The Egalitarianism of Evil

(I typically split posts this long for the sake of the reader, but this is one long stream of consciousness. Excuse please.)

At the halfway mark, the year has been as many others, with changes in many arenas. This year in these United States, it’s been a particularly curious thing to consider the events involving homosexuality. Changing social mores toward homosexuality in America have virtually left behind any sense of guilt, shame or sin which may have been previously associated with it. Homosexuality has come into greater acceptance. Religiousness seems to have been a hindrance to that acceptance becoming more widespread than it has in America.

The link between religiosity and acceptance of homosexuality explains, at least in part, why acceptance of homosexuality among Americans is low relative to other wealthy countries, particularly Canada and Western European nations, where religion is less central to people’s lives than in the U.S. Fully 60% of Americans say homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with 88% in Spain, 87% in Germany, 80% in Canada, 77% in France, 76% in Britain and 74% in Italy.

There are a few reasons traditional values toward homosexuality have given way, but I believe the chief reason is the evil in egalitarianism. It has become the state religion, and displaced orthodox Christianity as the zeitgeist. Gradually morality and God consciousness in America has waned. Homosexuality worships at the altar of egalitarianism and unfortunately there are Christians who’ve foolishly given homage to it.

Egalitarianism stems from the belief that all human beings are equal in fundamental worth or significance. Since God has been criticized, rationalized, marginalized and minimized, humanity becomes preeminent. A quote from Thurgood Marshall, the first black man to serve on the Supreme Court, gives some insight into the egalitarian attitude, “In recognizing the humanity of our fellow beings, we pay ourselves the highest tribute.” Egalitarianism holds humanity in high esteem, whereas Christianity knows the depravity of man. Without God, humanity isn’t impaired by concepts of sin. Nevertheless, humanity has been so deeply tainted by the evil within that the bible doesn’t even know to tell. While humanism may be the philosophical engine driving it, egalitarianism is humanism’s social engineering. Egalitarianism is the faith of humanism realized.

If sin is the practice of evil, then egalitarianism is evil’s sociological implementation. It has become a pervasive human consciousness. It twists truth through its seeming good intentions but corrupt objectives. To dispute egalitarian doctrine is not to confront equality, but to raise the genuine issue on the question of human worth. The argument is equality by what measure. Without God, without Christ, humanity has no value, and it becomes a ridiculous task for humanity to determine human equality. This is the madness egalitarianism has led us to. Egalitarianism knows no rules, only the end result of the human condition. It judges only on the basis of that outcome.

When this year began as it did with Louie Giglio, pastor of Atlanta’s Passion City Church, invited to give the benediction at the president’s inaugural ceremony, it was interesting to see how in just a few months time egalitarianism would move in its mission. In a short time after the invitation was extended it was discovered what he had preached about homosexuality and the homosexual agenda more than 15 years ago would provoke the anger of homosexuals and put pressure on the Obama administration to remove him. What then transpired not only left some doubts about Giglio’s current beliefs on the matter, but marked another complaisance to egalitarianism.

An evangelical pastor from Atlanta announced Thursday that he would not give the benediction at President Obama’s swearing-in ceremony after a sermon he gave on homosexuality in the mid-1990s resurfaced earlier this week.

In that sermon, the Rev. Louie Giglio called for Christians to “firmly respond to the aggressive agenda” of some in the gay community and warns that widespread gay marriage, ”would run the risk of absolutely undermining the whole order of our society.” In a statement, Giglio said that his participation “will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration.”

The sermon was clear and unambiguous in its message. One sermon more than 15 years old, though, leaves some doubt as to his current position on the issue. In his statement, Giglio admitted he hadn’t addressed the homosexual issue since then and gives the vague explanation, “…speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ.”  Is Giglio suggesting human beings can be ultimately significant simply by “making much” of Jesus? Curiously, one wonders why he chose to avoid terms like “repentance” and “forgiveness of sin”. Anyone’s guess as to what ‘ultimate significance’ means is as good as any other. Only Giglio knows why “speaking on this issue” hasn’t been a priority of his in over a decade, but to withdraw his acceptance of the President’s invitation, whether pressured to or not, is a tacit withdrawal from enjoining the homosexual agenda in its advance. Had he held the same convictions as his sermon one would think he might have forced the Obama administration into withdrawing their invitation or even go so far as to reaffirm the sentiments expressed in it. The way Giglio capitulated to the pressure brought to bear by homosexuals was at best an equivocation about homosexual egalitarianism.

In the current stream of postmodern consciousness where truth is subjective, “perception is reality” has become a sort of catchphrase. I’ve personally had it quoted to me by a policeman, leaving me to surmise that his belief was that everyone has their own valid perception of reality which doesn’t necessarily coincide with fact. This seems to be often invoked with homosexuals and Christianity. The danger for those who believe trite phrases such as this is that perception trumps reality. Fiction can easily become fact. Those on either side have an aversion toward the other, more out of perception than reality. Homosexuals hurl ad hominem attacks and innuendo toward Christians. Biblical admonitions Christians give are perceived as threats and personal attacks. Giglio’s acquiescence to homosexual resentment not only does nothing to ameliorate the situation, but leaves the credibility of Christian truths as nebulous as perceptions and sentimentality. In the end, with all the vitriol and hyperbole aside, truth can only be on one side of the argument. Giglio backing down leaves the impression that homosexuals could be right in their egalitarian persuasion. Put another way, I believe we live in a time when Christian truths live as perceptions rather than realities.

Perhaps in the time since Giglio gave that sermon he has wrestled with the perceptions and realities in his own thought process leading him to change his approach to homosexuality. Again, 15 years is a long time for a preacher of the Gospel to go publicly without dealing with the topic to know for sure.

An essential element of egalitarian sensibilities has to do with human dignity. With the decline of Christianity in the Western world, homosexuality has devolved from moral accountability into egalitarian human dignity. So an affront to homosexuality is perceived as an affront to basic human rights. For the Christian, the question of how to handle the sin and the sinner is dicey. I’m sure there are many Christians who find the complexities of the homosexual issue hard to handle for their own faith. As the issues arise some prefer to err without offense rather than accept the risk searching into their faith to come to the truth. There are those like Rachel Held Evans, a Christian blogger, who apparently find it better to hold an emotional perception without the reality.

Still, I am hopeful that things will change for the better, and that the next generation will lead the way. I’ve spoken at several events for Christian teens in my travels, and let me tell you, to a person, they find anti-gay bullying abhorrent and are very concerned with how the Church has treated their gay friends. I’ve already heard from a mom whose son came home from the Scout meeting in which he and his friends were informed that the church that sponsored them was pulling their funding because the Scouts no longer discriminate against gay boys. The Mom said her son was angrier than she’d seen him in a while. But he wasn’t angry at his gay friends; he was angry at the Church. 

So if I harp on this topic more than you would like, it’s because I’m rooting for this generation and I long for them to find a place in the Church. There have been too many secrets, too many bruises, too many suicides, and too many broken families already. Let’s be careful with our words, our assumptions, and our attitudes. What makes the gospel offensive isn’t who it casts out, but who it lets in, and the true mark of our holiness as a Church is in how well we love the least of these. (Emphasis hers)

The repeated emotional pleas by people like Evans to love are a reminder just how far flung from truth the meaning has become. Often Christians and the Christianity they follow are mischaracterized as paragons of sentimental affection. To put the love of the church on a par with its holiness is to completely torture the meaning of each. Love isn’t the schadenfreude which she might believe some have toward those practicing homosexuality. Neither is it some ridiculous maudlin ignorance of truth. It’s important to remember that love has its terms. Scripture tells us in 1 Corinthians 13:6, “[Love] rejoices not in evil, but rejoices in the truth“. Homosexuality is a delusion and deception. We are to pity the sinner and have sympathy for their plight because without Christ it is everyone’s. Christ paid the price of death to extend love to sinners, and sinners have their own price to pay for love. Notions of self-sacrifice and immutable truth which characterize real love are foreign to egalitarian thinking. Besides, Evans’ rooting for the next generation is an abdication of responsibility of one’s own generation. She hopes for change in the next generation centered on an emotional definition of church rather than a biblical one.

A generation finding a place in the church cannot take place at the expense of evil. The church consists of repentant believers, it does not include those Evans thinks shouldn’t feel offended by the church’s justifiable separation from evil. It is a dangerous subversion of the Word of God to spread the notion that “nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord” to homosexuals. They, as any others who practice sin against God, are separating themselves from the love of God by their own deeds and the evil they satiate. That is the message which should be given in mercy. In terms of perceptions and realities, the realities are that Christians offending homosexuals are inevitable simply because Christianity and homosexuality are anathema to each other. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but it also means the hatred of evil (Proverbs 8:13). Homosexuality mayn’t be thought as originating from evil, which it is, still it is the sinful product of it. This is the reason the church she mentioned has, as any other church has, a valid reason to withdraw financial support. Nevertheless, the perceptions in this modern era continue to be promulgated that homosexuality is part of the human condition and therefore isn’t subject to judgment.

The church sponsoring of which she writes had to do with the Boy Scouts of America upon their national council vote of May 23rd applying to homosexual orientation.

“Based on growing input from within the Scouting family, the BSA leadership chose to conduct an additional review of the organization’s long-standing membership policy and its impact on Scouting’s mission. This review created an outpouring of feedback from the Scouting family and the American public, from both those who agree with the current policy and those who support a change. “Today, following this review, the most comprehensive listening exercise in Scouting’s history the approximate 1,400 voting members of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council approved a resolution to remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone. The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting. A change to the current membership policy for adult leaders was not under consideration; thus, the policy for adults remains in place.

Bear in mind an openly gay Boy Scout means those less than 18 years old, a minor. It’s a person who shouldn’t even be considering sexual encounters let alone having them, which is something the statement above addresses in the interest of seeming virtuous. Notice carefully the dichotomy of the two statements made. One concerns sexual orientation, while the other sexual conduct or behaviour. To them, homosexuality is untouchable while homosexual behaviour can be subject to discipline.

Read between the lines, as it were, even though the lines have truly become blurred in contemporary America. The idea here is the subtle suggestion that homosexuality is an acceptable, natural human condition, not an immoral aberration. Again, egalitarianism is concerned with the inherent human condition. Behaviour, on the other hand, is subject to judgment. Sexual conduct may be contrary to their virtues simply if they deem it so. Certainly objective standards, let alone biblical precepts, don’t necessarily have anything to do with it. What they craftily ignore is that both homosexual conduct and orientation originate from evil. This begs the question as to a definition of sexual orientation, but it also brings into question the Christian determination of the inherent nature of humanity, the sinful condition of man. Fanatics of egalitarianism imagine a felonious distinction between orientation and conduct because they can’t see the connection between evil and the sin thereof.

The familiar saw of “love the sinner, hate the sin” which some Christians have adopted is a misunderstanding of sin and evil, and it’s one Jesus never taught. Loving the sinner and hating the sin assumes mankind’s ability to fix its own moral condition. Again, an egalitarian mistake. To reword the sentiment to make its error more obvious we might say, “Judge the sin, not the sinner”. It’s important to remember the progression of evil to sin stated in the first chapter of James. “…but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” Evil fills the spiritual vacuum in the absence of Good. Sinners are the means for sin to take place, and evil is the condition from which sin is conceptualized. Sinners are judged because they commit sin.

Egalitarianism’s progress is insidious. It deludes the unsuspecting by reordering principles, redefining concepts, co-opting them into egalitarian social causes until it compromises values, even the Christian’s witness. Egalitarianism moves in academic and social circles as in the BSA. It will attempt to undermine even the religious, as in the instances of Giglio and Evans. Ultimately whatever cannot be effected through other means is coerced through governments. An idol of egalitarianism, the U.S. Supreme Court, came with a ruling which adjudicated the humanist rationale:

The gay rights movement saw a significant victory at the Supreme Court Wednesday, even as the court dodged the fundamental issue of whether marriage is a constitutionally-protected right for all couples, gay or straight.

In a 5-4 ruling in United States v. Windsor, the court struck down a provision of the 17-year-old Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that denies federal benefits — like Social Security benefits or the ability to file joint tax returns — to same-sex couples legally married.

“DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. “The history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence.”

Legal impetus like this is forcing a gradual societal inclusion of homosexuality through the pervasive egalitarianism of evil. This ruling was but one phase in that movement toward an appearance of fairness and human dignity; “equal dignity” in this case. Egalitarianism’s gradual progression in the arena of law, just as it has in the economic, entertainment and social arenas, will eventually define down American society into a morass which could only satirically be called civilized. In my view, the chain of events, from Giglio to Evans to the Boy Scouts to the Supreme Court, made the progression of evil more apparent as it finds its fulfillment in the egalitarianism of our day.

There’s more which could be said on egalitarianism as a tool of evil to undermine mankind. Although the emphasis among churches should be on the cross of Christ and God’s Gospel, I don’t believe the nature of evil is as well considered or understood as it should be. Of course there is the risk of delving into the subject too deeply, but an education into the nefarious ways of the enemy helps to make the Christian believer wise as serpents in a world in which they are being sent out as innocent sheep among ravenous wolves.

Advertisements

About elmoshangnaster

The name's a dodge simply because 1) on the internet I can be whomever I choose, and 2) I'm just paranoid enough to keep scoundrels and government out of my business and don't care to sort 'em out from the decent folk. My blog, my opinions. Don't like 'em? Sure, kindly tell me about your far-fetched, idiotic beliefs...kindly. In the end we'll neither of us change the others mind, but I will take the time to read your arguments if they're thought out in a rational fashion and not full of hyperbole. I'm a Christian human being. It's not a flavor or color preference, it's who and what I am. Don't like it? The above considerations apply. I'm not about to waste anyone's time or mine shoving Christianity down their gullet if they demonstrate even the least resistance. When someone's ready to hear I'm only too glad to share. The Gravatar? It's Jenny Lake in the Tetons near Jackson, WY. If God had a house that's where it would be.

Posted on 07/19/2013, in Commentary, Government, Society. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: