I’ve
made several claims in the previous blog posts. Pulling the lever for
Trump does not necessarily
amount to an
endorsement for the man, but
could be a legitimate
strategic move to block the progressive takeover of the country. By
the same token, pulling
the lever for Biden does not necessarily amount to an
endorsement of abortion, but
could be a legitimate
strategic move to get rid
of Trump, whose character
is viewed as a cancer on the body politic.
Genuine
Bible-believing Christians can (legitimately)
find themselves on
opposite
sides of this see-saw, and
it is important to the unity of the Church that we not slander one
another in our disagreements.
It boils down to what you consider the more compelling negative
factor as you attempt to
glorify God in the exercise of your stewardship to
vote: the dismal character of Donald Trump, or the dangerous
trajectory of the Democratic party. There
is inescapable cognitive
dissonance no matter which path you take. There
is no decision in this election year exempt from critique—including
my own. I do consider my argument to be compelling; I do not consider
it to be bullet-proof.
From
a wisdom perspective, however, in
my opinion the
choice does not amount to a
zero-sum moral
equivalence. I don’t see the two options as roughly equal, and
this is because of the overt and aggressive hostility the various
factions of the progressive movement take toward biblical
Christianity. I view it as self-evident
that the Democratic
leadership is
joined at the hip to the progressive movement; the
Republicans are not so joined.
When
I say that the Democratic party and its closely associated
progressive movement are deeply hostile against Christianity, I’m
not talking about the average Joe but the cultural and political
leaders, the organizers, thinkers and philosophers of the movement. I
am
not referring to the
genuine Christians who feel compelled to pull the Dem lever because
of the terrible deficits on the Republican side. I
have before stated my belief that Christians following their
convictions can be on either side of this binary choice based on
which factors seem to them to be more weighty.
So
how is the trajectory of
the progressive movement
and their Democratic
enablers deeply hostile
against biblical Christianity? Perhaps
the most critical is in their view of the nature of truth and
reality, but that’s a pretty complex topic, so I won’t deal with
it in this post. I’ll identify five critical areas that can be
readily understood.
Sanctity
of Life
The
abortion movement is killing living persons
in the womb
at
a genocidal
rate.
Think about it: from 2007 to 2016 nearly as many living human beings
were slaughtered in the womb as comprised
the
entire combined populations of Washington DC, Wyoming, Vermont,
Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, and
Montana. The
abortions
reported
to the CDC during that ten-year period were
7,211,569 [CDC
figures];
the
combined
estimated
populations
of
those states in 2019 were
7,388,666 [Wikipedia].
The
abortions reported to the CDC in that period are
over seven
times the high
estimate
of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 [Wikipedia].
It’s almost impossible to find a federal-level Democratic
politician that will even consider the
most
modest limitations
on abortion. And yet, Psalm 139 clearly indicates life begins at
conception, and
is precious to God.
The
burgeoning industry of euthanasia is another evidence of the
progressive disregard for the sanctity of life. The
states permitting euthanasia are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine,
New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington. Every
single one is reliably progressive and was controlled by the
Democratic party and Democratic governors when they passed bills
legalizing euthanasia. “Whoever
sheds man’s blood, By man
his blood shall be shed, For
in the image of God He made
man.” (Genesis 9:6)
Human
Sexuality
The
Bible clearly states that God
created mankind “male and female” (Genesis
1:27). The progressives of the Democratic Party have bought
into the notion that gender is unrelated to one’s
biological sex, that
both gender and sex are socially constructed, and that gender is
fluid and is a
matter of personal
choice from a palette of unlimited possibilities.
Besides
being a stunning disconnect from objective reality, this notion has
led to conflict even among progressives: feminists, for instance,
insist there is something unique to a woman’s experience, whereas
the trans movement insists that anyone (including men) can be
women—there is nothing unique about it.
The
progressive insistence that gender and sex are not objective
realities but mere social constructs has resulted in mind-boggling
legislation harmful to women, ranging from permitting biological men
in women’s locker rooms to allowing biological males to compete in
women’s sports. California’s Governor Newsom signed a bill on September 29th
that permits convicted
criminals who claim to be
“trans women” (i.e. biological males who identify as females) to
be housed in womens’ prisons. This is not going to end well for
some women sharing cells with “trans women.”
Some
individuals desire help in regaining
a normal gender/sexual identity through what is called conversion
therapy. The progressive movement has pushed both sides of the aisle
to ban conversion therapy in many states and cities across the
country. In
other words, you are permitted to enter the LGBTQ+ lifestyle, but you
are never permitted to leave it.
There undoubtedly are some “therapeutic” techniques that should
be banned, but a general ban on helping someone reacquire a normal
sense of identity simply reveals the intolerance
of the progressives. They employ the law to force others to comply
with their ideology.
It’s
sad enough
that
the progressives encourage and enable such confusion, but
it’s
tyrannical when they try to force everyone else to enter into the
delusion. Unwilling
to tolerate those who disagree, the progressives demand
that
people use language perpetuating
the lie or
risk their jobs.
People have already lost
careers and been
mobbed on social media
because they refuse to use the “proper pronoun.” While
many Republican politicians tolerate gender confusion and don’t
legislate to restrict
it,
the Democratic politicians aggressively promote it and
criminalize opposition to it.
The claim that gender and
sexuality are social constructs, and that one can freely choose his
identity is not a morally neutral position. Instead, it reveals deep
hostility and rebellion against the sovereign God who created us as
male and female.
Marriage
and the Family
Whereas
the Bible indicates marriage is between one man and one woman, and
uses that model to illustrate the reality of the relationship between
Christ and the church, progressives have changed the definition of
marriage to include homosexual relationships and altered
the
definition of a family to include polyamory, among other things. They
have also
been very
successful
in lobbying for the privilege of adopting children into these
distorted
relationships, thus creating additional confusion in the minds of
children.
This
is an attack on
the basic social unit of society upon
which nations are built. Stable
families are essential to a flourishing civilization.
But
not
content to redefine marriage from a legal standpoint, the
progressives are attempting through legislative
and judicial means
to make Christians celebrate the perversion. A classic example of the
progressives’ use of the force of law can be seen in the multiple
cases
brought against Colorado’s Masterpiece Cakeshop,
first in
trying
to compel the baker to create a custom wedding cake celebrating a
same-sex marriage, and then
trying to force the baker to create a custom cake celebrating a
gender transition. Jack Phillips does not refuse to serve homosexuals
or transgenders—he simply refuses to apply his custom
artistry
in support of that which violates his religious convictions. The
Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which
along with the plaintiffs pursued prosecution against Phillips, was
found by the
US
Supreme
Court
to be overtly
hostile
to Phillips’ Christian convictions. It is precisely such
an
atmosphere of open hostility to biblical Christianity that is
energized by
the progressive movement and their
Democratic enablers.
It
is rapidly gaining the force of law across the land.
Parental
Sovereignty
Whereas
the Bible gives parents the responsibility for raising children, the
progressive movement views
children as better served by coming under state supervision and
state-mandated
education.
For
example, Elizabeth
Bartholet (identified by the Harvard Gazette
as a “nationally renowned child welfare expert, and as the faculty
director of the Child Advocacy Program at Harvard Law School”) is
agitating for a “radical transformation in homeschooling.” She
claims that the state should
strictly regulate homeschooling to ensure that children are not being
abused (by
their parents, no less!).
She’s concerned that children are not learning basic academic
skills, and that they aren’t “getting the kind of exposure to
alternative views that enables them to exercise meaningful choices
about their future lives.” Referring to families
with religious convictions,
she
claims that children in
those families
might
not be able to choose to “exit these ideological communities” and
that “society may not have the chance to teach them values
important to the larger community, such as tolerance of other
people’s views…” Aside from the fact that the progressive
movement is the single most intolerant collection of ideologies to
appear in a long time, her concerns would
be
laughable if
they weren’t taken so seriously by progressives.
There
are multiple problems with her assertions. For one, the
state is not doing a particularly good job at present protecting
children from abuse, as anyone who brushes up against the system can
see, and Bartholet
conveniently does not mention the bullying and abuse (sometimes even
sexual) that goes on in the public schools.
Secondly, many
public schools are doing a decidedly mediocre job teaching basic
academic skills.
Third, her statement about “alternative views” and “meaningful
choices” are fine for her to exercise with her own
children,
but neither she nor the state has the right to impose her
values
on families that
hold different values.
Christians aren’t interested in their children being indoctrinated
with
“values important to the larger community,” but rather in passing
along their own values to the children (which, historically, have
included values which make for excellent communities). The
progressive movement only goes in one direction: greater government
regulation
and
control,
and enforcement of their values by force of law.
Socialism
The
progressive movement and
their Democratic enablers
is pushing socialism as a means of ensuring equal outcomes for all
people. On
the one hand, I share the desire that every person should be valued
and treated fairly and justly in all aspects—it is a proper goal
towards which we should all strive. But people are different (i.e.,
possessing genuine
diversity), with different natural abilities, different interests,
different motivations, different commitments, and different
values—which means the only way to achieve equal
outcomes
is by government force.
The
end-goal of socialism is expressed in
a statement employed
by Karl Marx: “from each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs.” The idea was that when socialism finally
buds into full flower there will be such a supply of goods and
services that there will be enough to provide for everyone. Socialism
assumes that each worker will work to maximum efficiency, not because
he is individually rewarded for it, but out of a natural altruism.
Socialism assumes that no one will cheat, no one will be lazy, no one
will hoard or collect more than he needs, and
that
no official of the state will abuse his position or role in
the distribution of goods.
Socialism assumes the benevolent redistributive power of the state.
And
because
there is no legitimate
creation of wealth in a socialist construct, socialism also assumes
that the presence of wealth is prima facie evidence of oppression.
Ideological
socialism is both
atheistic
(God
does not exist)
and
idolatrous (the
State is the ultimate reality and
ultimate authority).
Socialism therefore denies the most fundamental facts of human
nature: first, that man is created in the image of God. With the loss
of this truth, you lose
genuine
inalienable
rights; instead
your
rights are whatever the State
says they are, and
can be changed at the State’s whim.
You
also have the loss
of the inherent dignity of each human life. Old
people a drag on your economy or
lifestyle?
How about a little euthanasia
to take care of the problem? Is
that pregnancy interfering with your goals? Why not kill the baby?
When
the dignity,
equality,
and value of each person
is
not set
by a transcendent,
sovereign
Creator,
the table is
set for
racism.
The
second fundamental fact socialism denies is that man is born a
sinner, with a powerful self-interest that trumps all other
interests. This
denial alone commits socialism to unending failure, as it is a denial
of a
fundamental human
reality.
Socialism
cannot
work because people
are not naturally
altruistic. A
fascinating observtion
is that every strongly socialistic economy has a flourishing
capitalistic black market running just below the surface. Why? The
success of socialist ideology did not create it—rather, the abject
failure of socialism necessitated it.
Every
society requires
some proper
level
of benevolence on the part of the
government in order to help the helpless and protect the
disadvantaged. America
is no exception—we have a necessary social safety net. But
that’s not socialism. The closer a government moves toward
controlling the means of production, and the greater the percentage
of personal
income levied as tax for redistributive purposes, the closer that
government edges toward socialism, which will
ultimately issue in tyranny and failure.
Having
denied
the sin nature of man, socialism takes a reductionistic view of man:
man
is
no longer morally responsible, but
is
a basically
good blank
slate that can be molded
at will through education, indoctrination, and reprogramming. Is
Joe a misogynist? Send him to sensitivity training. Is Suzy
a racist? Send her to a diversity reeducation camp. Is Bill a
criminal? All he needs is education.
Because
socialism does not believe in the universal sin nature of man, it is
incapable of restraining it through the philosophical structure of
the system. Which explains why all socialism—all
progressivism—eventually turns brutally repressive. Repression
is
the only way it can stem the natural inclination of its citizens. It
also explains why the lie is such a common thread
in the fabric
of socialism (North Korea being
a prime example): you cannot admit the utopia has failed, so you must
obfuscate
that fact through deception:
“war
is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength.”
The
Democratic leadership, in lockstep with progressives, is
moving in an inevitable trajectory toward full-bore socialism. The
Republican party is not. The
Democrats have gained virtually all the cultural levers of power in
America and are politically ascendant. The party leadership has
joined itself to radical progressivism, which now provides
both the reigning ideology and the emotional energy of the party. It
is a dangerous combination, in my opinion.
In
Closing
In
both my blog posts and my book The Candidate,
I have
excoriated
the Republican leadership for its failures to hold to the
Constitution
and the conservative principles of small government and individual
responsibility. I’m not so partisan that I cannot openly condemn
the failures of either the Republican party or conservatism in
general. In both my writing and my preaching I have often said there
is nothing stinkier than
Christless conservatism.
I
do not back off from
that opinion in these series of posts. What I am advocating is that
the demonstrable and accelerating trajectory of the progressive
movement and their Democratic enablers poses a far greater danger
than the offensive character of Donald Trump. Trump
is an anomaly, not a revolution or a trajectory. Other
than Trump himself, you’re
not going to be able to cite any movement-wide
tendency
in the leadership of the Republican party towards racism,
white-supremacy, or unconstitutional tyranny.
I
don’t hold out much hope for this country. I believe we are now
experiencing the righteous judgment of God for our national sins. But
when
I pull the lever for Trump, I
will not
be voting for
an offensive character, I will be
voting against
the trend of this
present
darkness sweeping over our land. Perhaps
God will have mercy on our sinful nation.