If liberalism is zany, why do some evangelicals try to emulate it?
Michael Savage wrote a book entitled Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. Though I have not read the book, the thesis is undeniable.
The Intelligent Design movement demonstrates that the evolutionary hypothesis is not fit to survive. Socialism and communism have manifested their bankruptcy. The field of psychology reveals a Freudian slip. And the list could go on. Liberal ideas fail in virtually every area.
Not only do we know that liberal ideas are untenable from the results. A cursory glance at the ideas themselves would lead us to that conclusion. What is the probability that a DNA molecule could happen by chance? Will the fallen human being really work hard if he has nothing to gain personally? Is there any serious support for the preposterous Oedipus Complex?
Yet, some evangelicals worship at the shrine of liberalism, recognizing that ultimately they can’t be liberals, but wanting to get as close as possible and still hold on to enough evangelical theology to get into church if they are carded.
In so doing they appear as zany as liberals and beyond. At least liberals are consistent, though consistently wrong. Pandering evangelicals, trying to keep a foot in both worlds, look much sillier.
In last week’s post, I cited an article from the May edition of Christianity Today that conveyed that “longing to be liberal” craving. The article is a position statement by the periodical, placed under its “Where We Stand” column. It sought to give direction to our immigration policy by embodying the prototype of the illegal immigrant in the person of Maria. Their description of Maria would qualify her as the patron saint of the movement—so spiritual that being illegal became irreverent.
The last two sentences of the article demonstrate how silly evangelicals can look when they pose as closet liberals. “Any policy that makes it harder for Maria to come here, temporarily or permanently, is a policy that says that courage, industry, and faith no longer matter. Let’s figure out some way, please, to let Maria and others like her sojourn among us.”
I would assume that the editors of Christian Today would not discriminate against men who displayed the same courage, industry, and faith as Maria. Nor would they exclude people on the basis of age or race or nationality.
That being the case, just how many Marias do they think are out there? No doubt there are many millions in China alone and many millions more in India. These for the most part are likely coming from more difficult circumstances than Maria, who is from Guatemala, especially in light of persecution against Christians in those countries, making an even more compelling case for their admittance. What of those believers still alive in Sudan and Burma? Then there are the multiplied millions in other nations around the globe.
Yes, we would all love to see them all living in circumstances that afford them the freedoms and prosperity that we enjoy. But to call on our government to find a way, please, to accommodate them all is somewhat like liberal educators wanting to give every student all “A’s.” Such a request makes evangelical Christianity look naïve and foolish.
It is scary to think that this is the most influential periodical among evangelicals. Is it any wonder that we need an evangelical reformation.