Progress

We've moved a long way in our society from when I was young. They call it "progress" and hand the credit to the "progressives". While it is abundantly clear that "when I was young" is not the definition of "utopia" -- that there were lots of things wrong when I was young -- it seems equally clear that what we've deemed "progress" is not necessarily positive. That is, if "progress" is "forward movement", it doesn't follow that it is positive forward movement. Let me give you some examples of some of the "progress" I've learned from "progressives".

"If it feels good, do it."
Radical in its origins in the '60's, it has become the rule in our day. While they try to tell me that morality is determined by "harm", they counter with this axiom as well and are perfectly happy with "If it feels good, do it ... regardless of the harm." This is obvious in current standards regarding such prevalent actions as murdering babies in the womb, the embrace of sadomasochism in the mainstream, and the full use of divorce as a "feel good" mechanism. Then they further push "harm" out and leave it more firmly under "consent", where "If I consent, it's okay" (even if it causes harm). It is pure, unadulterated, moral relativism where "I determine what is right or wrong" and it doesn't matter the basis of such a ruling or whether it's truly right or wrong.

"Only God can judge me."
It's a popular notion these days, carrying lots of baggage with it. It shows up in the "Judge not" mentality where progressives are delighted to judge you for being judgmental. It is not an admission that "God will judge me" but entirely a defense from people around them pointing out "That's not right." It incorporates the double standard of "Don't tell me when I'm wrong morally" even though if you fail to tell them when they're wrong in other areas you're not a very good friend. (Imagine, for instance, keeping your mouth shut when they accidentally go to drink some noxious liquid thinking it was good.) In essence, the point is "You can't judge me and God won't judge me; I'm above all that."

"You're not God."
Closely related to the previous one, this one is very popular among the progressive "Christians". It is not a claim of the obvious, "The person who is talking to me is not actually God Incarnate." No one would dispute that. It is, instead, the claim that no one can speak for God ... even if, say, you're reading God's Word ... verbatim ... in clear and obvious texts. So by "no one" I mean not even God. But the bizarre part in this is that they definitively speak for God in their attack of your beliefs that you're reading God's Word. They urge you to embrace humility with the arrogance that says, "I don't care what the Scriptures say; I know you're wrong ... and you should stop talking." Like a line from a Steve Taylor song, they seem to be claiming, "You want humility? Look at me; I got it." And, of course, it takes extreme arrogance to claim what they essentially claim -- "I know better than God's Word." In the end, it is unavoidably, "You're not God; I am."

In the end, then, "You're not God" is a demand that you have a humility they don't possess, especially in regards to our primary source of information about God. The Bible claims to be God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17), but they are telling us, "No, that's not God's Word." "No, no," some will assure you, "we're not saying that. We're just saying you can't know what it is saying for certain." It is, therefore, God's unknowable Word and, therefore, basically useless. "No, no," others will counter, "we're not saying that, either. We're just saying it's a personal thing and you have no right or even capability of telling us what it means." You should have noticed by now that all of these are the same. If it is God's Word, it is God's Word. If it is not, it is not. If it is unknowable or purely personal, it is not God's Word. But they'll still stand there claiming this is "humility" and, ironically enough, judging and arguing with you that you're wrong and they're right and you (not them) need to stop. Makes sense? Not at all.

"Tolerance, inclusivity, diversity!!"
The catchwords of our day are those kinds of things. The enforcement of these values is ... intolerance, exclusivity, and uniformity. How that is missed eludes me completely. "We tolerate anything but intolerance" is their defense, but cannot see how self-refuting it is or how widespread their intolerance is. They hold their "warm and tender" tolerance in one hand and hurl invectives with their other such as "homophobe", "bigot", "sexist", "racist" ... you get the idea. Oh, no, it doesn't really matter if any of those tags are true or even make sense. (Examine, for instance, the word "homophobic" over against they way they generally use it, and you'll find it makes no sense at all.) The goal is to stir up hate against those they ... hate. Not tolerance. Not inclusivity. There is no effort to include those whose views differ. Remember the Women's March at Trump's inauguration where the women excluded the women who were pro-life? Diversity? No way! And they still stand on what they consider the moral high ground which is, as it turns out, the bones of their felled opponents who they deemed intolerant, exclusive, and anti-diversity.

Here's my problem. As I said at the beginning, my youth did not constitute a pure, wonderful society. There were issues, problems, things that needed fixing. Unfortunately, the things they set out to fix were not those. They set out to take down the things of value and exerted little effort toward fixing the real issues. They shifted the focus from real problems to manufactured problems, effectively removing any possibility of fixing things at all while destroying the solid ground that was there to begin with. Progress? In the sense of "forward motion", of "moving on", perhaps. But this is not progress toward a positive outcome. It is insanity (Rom 1:28).

"Alteration is not always improvement, as the pigeon said when she got out of the net and into the pie." - Charles Spurgeon