The heathens admire softness. In a world of half-truths and muddy morals, the pagans venerate the malleable. By accommodating every person and idea that will bend, they exclude those of confidence and unambiguity from their circles. It is a matter of necessity.
The enforcement of these principles can be readily seen in today’s world. If a man were to “accidentally” make an unambiguous statement of truth, the current liberal society forces him to nuance the claim or to acknowledge various exceptions. After all, for the liberal world to exist, it must first and foremost accommodate itself. If inflexible ideas are permitted to live, they will eventually break the societal container, shattering the progressive world into pieces. There are many different ways that this principle works out in practice. The enforcement of liberalism also boasts many downstream effects.
The Incomplete Idea
In recent news, some statements by Daily Wire commentator Michael Knowles happened to go viral across the internet. It would appear that Michael violated the great principle of liberalism by arguing that there can be no “middle way” when dealing with transgenderism. In his speech, Knowles reminded his audience that men genuinely could not become women and that accommodating this ideology takes a heavy toll on the society that indulges it. The conclusion was indisputable.
“…for the good of society, and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen prey to this confusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology.”
Michael Knowles, “CPAC 2023” – March 4, 20231https://rumble.com/v2bpiyo-full-speech-michael-knowles-cpac-2023-washington-d.c.-342023.html
Unsurprisingly, Michael’s words elicited a wide variety of responses. Some internet Lefties decided that the language of “eradicate” was synonymous with genocide and immediately started sounding the alarm against “Right-wing bloodlust.” To the more dispassionate Left, Michael’s statements were only problematic in so far as they were absolute. For a democracy to maintain itself, no single ideology can be considered incontrovertibly true. One political columnist was keen to point out: “…to ‘eradicate’ an idea is almost impossible within the context of liberal democracy. By its nature, liberal democracy allows competing ideas to circulate and trusts that better ones will ultimately win out.” 2Jonathan Chait, “CPAC Speaker Urges Eradication of Trans Rights” – March 6, 2023, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/03/michael-knowles-at-cpac-urges-eradication-of-trans-rights.html
Knowles had unwittingly upset the apple cart. Taking a hard-line approach, even to a subject as straightforward as transgenderism, ultimately threatens the liberal regime.
The Uncompromising Approach
To the non-political Christian, the straightforward and uncompromising approach to an ideology will likely appear to be the best course of action. Any Christian should be willing to make clear that the transsexual agenda is a sinful way of life. However, to believe that it must be eradicated, possibly through political means, is a position that most Christians have not fully realized the implications of. When we say we intend to extirpate transgenderism, the world will assume that Christians have abandoned the democratic system. They will suggest that “Christofascists” want political power to persecute their ideological enemies.
In a way, this is true: Democracy is not a core element of Christianity. In fact, the removal of Christianity’s competitors is a theme often repeated in the Bible (1 Kings 18:40). If a man is taking an uncompromising and straightforward approach to God’s law, he will inevitably conclude that the culture he creates and works toward must have all aberrant ideologies removed. Christ is king over all, and the society of Christians must indicate its unquestionable loyalty to that king. If God commands his people to honor the Sabbath, any teaching or custom that contradicts this must be purged from the Christian community.
Whether or not this process of removing aberrant ideologies follows the principles of democracy is of little relevance. For the uncompromising Christian, a liberal democracy can present more of a burden than a blessing. There are bureaucratic time sinks, political pandering, and countless campaign hurdles. A form of Christofascism may undoubtedly seem the most straightforward and logical choice. But what should Christians do if they want to condemn the transgender ideology and simultaneously support the democratic system? Do Christians genuinely need to reject liberalism, or is there a way to do both?
No Political Losers
Perhaps the biggest problem with our current political system is that no Christian knows how to support it. On the one hand, some will claim they are supporting a “classical liberal order” and that they still want Christianity to be the dominant feature of it. On the other hand, others have a very different vision for society, even calling other Christians to advocate for a “confident pluralism.” Noticeably missing from both versions is the aspect of eradication. How can a Christian support the democratic system and continue to pursue the eradication of ideas that cultivate hatred of God?
Influential evangelical political commentators have clarified that this is not the right question. David French, NY Times columnist and member of a PCA church, wrote a recent opinion piece discussing this very conflict. French began his article by appealing to the Constitution, praising its ability to protect the civil liberties of all parties. In the second paragraph, however, it becomes clear that he envisioned a world where nobody loses.
“But if a government both enacts contentious policies and diminishes the civil liberties of its current ideological opponents, then it sharply increases the stakes of political conflict. It breaks the social compact by rendering political losers, in effect, second-class citizens.”
David French, “Don’t Let the Culture War Degrade the Constitution” – March 12, 20233https://web.archive.org/web/20230313033312/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/12/opinion/newsom-desantis-walgreens-constitution.html
French’s use of the social compact leaves in its place an unconscionable democracy, where no idea can be removed entirely. He stakes out a political system that makes ideological eradication of even the most extreme varieties impossible. Policies that directly combat transsexualism are inescapably contentious, and David French explicitly removes these from the Christian’s political arsenal. French later condemned the actions of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who enacted policies to investigate parents of transgender children for cases of abuse. Instead of praising the governor’s effort to prevent child genital mutilation, French considers his policies an affront to the Constitution.
“To simply presume that parents are abusive because they may dissent from state consensus on transgender care is to violate this principle of American law.”
David French, ibid.
French clarifies his position: the contemporary liberal democracy needs to make room for even the most extreme anti-Christian religions, such as transsexualism. But we should remember that David is not the first evangelical to advocate for such egregiously non-Christian politics. This particular political wing of Christianity had been active for many years.
The “Christian” Pluralist
In May 2016, John D. Inazu published a book titled: “Confident Pluralism.” The book mapped out a new strategy for Christian political engagement and was subsequently endorsed by Tim Keller (PCA). You may notice quickly that the plan is as bad as it sounds. The author, Inazu, describes the theory like this: “Confident Pluralism argues that we can and must live together peaceably in spite of deep and sometimes irresolvable differences over politics, religion, sexuality, and other important matters.”4https://www.jinazu.com/confident-pluralism A month after the book’s release, John Inazu and Tim Keller wrote an article to further explain how Christians should use this to engage the political arena. This article gets started quickly, blaming Protestant culture for today’s racial divisions.
“Most white Protestants’ absence from the civil rights movement perpetuated personal and structural racism that exists to this day. And the cultural and legal power of the Protestant culture often stifled differing views about religion, gender, and sexuality.”
John D. Inazu and Timothy Keller, “How Christians Can Bear Gospel Witness in an Anxious Age” – June 20, 20165https://web.archive.org/web/20221210011849/https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/june-web-only/tim-keller-john-inazu-christians-gospel-witness-anxious-age.html
While most Christians would view the suppression of false religions, feminism, and homosexuality as good, Keller and Inazu appear to take the opposite approach. A distinctly Christian culture, by nature of what it is, restrains and censors any wicked or depraved religion attempting to gain a foothold. The fact that a pastor would see this as a bad thing is simply baffling. But the article does not stop there. Instead of encouraging readers to reform a new, uniquely Christian culture, Keller and Inazu argue for the opposite.
“Today’s cultural climate makes it especially essential for Christians to defend the religious liberty of American Muslims. Whatever challenges Christians may feel to their practices pale in comparison to the cultural and often legal challenges that confront American Muslims.
[…]
Other prominent Christian leaders, like Russell Moore, have rightly challenged the anti-Muslim rhetoric that has emerged from some segments of religious and political discourse. We can do this on the local level, too.”
John D. Inazu and Timothy Keller, Ibid.
This political strategy takes morality and turns it upside-down. Instead of advocating for good things, confident pluralism tells us to advocate for bad things. Instead of removing and purging society’s godless religions, confident pluralism tells us to encourage and support them.
Democracy Is For Polytheists
The current state of evangelical political discourse is antithetical to Christianity. If your civic views force you to become a proponent of Islam, you can be sure you have abandoned Christianity for the current liberal order. The fact that David French and Tim Keller have any influence on the Christian political discourse is humiliating.
If there ever was a way for Christians to support a historic liberal democracy, that path appears to have been lost. The mainstream evangelical voices of today are unabashedly promoting polytheism, leaving the next generation with no choice but to blame the democratic system. While previous generations of Christians may have been able to reconcile their faith to a classically liberal order, the current generation has no such option. The contemporary interpretation of the infamous liberal democracy is wholly incompatible with Christianity. To eradicate evil from the Christian society (Numbers 15:30), the civil and social structure must be allowed – even encouraged to uproot it.
If you want a Christian culture, don’t feed it piles of pluralistic nonsense. Build the kingdom of God and eradicate the works of the devil.
Sources:
- 1
- 2Jonathan Chait, “CPAC Speaker Urges Eradication of Trans Rights” – March 6, 2023, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/03/michael-knowles-at-cpac-urges-eradication-of-trans-rights.html
- 3
- 4
- 5
Leave a Reply