Evangelicalism in Terminal Decline (Part 2)
See Part 1.
If Russell Moore, Tim Alberta, and their ilk are aspersed as useful idiots, hardly a winsome approach in seeking metanoia, it is because of the extremity of the views of those with whom they keep company. For various forms of philosophical, epistemological, ethical, and now hermeneutical skepticism insidiously permeate the mindset of the Progressive faction in various degrees.
Skepticism is the logical terminus of rationalism and empiricism. For humanity can only know in part and see but a dim reflection as in a mirror, even apart from the noetic effects of sin. Under the rigors of Cartesian certitude, an impossible standard of proof for limited and fallible creatures, intellectual respectability demands that human beings treat all assertions, whether noetic or ethical, as contingent and unfit for firm and zealous commitment.
(That contemporaries can subscribe to skepticism with such dogmatic certitude is ironic in its intrinsic and extreme inconsistency. Even ancient skeptics, more committed to intellectual integrity and rational consistency, recognized and sought to overcome a dogmatic form of non-dogmatism, a task which proved intellectually impossible.
Skepticism underlies the practice by the educated classes, especially by Progressives, but not only by Progressives, to judge and denigrate their adversaries upon some standard or principle while failing to uphold that same principle against their own actions and policies. More than just hypocrisy, it makes evident that such do not actually believe in any principle except perhaps that of rational, and not so rational, self-interest. Like Carneades, they capably argue from both sides of their arse. Facts and reason are mere sophist tools, easily disposed of when no longer conducive to the acquisition of their desires, especially the will to power.
One problem, posed by skepticism, for any genuine and faithful Christian evangelist and apologist is that if there is no truth which can be ascertained, nor intrinsic validity and merit to ethical injunctions, nor any certainty to the intended meaning of any script, then one cannot genuine believe in a God who is there and whose nature and character has a definite outline.
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.1
The god of postmodernist Christendom is but a therapeutic talisman, which enables a human being to get through the dark night of conscious existence.
Therefore, how can anyone be associated with people whose effectual skepticism is so antithetical to the philosophical foundations of Christianity. (Herein, there is a subtle semantic distinction to be made between “associating with” and “being associated with.”)
What has been will be again, and what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a case where one can say, “Look, this is new”? It has already existed in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of those who came before . . .2
Contrary to the historically illiterate claims of Charles Taylor (A Secular Age, 2007), the present era is not the first time that Western Civilization, or some segment of it, has experienced secularization, even skepticism. The devolution of thought in ancient Greece from the pre-Socratics to the Academic and Pyrrhonian skeptics echoes a similar dynamic in Western thought from Voltaire to Foucault. Because of the clever rhetorical abuse of reason by the sophists, the life of the mind became denigrated in the eyes of the commons.
The sociopolitical consequence of skepticism was the demise of free civic polities and the rise of authoritarianism as attested in Greece by the late 4th BCE. For if truth and its knowability are precluded from having validity, there cannot exist a common ideological basis around which a free populace can consensually rally. For when push comes to shove, rare is the person who is willing to dedicate and sacrifice his or her life for that believed to be uncertain or delusional. Ultimately, skepticism lends to civilizational entropy and an eventual surrender to any adversary who is not as far gone down the paths of this noetic psychosis.
One of the finger and toe manifestations of modern variants of skepticism, in this case Existentialism, is transgenderism, a bridge too far even for some gays and lesbians. For transgenderism is ultimately not a gender identity, but an existential-level truth and sanity issue.
For according to a seminal principle undergirding transgenderism, whatever is in the subjective eye of the beholder is deemed “one’s truth,” albeit one to which all others must honor and kowtow, despite all the objective and experiential markers which attest otherwise. Herein, one is not required to “live within the lie” (Václav Havel, The Power of the Powerless, 1978), but to “live within the psychosis,” this in order to get on with life without undue economic loss and social denigration.
The exorable logic undergirding transgenderism, leads to trans-speciesism and bestiality (zoophilia), and an eventual gaslighting of the commons in all aspects of existence by those who have surmounted the Commanding Heights of Society, that is until the commons can no longer stomach the psychosis of the credentialed intelligentsia and culturati.
Transgenderism is the current cause célèbre, one in which public repudiation of its validity often results in being “canceled” (i.e., J.K. Rawling). Can a Christian, therefore, hope to be published in media outlets, favored by these credentialed intelligentsia and culturati, without (eventually) pulling one’s punches concerning this current cause célèbre? Or will such a Christian have to effectively offer sacrifices to this new emperor?
Russell Moore, Tim Alberta, and their ilk may be the specified object in this screed. However, the principle applies to all Christians who, instead of choosing the path of a genuine voice in the wilderness, which will be granted no platform by any worldly faction, instead gives “spiritual” imprimatur to one of these worldly factions.
The compromises of conservative Evangelicals are already well established and known. Such have long detoured off the Celestial Path, which seemed ever so slight in the days of Ronald Reagan. But in reaction to this wayward detour, Moore and company are merely repeating the same mistake in a different guise and direction.
The truth is, the sort of “lesser of two evils” argument that character doesn’t matter moves quite easily into a “see no evil” mentality.3
Earlier this year, when Alvin Bragg brought a juridical travesty of a charge against Donald Trump, Moore soft-pedalled the intrinsic due process injustice in the specific charge while reminding us all and stressing Trump’s immorality.
The incontrovertible fact is that they, with whom Moore and his ilk keep company, have long and consistently violated the principles of justice, primarily in terms of the unequal application of the laws. Churches were closed down during the COVID-19 pandemic, while street protests, with a far greater density of persons, were permitted. Many January 6th “insurrectionists” have received fairly lengthy prison sentences, while far more violent BLM insurrectionists and looters have and even now escape juridical notice. Interestingly, the “see no evil” Moore omits BLM and company when decrying mob violence.
They, with whom Moore and his ilk keep company, have long been thrashing the legal underbrush to concoct some innovative legal machination by which to subvert the democrat will of the great unwashed, of whom they despise. In so doing, even if there emerged some legitimate juridical grounds by which to remove Trump from the public square, it would lack credence in a public which has long observed this Progressive abuse of law and justice.
Truth be told, the choice for the poor American voter has now become one between the “unrighteous” and the “unjust.” As public injustice tends to affect more people than private vice, (although the Bidens are hardly immune to vice), it should not surprise if the American electorate might give a begrudging nod to the Trumpian faction.
Considering the current state of public affairs, the only valid and credible stance of a faithful Christian pundit is that of “a pox on both their houses.” Such a stance is certainly easier for a foreigner to maintain. The true test of fidelity and consistency for that foreigner would be found in the assessment of public affairs in his/her own homeland.
However, I am far less concerned about the state of American affairs (except out of academic interest and for its corollary consequences beyond America’s shores) than about the state of the contemporary church. The inability to remain independent, and, consequently, independently minded, will in the end destroy the credibility of the Christian witness, and of those who now most strenuously claim to be concerned about the credibility of the Christian witness.
Hebrews 11:6
Ecclesiastes 1:9–11a
Russell Moore, “Criminal or Not, Trump’s Case Is a Moral Test for Christians,” Christianity Today, March 23, 2023, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/march-web-only/russell-moore-trump-arrest-case-moral-criminal.html.