Andrew Sandlin is a leading
intellectual voice for the theonomic movement of
Reconstructionism.
While we may disagree with his theology of
postmillennialism and
Covenantism, we nevertheless
acknowledge his astute insights into the dynamics of modern American
culture. We have taken the liberty to edit the title of Mr. Sandlin's
article because we consider the "war" well underway. Our comments
appear in italics.
Political Correctness and the
Coming
[Present] Culture War
By Andrew Sandlin
10/92
Almost everybody has heard about political
correctness (PC). It is the policy on numerous American campuses to stifle
discussion deemed to threaten the sensitivity of "under-represented" groups:
homosexuals, blacks, women, the handicapped, etc. The supposed liberal
tenet of free speech must now yield if, under its protection, comments are made
that might offend the easily offended "minorities."
We are finding that various religious heretics and heretical groups are
also capitalizing on the political correctness movement. At present, they
are often found issuing online protests designed to stifle speech and threats of
litigation toward those who seek to expose their false doctrines and cultic
behavior.
If, as Dinesh D'Souza asserts, the university in
a democracy is a microcosm of the society surrounding it (a fairly tenable,
common-sense assumption), we may be fairly certain that the current controversy
raging over "political correct-ness" in the university is one of the early signs
and harbingers of a monumental ideological and religious conflict potentially
disrupting the present social order. Initially considered, this claim may
seem exaggerated, but further thought should demonstrate its factuality.
The "PC" fracas has demonstrated that the
rationalism which stands behind Western liberalism in the tradition of
Enlightenment cannot survive indefinitely. The great irony is that while
Western liberalism has always been the avowed enemy of conservatism, the former
is discovering that its basic tenets of "free inquiry" and "objective appraisal"
are not hardy enough to withstand the onslaught of vigorous leftist and radical
views impatient with the inability of Western liberalism to make good on the
cherished goals of liberal ideology: absolute autonomy and equality.
"Western liberalism" as in
'Western' civilization and the culture of Europe and North America which was
largely built upon Judeo-Christian cultural foundations.
The forces of rationalism and the advocates of
"PC" only appear to be arrayed against each other. They are both actually
arrayed against biblical Christianity. Western liberalism embraces the
primacy of reason; advocates of "political correctness" embrace the primacy of
"equality." Neither embraces the primacy of the God who revealed himself
in Holy Scripture.
We have found that an
alliance between the advocates of rationalism and political correctness, to
which Mr. Sandlin refers, is in fact a daily reality in our experience.
The disciples of "political correctness" argue
against Western liberals that the professed neutrality of modern university
liberalism is just a covert scheme to obscure presuppositions designed to
maintain the status quo. Where they are wrong is in pinpointing that
status quo. They say it is chauvinism, sexism, racism and Westernism.
On that, I believe they are egregiously wrong.
The hidden presupposition the classical liberals
are endeavoring to protect is the same that the salesmen of "political
correctness" are trying to protect: the autonomy of man.
This cause has a third and
widely-pervasive ally--RELIGIOUS HUMANISM. In fact, classical
liberalism and those who advocate "political correctness' often draw their
strength from religious advocates of the "autonomy of man".
The Myth of Neutrality
Under the guise of free inquiry and objectivity,
classical liberals idolatrously enthrone the human mind, just as "PCers" do
under the guise of egalitarianism. The controversy demonstrates the
futility of the pipe dream of Enlightenment liberalism: that where
reason
is employed, truth prevails. It does not account for the fact that (a)
reason is never objective and that (b) reason can never answer the ultimate
questions of life since it has no absolute standard by which to judge [nor
ability to solve epistemological questions]. Reason, for example, is
no bulwark against tyranny, for according to some presuppositions, tyranny can
be perfectly reasonable. Rationalism serves the purpose of depraved
mankind in its rebellion against the Creator God.
The disciples of "political correctness" know
that the supposed neutrality and objectivity of Western intellectuals is a
farce, but they do not recognize that their own politically correct views are
equally farcical. "PC" is breaking the back of the old utopian liberal
intellectual faith in reason. Devotees of "political correctness" will not
concede for one minute that neutral, objective reason should reign in the
university because they recognize that the position of "objective" liberalism
springs from subjective presuppositions. Of course, disciples of
"political correctness" are mistaken in their insistence that radical feminism,
Afro-centrism, and homosexuality should be exempted from criticism. All
who embrace the truth as revealed by God in His Word will fervently oppose each
of these deviations - as well as the others supported by the "politically
correct."
The point is that the controversy surrounding
"political correctness" should force "neutral" liberal educators to concede that
some ideology will govern the university (and every other sphere of society, for
that matter). If men do not worship God, they will worship themselves and
other created things (Romans 1) and eventually Satan (Rev. 13). The "PC"
controversy is a perfect example. The children of the intellectual
liberals rebelling against their "reasonable" heritage (worship of the mind of
man) now defy God by demanding that professors avoid any criticism, implied or
expressed, of homosexuality (an abomination in God's eyes according to Romans
1).
Because the course of idolatry is degradation
(Romans 1), if universities permit "political correctness" to dominate, they
will become not only increasingly depraved but also increasingly mediocre and
incompetent. When "PC" educators employ race rather than merit as a chief
standard of enrollment policy, the result will be less knowledgeable and less
equipped individuals to perform important functions as citizens of our society.
When administrators block intelligent Asians in favor of incompetent blacks and
whites, they are sealing the mediocrity of a country.
Currently, we are being
forced to live with both this incompetency and mediocrity in the workplace.
Even worse, the process of degradation seeks to drive out those who are
competent and excel.
When they refuse to require courses in Western
literature because it is dominated by white males, and require instead courses
in Asian and African literature (most of which is abysmally inferior to that of
Western culture) they slit their own throat--or, I should say, the throat of
their students who must one day assist in sustaining a society whose glorious
benefits derive directly from the ideas of white males, the validity of whose
ideas has nothing to do with race.
Over the past several
decades, intellectual liberalism has grown increasing racist.
If the old liberalism were to win this debate
and reassert itself in American universities, the results would be only slightly
more favorable; however, the classic liberal utopia of a "neutral creed" is
doomed because its "neutrality" cannot forever withstand the onslaught of
commitments like those of the "politically correct." In the long run,
pretended neutrality is no match for fervent ideology. The [German] Weimer
Republic's pitiful collapse before the militant, though misguided and tyrannical
force of National Socialism [Nazism], is a striking example.
A Strategy for the Culture War
Epistemologically
conscious Christians on campus should seize the initiative by demonstrating the
bankruptcy of the old Enlightenment classical liberalism and the perversion of
the "politically correct" corp. They must, further, press the claims of
the authority of Christ in all spheres of life, including the life of the
university. Nor will the commitment to historic Christianity jeopardize
the free flow of ideas as the classical liberals charge and as the ideal of
"political correctness" obviously does.
Mr. Sandlin lays a
near-unbearable burden on the "Christian" college student. The
"politically correct" crowd has received twelve years of conditioning within
the public education system and will not be "pressed" or impressed with the
"authority of Christ" this late in the process. Sure, a handful of
students are converted to Christianity at college, but they have always been
the exception. The answer is the disestablishment of
America's common religion----public education.
Rather, if the university is not to become a
"multiversity," it must embrace the epistemology of the Christian faith which,
if properly practiced and understood, guarantees the free flow of ideas,
precisely because as the only viable foundation of intellectual life, it can
afford to confront the challenges posed by secularism, Marxism, materialism and
all other ideological perversions. As long as the validity of the
Christian faith is presupposed, all alternatives will be found wanting.
The battle on campus is merely the most visible
dimension of the larger conflict in Western culture. The (rapidly
diminishing) classical liberals wrongfully claiming neutrality, as well as the
overt covenant-breakers of "political correctness" rightfully denying
neutrality, are arrayed against the (rapidly diminishing) Christian
pietists
wrongfully claiming neutrality, as well as the overt
covenant-keepers
rightfully denying neutrality. The classical liberals, one will note, are
analogous to the Christian pietists - both erroneously believe they can remain
neutral in this conflict. The classical liberals are really on the side of
the overt covenant-breakers, for Scripture claims all the unconverted suppress
the truth (Rom. 1:18).
The Christian pietists are really on the side of
the overt covenant-keepers, but they just have not become consistent with their
presuppositions yet. The overt covenant-keepers and the overt
covenant-breakers are actively locked into a life-and death struggle to the
finish (literally so, at the doors of abortions clinics). These are two
fundamentally irreconcilable, mutually exclusive presuppositions. They
cannot simultaneously succeed, nor can they long simultaneously co-exist.
God created this conflict (Gen. 3:15): the seed
of the serpent (Satan and his disciples) war against the seed of the woman
(Christ and His disciples). God instituted this hostility.
Christians must not retreat from or smooth over the differences. This
conflict (Mt. 16:18), will be escalated not impeded. On campus, at the
shop or office, at the polling booth, in every venture this conflict between God
and Satan will escalate.
We agree with Mr. Sandlin's
assessment that none "can remain neutral in this conflict". THE
WAR IS RAGING! We firmly believe that the disestablishment of public
education is the only hope to stem the degradation of American society.
Christians will need to become advocates for and protect alternative forms
of elementary, secondary, and higher education.
GLOSSARY
Rationalism
- refers to various viewpoints that assert that all knowledge depends ultimately
upon some natural quality in the human mind. For them, the mind comes
equipped from birth with the ability to develop all knowledge without dependence
on any outside source. Thus, both the source of all knowledge and the
final criterion of all truth is said to be exclusively human reason.
Reason or
Rationality
- refers to the ability to understand and think according to the rules of logic.
Epistemology
- is a division of philosophy that investigates the nature of knowledge. It
seeks to discover whether mankind can truly know, with absolute certainty, in
contrast to simply forming a hypothesis.
Pietism
- refers to a 17th-18th century movement in Protestantism which emphasized the
necessity of good works and a holy life. Its focus was largely inward (the
inner life) rather than outward, and has become synonymous with pacifism in
modern times. Mr. Sandlin may have used the term to mean all
non-theonomic
Christians.
Covenant-keeper
- is a synonym for a theonomist or one who exclusively views mans' relationship
to God as a covenant arrangement. The "covenant" is an important
concept that every biblical Christian should understand. However, the Lord
Jesus Christ, through the epistles of the Apostle Paul, reveals far more
regarding our bone-of-His-bone relationship to Him.
Mail this page to a friend
|