Monday, October 12, 2020

Clashing Worldviews between kingdoms in conflict

 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.


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.