Friday, September 07, 2012

Finally, A National Consensus

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Much has been said about how divided and polarized America has become.

Politicians promise us they want to work with each other, but in the end they don't.

However after 2 weeks of political convention, this election, for the first time in a long time, is bringing us together---a national consensus, of sorts.

Americans are in agreement that the 2012 election is not about issues or political parties. It is about competing worldviews. Even the press gets it and is reporting that this election is not about issues, it is bigger than that. Even they are calling it "two different worldviews."

Agreed. A national consensus. It's about what we as individuals really believe.

Competing worldviews.

One stands for the sanctity of life and the model of marriage that has served the human race and all successful civilizations for more than 5000 years---a model, one man one woman, that predates organized civilization.

This view believes the Founders got it right. That rights are given by God, not bestowed by government. That these rights are inalienable and are to be protected by a government operating under the authority of the Constitution. And a value system, reflected in law, that is based on the absolute biblical principles embraced by our Founding Fathers and several generations that followed them.

The other view is based on evolution, relativism and progressivism. And elitism.

It contends that there are no absolutes. Everything is evolving and truth is not born of a Higher Power, but of "my" belief at any given moment. Truth, to these folks, is to be shaped around whatever is socially fashionable at any given period in time.

This so-called progressivism or pragmatism has infected what has been the most blessed and prosperous nation in the history of the world. It is a social and moral cancer that has infected every part of our culture. We need a cure.

The "progressive" path excludes God, because there is no need of Him in secular progressivism. Reminding us of another betrayal 2000 years ago--the convention that concluded last night, 3 times by voice vote denied God, saying "No" we do not want Him in our platform. Watch this 1-minute video

C.S. Lewis predicted the outcome in his "Screwtape Letters" back in 1942. Here's what he said regarding education:

"In a word, we may reasonably hope for the virtual abolition of education when I’m as good as you has fully had its way. All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will vanish. The few who might want to learn will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway the teachers—or should I say, nurses?—will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching. We shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men. The little vermin themselves will do it for us.

Of course this would not follow unless all education became state education. But it will. That is part of the same movement. Penal taxes, designed for that purpose, are liquidating the Middle Class, the class who were prepared to save and spend and make sacrifices in order to have their children privately educated. The removal of this class, besides linking up with the abolition of education, is, fortunately, an inevitable effect of the spirit that says I’m as good as you. This was, after all, the social group which gave to the humans the overwhelming majority of their scientists, physicians, philosophers, theologians, poets, artists, composers, architects, jurists, and administrators. If ever there was a bunch of tall stalks that needed their tops knocked off, it was surely they."

Progressives, with a sense of personal superiority, appeal to "progress" as the ultimate goal---any progress, as in "Forward."

G. K. Chesterton says, "The real objection to modernism is simply that it is a form of snobbishness. It is an attempt to crush a rational opponent not by reason, but by some mystery of superiority, by hinting that one is specially up to date or particularly “in the know.” To flaunt the fact that we have had all the last books from Germany is simply vulgar; like flaunting the fact that we have had all the last bonnets from Paris. To introduce into philosophical discussions a sneer at a creed’s antiquity is like introducing a sneer at a lady’s age. It is caddish because it is irrelevant. The pure modernist is merely a snob; he cannot bear to be a month behind the fashion."

C.S. Lewis called it "Chronological Snobbery."

Lewis also points out that, because the views of progressives are based in "evolution" of truth related to the newest thing, there is a lack of critical thinking that accompanies the snobbery. From this uncritical spirit grows a passivity—an apathy, a lulled indifference—which simply accepts the illusions of one’s own time by living in a kind of mental bubble, never questioning, discerning or being mentally vigilant. Or seeking wisdom.

This appeal to "progress" takes on a certain "peer" pressure and often people of biblical faith become intimidated and fearful to speak or make waves. Being fearful of peer rejection, we retreat to silence and call it love or piety or evangelism. It is none of these.

People of biblical faith are often mocked because their beliefs are "old" and the progressive's is "new."

Our values, the progressives say, are not merely different, they are superior. We are told that the new values demonstrate a more enlightened, better informed and more sophisticated view of ethics than held by previous generations. Whether its no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, more liberal licensing laws, immigration or redefining marriage, they are each presented as indicators of moral advancement.


Paul confronted this fallacy with the Athenian philosophers, who particularly sinned in this regard: “Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new” (Acts 17:21). They took interest in Paul because they thought he offered some “new teaching” (17:19). The apostle, however, confronted their ways by addressing them as “superstitious” (17:22), and by calling them back from “new” speculations to an ancient principle, the Creator God (17:23–31).

According to Rasmussen's latest poll taken 4 days ago, only 31% of likely voters believe the country is on the right track---69% believe it is not or simply "don't know."

This election is about 2 competing worldviews.

One is based on ancient and eternal Truth, the other, relative "truth" that is attached to whatever is socially fashionable at any period in time.

One respects and preserves life, marriage and family, the other devalues life, denigrates marriage and dethrones God as final authority and Giver of human rights.

"Choose you this day whom you will serve..." "As for me and my house we will serve the Lord."

And we will vote.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.