Horton hears a serious problem in Academia… Atheletics… Entertainment… and culture!
When Liberalism produces a most iliberal worldview.
What does it mean to be liberal? Many, of not most argue that liberalism is left of center and a social rejection of traditionalism. For most modern day liberals it is the rejection of traditional values that is the defining trait. How tragic and how very wrong they are. In reality to be liberal simple means to have an expansive view of the world that can be self-critical and open to new ideas. It does not mean accepting a new idea or discarding old ideas because they belong to a past generation.
Jesus Christ was aggresively liberal and yet was grounded in traditional views, traditional laws and traditional meanings. Indeed modern day liberals who claim Christ’s liberalism was a rejection of the old must contort his very teachings to confrom to curiously narrow definitions, whcih is itself extremely iliberal. On the other hand many conservatives who, fearful of the term liberalism, deny that Christ was also fiercly revolutionary in so many ways. When I say revolutionary here I mean that Jesus Christ went back to the core truths of the Bible and rejected, not traditional interpetations, but rejected pharisical interpretations that were grafted on at later dates and served to eleevate ritual over substance. So to be liberal, I mean realy liberal is to be grounded in traditonal when that tradition speaks to the truth.
But today liberalis does not speak to the truth it supresses it or rejects it outright, seeking to promote cultural and political change that runs against the grain of what humanity most needs. It ignores fundamental biology to server a social agenda while demonizing those with whom there is disagreement. It mocks the very faith that in so many ways frees people to dissent. It preaches peace while swinging a sword that is soaked in the lifesblood of innocents from Rome to Jeruselum and from Moscow to Beijing, from the Supreme Court of the United States of Americas denial of human dignity through abortion to oersecution, both soft and hard around the globe. And perhaps most tragically some of that blood, metaphorical yet no less destructive comes from Churches that choose the broken and sinful flesh over the word incarnate when that word speaks restraint and submission. Rebelion is afterall the first heresy, the strongest and the one that is sweetest to our taste, even as we are made bitter by the sweet.
Therefore I write this as a Christ centered liberal who rejects modernists who have hijacked what it means tio be liberal in truth and practice and embrace the liberalism of Jesus Christ as he spoke against the law of the pharisees, the liberalism of Martin Luthor and John Calvin as they opened up the word to the individual heart, even as they made mistakes, the liberaism of Roger Williams and others who enshrined in America fthe concept of soul freedom that never rejected the truth of the gospel in public or private, though it allowed for the freedom of others to do so. It is, by the way this most precious freedom, perhaps the most valulable freedom in America, that of liberty of conscioence that today is most under attack by illiberal cultur warriors. And how does this attack manifest? Not by the physical sword, but through words, words used in the coercion, manipulation and subversion of courts, public schools and civic institutions and even the interpretation of our various laws. America is a nation build on ideas unlike any other and those ideas are born of words and the power of words shapes ideas but it also corrupts them. Afterall did not the Lord God create all things with a world, and was it not the serpent in the garden who through no more than power of words set all of this in motion to begin with?
Words are like a roadmap or guidebook unveiling the hidden vistas in a persons mind, and in many cases reveaing latent biases or revealing in full detail biases the writer simply chooses not to conceal.
Words must be read not only for what hey say, but also for what they call to attention. In writing there is an agreement in which words convey meaning that goes far deeper than the mere meaning of the words themselves. In exegesis we read the words for discernment, to determine the larger context that rests as a foundation upon with the text is built.
Intellectual egotism of a sort that belongs in the by gone 19th century when education was restrictive.
There are intellectuals whose intelligence is very nearly palpable, whose words are trusted paths through difficult waters. Men and women like this have high educations or no formal education, indeed what is the greater intellect Thomas Jefferson with formal education, wealth, a vast library and connection to European intelligentsia or Abraham Lincoln and his rough, paucity of formal education, self taught yet possessed of a discernment fr greater than his age deserved. In Lincoln uneducated words were the stuff of freedom. Does emancipation sound better to the enslaved soul coming from a radical who spoke lofty and eloquent words or from the lips of the man who delivered that long ago promise?
Words such as these are little more than peacock affrontery, displays of impressive yet hollow pedigree like a well breed, champion dog pacing the same floor of a dreary pound next to a mut picked up off the street. There is perhaps a bit of the mongrel to the tough educate but such a mongrel made America great, built factories and schools, ships and airplanes, created industry and wealth, and indeed stood in protest against crimes and failures, and that mongrel, as any dog owner would readily know we find fewer health problem, the rough serving to round off the hard edges. Perhaps the word mongrel is insensitive yet I defend it as the very soul of AMerica, a nation of mutts and mongrels, bred from the diverse outcasts of Europe and Asia into something finer and more noble than anything to be found in the disparate far off homelands.
The tyrant calls for unity and demands that everyone follow in well regulated footsteps. We have seen this in religion and politics and today it is the foal of liberlaism, unity that comesonly through conformity. But Amos 3:3, speaks eloquenty to this, “How can two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?”
From the hyper-sensitive illiberalilsm of academia to professional athletics, from our culture of umbrage to our culture or feigned indignity we see it over and over again. The result is a thin veneer of unity that hides festering dischord and division.
Credentials // pedigree