist, and one whose worldview mirrors my own.
Let me be clear: I do not believe that God is offended by bad language. I do not believe that profanity, in the modern sense, is an affront to heaven. But I do believe, as Warburg does, that to invoke the name of God in vain—to wage war in His name, to bomb civilians under the banner of Christ, to co-opt the sacred in service of conquest and cruelty—is among the gravest forms of moral deceit. It is this misuse that Warburg calls out. Not the curses of men, but the corruption of their moral pretense.
Warburg identifies the lie at the heart of Russian state propaganda: that traditional values, church ceremony, and “family-first” rhetoric somehow justify a campaign of slaughter, abduction, and deceit. But Warburg goes further. He shows how American Christians—especially those drawn to authoritarianism—have been complicit in this lie, applauding Russia’s moral posture while ignoring its moral crimes.
He does not rail against homosexuality. In fact, he makes no moral argument against LGBTQ+ people whatsoever. Rather, he exposes the hypocrisy of those who use such issues as tokens of moral superiority while turning a blind eye to the high incidence of HIV among Russian soldiers, a statistic that belies the very “purity” they claim to defend.
He notes, calmly and factually, that Russian troops are not paragons of chastity or virtue. They are human beings, often victims of despair, fatalism, and systemic rot—and yet their government claims divine favor.
Warburg is not preaching fire and brimstone. He is not prophesying judgment upon the unfaithful. He is warning the faithful—or those who would call themselves so—against a far more dangerous path: the path of moral rationalization, in which atrocities are justified through the selective quoting of scripture and the empty performance of faith.
His Christianity is not tribal. It is not imperial. It is not preoccupied with rituals or punishments or political allegiance. It is instead a moral call to truth, consistency, and compassion.
In this way, Warburg resembles the Good Samaritan himself: he sees through the priest’s indifference and the Levite’s fear. He recognizes that to walk past suffering while declaring oneself righteous is to fail the very test of faith.
And so, while Warburg does speak from within the Christian tradition, he does so in a way that transcends theological boundaries. His language is scriptural, but his method is ethical. His conclusions are indistinguishable from those of a secular humanist who believes that truth without compassion is cruelty, and that faith without mercy is empty noise.
This is why I say he is a post-theological Christian moralist. Not because he denies the tenets of faith, but because he no longer needs divinity to tell right from wrong. His allegiance is instead to the moral heart of Christianity, and not with its often wayward institutions.
Warburg here is less a churchman than a witness. Less a theologian than a neighbor. And in this video, at least, he has chosen not to walk past the bleeding man by the roadside.
That, in the end, is what matters. Not which church one belongs to, but whether one’s words and actions reflect the teachings of a man who once said, “Go and do likewise.”
And in this moment, Paul Warburg has done just that.
Comments