To both religious and secular prophesiers, men are sheep. There is a striking duality in this image. They are innocent and docile, and conversely biddable.
In Jeremiah, the Lord declares how he will lead the wicked Babylonians “like lambs to the slaughter,” and make that storied city a horror to the world.
Modern America stands on the precipice of such a fate, but with the added perversity of the lambs, through their own placidity, leading themselves to slaughter.
Secularism has risen within society like some Old Testament plague. Within the past year alone, private business owners who merely wish to follow their conscience in business- the most basic tenet of capitalism- have been stripped of their livelihoods. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a mere reaffirmation of the First Amendment’s statement that government cannot infringe on a person’s right to exercise their religion has been overwhelmingly labelled bigoted and hateful, with little push back. And the highest court in the land, which supposedly is rooted in the doctrine of separation of church and state, has just passed sentence on a religious sacrament, naming a privilege granted by leaders of churches a fundamental right.
These issues are often couched in terms of “human dignity.” And dissenters, many of whom adhere to traditional Christian values, are cowed by the venom with which such words are spoken and the threat of ruin held over their head by the mob of public opinion.
It is easy to pretend that the narrowly tailored rulings of the Supreme Court and various other government authority have equally narrow societal consequences. But the majority ruling in Obergefell v. Hodgens is radical:
“The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.”
The Court has positioned itself as a benevolent protector of personal autonomy. But, how can an entity separate and outside personal identity possibly be a safeguard when some autonomy must be sacrificed in order to come under protection?
A benevolent king is still a king, an obstacle between a person’s belief and their object. It must taint and dilute it to some extent.
And herein lies the fundamental conflict which Christians in a democratic society face. As believers, they are told to live their faith but allow others to also exercise theirs. As traditional liberals, they believe the same in regards to civil liberties.
The end result is now evident in a rapidly growing secular cancer that becomes less and less benevolentthe more tenaciously entrenched it becomes.
Christians cannot allow themselves to be positioned between the “dignity” given by a radical and false egalitarianism of rights granted by law and the more permanent, overarching laws of their faith.
Real dignity comes from living the principles of faith consistently, treating others with the same grace an individual wishes to see afforded to him or herself. But that does not mean giving up one’s voice.
Advocacy for deeply held personal beliefs cannot be sacrificed because others, who cherry pick faith for their own advantage, claim it violates the commandments of Christianity.
It is the one part of faith that must be adhered to at all cost. Christ, the original individualist, who stood up for what he believed in in the face of brutality, tyranny and torture, never forsook his voice. Modern Christians cannot do so now.
Otherwise, if they bow down before the preening morality of secularists, they allow their faith to be defined for them. And, in their complacency, they lead themselves to slaughter.