Let’s go back in time 30 years. Imagine you’re an opponent of Christianity. You want to dethrone Judeo-Christian values in a country that was founded on them. How do you go about doing that?
The simple answer is that you have to introduce enough chaos into the system that it causes confusion on a wide scale. It’s a slow, subtle thing, but it’s one that doesn’t stop. Want to see a few examples of what I mean? If you went into the same church both 30 years ago and on a Sunday morning in 2023, and asked the following questions, which era do you think would have a more resounding response?
“Does God say homosexuality is wrong?”
“How many genders are there?”
“What’s more important, equality (having the same opportunities for all) or equity (being given credit for the same results as others, regardless of level of performance you put in)?”
My friends, I hate to break it to you, but those opponents are well on their way to dethroning Judeo-Christian values, merely by adding little qualifiers so that what used to be “truth” is now “my truth” or “your truth.” There aren’t any versions of truth, there’s only the truth!
Let’s put this another way. If you’re an opponent of Christianity, you want to silence any voice that advocates for Christian beliefs. The goal is to make Christian voices irrelevant and easy to stifle. Why? Because those voices preach something the world doesn’t want to hear. They become so enraged at the concept of a power that is higher than them, who has the authority and intent to judge them, that they can’t tolerate anything that represents those beliefs. “Tolerance” is only valid if it doesn’t oppose certain viewpoints.
Given enough time, Christian/religious beliefs will be outlawed. You may think I’m exaggerating…that the likelihood of legislating against religious beliefs in a nation founded on religious freedom is laughable. Well, did you ever think schools and sporting organizations would support the decision to allow someone with a male body to compete in female sports and act like it’s legitimate?
The progress of this erosive trend is comprehensive enough that in today’s society, people seem to think they have a right to treat unsupported statements as fact, and compel others to follow suit. Take for example a biological male that insists his gender be recognized as a female (or anything other than a male, for that matter). He, without proof, simply tells others he believes he’s not a man. He legally changes his name to a female name. Fine; that is the person’s new legal name, and he has the right to be referred to as such. But if he insists on being referred to as a she/her, that is an overreach because it now infringes on my viewpoint, and my viewpoint also carries weight and has value. This person can choose to live however he wants. He can pretend to be a woman, but he can’t compel anyone else to pretend he’s a woman. You have two diametrically opposed viewpoints that cannot coexist; why is the logically/biologically/medically unsupported viewpoint given priority over the fact-based one? Guess what? It’s only given priority if you yield your viewpoint and give credence to the false one. Push back against the erosion of truth.
(Sidebar: it’s important to note that above all, the most important thing you or I can do is share the love of Christ with them. Therefore I feel it’s prudent to also specify that pushing back for the sake of picking a fight isn’t what I’m advocating. You still want to maintain enough of a relationship with nonbelievers that you can share the Gospel with them. As a “meet in the middle” approach, refer to your colleague/acquaintance by their legal name because that’s what it legally is, but do not feel compelled to use pronouns you know to be untrue. This is sure to make for some contorted sentences, but you also have the right to live out your viewpoint. You may need to get used to saying things like “Michelle said that Michelle wants to join us for lunch.” I’m not in favor of turning “they” into a gender-avoiding pronoun, because “they” was already being used for something else and this evolution of language isn’t something I’d support. I’m open to the addition of a few new pronouns for exactly this purpose.)
Think I’m being a little over the top? This evolution of language and viewpoints tends to be a one-way flow, and by that I mean it tends to move away from the way God would want it to, and rarely back toward it. Can you imagine if somehow Christians built enough momentum to stop referring to the December 25th holiday as “Christmas” and instead called it “Baby Jesus Day?” People would lose their minds! There’d be all kinds of arguments about the separation of church and state, about how people have the right to “freedom from religion,” and about how unfair it is that religious viewpoints are being forced down the throats of Americans.
Yet, that’s how I view the growth of the power of the State. Devotion to the State is, in my viewpoint, its own religion. I think “State-ism” will be an important prerequisite to the outlawing of Christianity or otherwise hindering of churches (stripping them of their tax-exempt status, for example). That’s one of the main reasons I’m usually against candidates that embrace the growth of the role of government in our lives.
I can’t be alone in this perspective. I know others of you are out there. An AP-NORC survey from June of 2022 said 85% of Americans think the country’s headed in the wrong direction. Eighty five percent! If you’re reading this, you live in an era where you can affect change. You’re not alone. Stand up and say something.
Not confrontational? Well, in the future you may find yourself wishing you had spoken up a bit more. But if that’s something that’s really hard for you, try using this one: “I’m a pretty religious person, and that viewpoint goes against what God says He wants. I might not be the most humble guy/gal, but I’m not arrogant enough to think that I know better than God does.”
Stand up for truth. Proclaim it, because your proclamations and the simple fact that you take a stand will slow this erosion of truth.