Excerpt for Dressing Down Liberalism in Five Thousand Words by , available in its entirety at Smashwords

DRESSING DOWN LIBERALISM

In Five Thousand Words

By

Tony M Robinson

SMASHWORDS EDITION

******

PUBLISHED BY

Shasta Productions

Dressing Down Liberalism in Five Thousand Words

Copyright © 2018 by Tony M Robinson

Scripture quotations are from the King James Bible.

Artwork Copyrighted.

ISBN 9780463671245

Thank you for downloading this free eBook. This work remains the copyrighted property of the author and may not be reproduced for any commercial use. No alteration of content is allowed.

*****

Table of Contents

Anthropological Assumptions

Relational Essence

Sound Doctrine

Truth Claims

An Ignored Battlefield

About the Author


******

Anthropological Assumptions

Worldviews or philosophies guiding human actions are anchored upon anthropological assumptions. In other words, how we view the origin and purpose of humanity forms the reference point for our thoughts about how humanity should conduct itself. From a political aspect, there have been three comprehensive worldviews that surfaced on a large scale during the past five hundred years: communism, fascism, and liberalism. Of those three, only liberalism continues without being diluted. For example, China has had to dilute its communist economic strategy to have a chance of competing in the market place while liberalism has become stronger, purer, and more widely accepted than when it was originally introduced as a political ideology. Classic liberalism began as an opposing response to invasive rules. Some of the rules being protested were created arbitrarily by men while others were intended to honor something God gave to mankind. Another class of rules over behavior was values predetermined by God.

To understand the inception of classic liberalism, it helps to consider the environment that bred it. For example, during the Middle Ages, names were closely associated with personal identity. Last names such as Baker, Carpenter, Cooper, Dyer, Mason, Sawyer, Smith, Potter, Taylor, Turner, and Weaver were derived from the actual occupation of the family. Being born into that surname often earmarked you to be in that occupation. There were also societal strata levels that you could be born into and were expected to remain in. Such prevalent aspects of personal life were often assigned by where and to whom you were born. In other words, such key components to personal identity were not chosen by the recipient. In contrast, classic liberalism sought to remove such restraints upon personal choices. In short, classic liberalism intended to free humanity from restraints and barriers erected by nature and other human beings. As a result, someone today with the last name of Baker is not expected to actually be a baker.

Liberalism was the driving force behind the Enlightenment and even the American Revolution. Some changes that seventeenth and eighteenth century liberals endorsed are in partial agreement with Biblical concepts of autonomy. This superficial common ground with Christian liberty is what made liberalism so appealing to colonial America. However, the philosophical underpinnings of liberalism are not anchored to anything eternal or absolute. As such, liberal influence set society adrift in search of autonomous self-realization, going far beyond needed reforms such as removing strict social class barriers and occupations being strongly tied to surnames. However, liberal thought caused the historic meaning of liberty to be transmuted from being the ability to pursue a life of virtue or having the freedom to do that which is morally right into liberty becoming the pursuit of one's desires for happiness. This new meaning of liberty gave rise to a progressive form of liberalism.

In liberalism's progressive form, liberty became viewed as freedom from restraints upon all our choices and goals. Self autonomy and the ability to choose or self-identify paths for personal fulfillment and enjoyment was embraced as being a savior from all things previously held as being predetermined or prohibited by third parties, including God. This paradigm shift on the meaning of freedom and liberty is diametrically contrary to the previous Christian-influenced worldview that saw unfettered abandonment to pursue personal cravings and driving desires as being a form of bondage to our basest nature which gravitates towards eventual enslavement by our own depravity.

Again, classic liberalism sought to remove restraints imposed by nature or other human beings against our desired choices. Liberal progressives solidified this disdain for rules not agreed upon by the governed by expanding opposition not only to nature but nature's God as well. As such, consent is a prominent word in the liberal lexicon. Governors, for example, became viewed as being illegitimate unless given prior consent from the governed. Today, physical reality has become ignored in favor of consent of use regarding personal choice of gender pronouns. Of course, the greatest source of restraint against the unfettered pursuit of desires that we think will bring us happiness, as well as being the most supreme governor of all, is God. This is one reason why progressive liberalism shuns the reach or even existence of God: such is the natural ending that a liberal worldview leads towards. This drive is fueled by liberalism's aversion to predetermined relationships in favor of relationships chosen only by them. The bottom line is that progressive liberals are unwilling to grant nature or nature's God anything without their personal consent. Choice is their standard from which they define their post-Christian definitions for liberty and freedom.

Progressives are indeed consumed with the intoxicating promises of choice and they rely upon political power to reshape the world to suit them. However, when we create a world where everything is subject to consensual choice, the default mindset of people will become one of revision of choice or the reconsideration of consent. In other words, people will be eager to seek an exit to whatever no longer suits them. Such can be witnessed in the post-Christian hook-up and shack-up society where relationships can be extremely shallow based upon superficial consent, only to reconsider that consent at a later time and deem it as a situational consent with the situation having now changed or perceived in a different light. Therefore, what was at the time considered as being given or implied consent can later be reconsidered into being coercion or no longer acceptable. Such is the basis for so-called "no fault divorce."

Relational Essence

Why is it important to understand the principles behind communism, fascism, and liberalism being juxtaposed against Biblical Christianity? It is because all three are not concerned with peaceably coexisting with historic Christianity: they want to destroy Biblical Christianity's predetermined values when it comes to what we do to our bodies, how we treat them, clothe them, what we do with them, and the roles we play using them. Why? Because God ordained values are supposed to take preeminence over our individual desires or choices, God's predetermined standards conflict with liberal characterizations of freedom and liberty. What the second decade of the twenty-first century experienced as prosecutions against Christians refusing to support the message of homosexual weddings, gay-pride parades, affirmation-based surgeries for former Olympian Bruce Jenner, pervasive transvestitism, and the emergence of polyamory, incest, and pedophilia being advocated in leading university classes are merely grandiose symptoms of a previous transformation within conservative churches that undermined sound doctrine on these matters. The transformative liberalization process was so subtle that most church leaders did not notice changes being made before their very eyes, some of which they themselves helped usher in. Because of this blindness, most churches have been ideologically colonized by liberalism though they continue to verbally affirm doctrinal statements regarding the fundamentals of their faith.

Despite the call to throw off predetermined values within liberalism, culture is supposed to have certain immovable icons based upon either the character or relational conduct of God per a Biblical worldview. Icons based upon God's unchanging character are universal and are absolute moral benchmarks. Murder of the innocent, for example, violates God's moral character, but liberals condone abortion and assisted-suicide under the banner of individual choice. The same can be said of violating godly relational boundaries demanding faithfulness: self autonomy is claimed to condone sinning against one's own body through fornication and adultery, thereby eclipsing the God-given relational essence behind why we have bodies in the first place.

Iconic principles based upon God's conduct of free will instead of His unchanging character, however, are not necessarily transcendent except when they are patterned after relational aspects found within the inspirational culture of God that existed first within the Trinity. Biblically, such transcendent principles that echo or symbolize relational aspects found within the Trinity can be seen both in the cultures of angelic beings and the kingdoms of mankind. The moral flow of authority and the honorifics behind it, for example, was first demonstrated within functional roles between God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but subsequently personified and expressed within the concepts behind the bodies of angels and the human race. Likewise, relational aspects between ruling, instruction, and submission inherent amidst the role of God the Son to the other members of the Godhead were also designed into the family nucleus of parents and children.

Moral flow of authority and the family nucleus are examples of predetermined core values chosen by God that are based upon relationships first found within the Trinity. Rejection of those values in favor of complete self autonomy over such matters is nothing less than an act of rebellion that echoes the choice Adam made in the Garden of Eden. As such, liberalism's political pursuit of unrestrained autonomy via personal choice is a political quest for godhood. The only way to peaceably coexist with such a movement once it gains power is to worship their immoral values through affirmation. In contrast, fighting liberalism means we must consistently deny ourselves and our unfettered desires in favor of honoring things God has predetermined for us.

When we pray, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," we are not merely referring to earmarks of absolute morality, but also relational earmarks that are intended to be manifested in every culture. This prayer, however, does not mean God wants to squelch all aspects of our individuality. In fact, after God endowed Adam with the capacity to utter speech using principles of language first found within the Trinity, Adam offered animals back to God, not as blood sacrifices but rather in giving animals names. God then adopted the use of the names that Adam gave animals, thereby showing that Adam not only expanded his own culture with his creativity, but that God expanded His culture by adopting Adam's newfangled etymology as His own. God bringing animals to see what Adam would name them using the heavenly gift of language fits into the fact that God wants us to embrace His core values and to build our own innovations around them in either outright honor to them, or if created arbitrarily, at least in harmony with them. When autonomy ceases to be in harmony with God's predetermined values, it operates under sin.

As such, nuances that we introduce to culture are supposed to be either erected around heaven's immovable core values as a form of paying homage to them or they can be randomly created through our individual choice as long as they do not contradict God predetermined core values. This pattern can be seen throughout Biblical and worldwide history. For example, the significance of wearing flowers changes as we shift from Polynesian to American or French cultures: one local culture wears flowers around the neck and arms of either gender while the other local culture distinguishes male or female gender by where the flowers are worn. Such local nuances introduced by local propriety, however, do not negate transcendent principles for gender that God erected for cross culture observance (e.g. men and cherubim being uncovered versus women and seraphim being covered as a sign of humility). People have occasionally been guilty of pushing their self-imposed homage to heavenly principles far beyond what God's core values can support, but such abuses do not eradicate God's core principles themselves.

Sound Doctrine

Sound doctrine is the most effective tool against liberalism. Biblical sound doctrine is neither a doctrinal statement nor a sermon, but rather a life grounded in the person of Christ. This is where the classic Biblical characterization of liberty and freedom being the power to pursue a life of virtue is exemplified for all to witness. The heart of sound doctrine is the simple plea, "Not my will, but thine," and then following such a desire with specific actions. Paul is the only apostle that we have letters from describing things that exemplify sound doctrine.

Many are blind to what sound doctrine looks like because of its simplicity and call to place personal choice or self autonomy second to things not chosen by us but rather predetermined by God. In view of liberalism's push to exalt individual choice above God's core values, even to the point of redefining freedom and liberty in Christ, consider why the Apostle Paul listed such things as adornment and gender-based roles as being featured teaching points found within sound doctrine. These things are so closely tied to our lives that the effect of liberal thought upon them can leave a visible mark on our material world. The worldview correlation to gender-based adornment and roles makes them worthy of examination.

In response to the question of why Paul did this, some may glibly reply that Paul was led by God the Holy Spirit to list them, but the question still remains, "Why are certain views on attire and gender-based roles considered sound doctrine?" A fundamental reason for Paul's choice of words is that personal autonomy, whether mankind’s autonomy as espoused by God and Scripture or the inflamed version endorsed by Lucifer and liberalism, should always be regulated by ontology (Ontology is the study of the essence of being and the inherent relationships expected by the very nature of that being). In other words, making choices for yourself is secondary to ontological properties chosen without your consent which are inherent to your being.

Again, because we are made after a pattern, ontology delves into the relationships of being within that pattern and its Creator. Much of Paul's list for godliness and sound doctrine is based upon measuring up to the ontological significance of being made in the image of God. For example, this is one reason why homosexuality continues to be a sin against God: personal choice cannot override a non-chosen genetically-based physical reality and the ontological significance of physical gender that God built into His Creation. The ontological significance of our being created in the image of God is the overriding factor that should impact and gauge what we do to our bodies, how we treat them, clothe them, what we do with them, and the roles we play using them, not our individual desires or choices.

Another motive for adhering to the sound doctrine that Paul taught is that postmodern churches have been ideologically colonized and are themselves lifting up personal choices above that of ontology. Churches, even among the strictest sects except groups like the Amish, are quick to justify their choices connected to expressing or living out gender as being issues of autonomy, not ontology. Such is contrary to the proper order of things found within a Biblical worldview. Ask yourself, "Why do church members have the general hair lengths they have, make specific clothing choices, or assume roles related to supporting their family that they do?" Liberals will ultimately rest their answer upon a foundation of personal choice instead of steadfast ontological values with any personal choices not violating that core. Unfortunately, this dependence upon personal choice as being the benchmark for behavior is also prevalent today among those identifying themselves as being Christians. It is no longer a question of whether or not churches have adopted liberalism regarding their view of gender, but rather to what degree have they adopted progressive liberalism.

When Lucifer stirred the pot of rebellion in Eden, he not only seasoned it with doubtful questions but also tantalized the female palate with a blatant lie, "Ye shalt not surely die." As liberals tainted the thoughts of twentieth and twenty-first century churches with liberal thought, the acceptance of lies and misinformation helped fuel the inferno against God's predetermined core values. Many of these lies revolve around gender-based roles, including those associated with attire, interjecting controversy to divide churches. For example, when mini-skirts, shorts cut off at the buttocks, and bikinis began to conquer modern twentieth century culture, pastors responded in one of two ways: the majority took the position that trousers on women was the lesser evil while the minority insisted that push back should be made to keep dresses on women. In order for this lie to sound convincing, the meaning of the word modest, which was introduced six hundred years ago from the Latin word modestus as used by King James' translators had to be changed from meaning "in due measure" or "in agreement with something's essence or purpose" to becoming singularly associated with lust prevention. This lust prevention approach was a departure from previous usage of the word and such changed the focus of modesty from measuring up to core principles first expressed within the Trinity to being all about us.

Armed with the modern misconstruing of the word modest, both groups insisted that their approach was the surest way to deter men from lusting after women. The majority, for example, thought that trousers would at least cover more flesh and somewhat mute the outline of women's thighs better than miniskirts, shorts, or bikinis. Again, this turned women away from striving to physically personify aspects of the Holy Spirit's role within the Trinity towards focusing upon an unhealthy preoccupation over lustful thoughts. Deliberation over how our actions may affect others is a third tier issue, not a first tier issue. James 1:14 is very explicit in that every man is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lust. Making lust prevention within someone else's heart as being the primary or sole reason regarding our own adornment choices is perversion of Scripture. A woman who does not show self respect for her body is a problem, but it is a small one compared to an entire society having lost the significance that adornment was intended to symbolize and convey on a daily basis.

Remember, philosophies guiding personal choices are anchored upon anthropological assumptions forming the reference point for our thoughts on how people should act. Because both pro-trousers versus anti-trousers groups solely focused women upon attempts to deter lust, none of them considered how worldview implications or themes connected to gender roles interfaced with choices of attire. Therefore, subsequent generations grew up without such knowledge. Meanwhile, feminists continued to adamantly fight against any pre-determined values being over the lives of women. In the aftermath of this malignant mixture, changes in gender-related roles or attire today are casually validated by pointing to cultural change, which is an indirect nod to the slippery slope of unregulated self autonomy, or they are validated as satisfactorily preventing lust, which is actually a never ending task since there is a never ending supply of male fetishes changing over time or that are specific to certain cultures. Regardless, when the goal is to test whether or not a change in culture is morally good, but the fact that cultures do change is what is being relied upon to prove the viewpoint, then the argument is based upon circular logic. In other words, it is illogical to use the fact that cultures change in some manner as being the reason that a specific change in culture is okay. To say, "Cultures change; therefore, this change is good," is nonsense. It can also be a lie.

Truth Claims

Another lie introduced by nineteenth century feminist propaganda is that trousers are a modern invention. From their own writings, feminists understood traditional female attire kept women from competing against men in various jobs, which is one reason why they made such a false claim about the history of trousers. Actually, trousers were in use long before the New Testament was written and archeological finds also during the nineteenth century showed men in trousers hundreds of years before Christ. Though debunked, this feminist lie is still embraced by many today in the church.

The oldest book in Scripture is Job. In it, Job was told to gird up his loins, which meant to free his legs either by putting on a pair of trousers or grabbing the bottom of his robe and cinching it up, exposing his legs for maximum agility. This was something men did in public while working, but women did not. Trousers became a permanent adaptation for girding up the loins of men. For example, the oldest known trousers still in one piece on museum display is over 3,300 years old and was created using technology specifically designed for making trousers. This means the industry of making trousers had become sophisticated and widespread enough to warrant a special loom to make them more efficiently. In addition, during the time of the New Testament, coins minted by the Roman Empire featured pagan women bare chested and in trousers. These coins depicted society norms that even the Romans viewed as barbaric and that the women were personifying distinctively male roles. Such coins were in circulation when John wrote the book of Revelation. Coins are made commemorating aspects of a pre-existing culture. In other words, bare chested, trouser wearing women existed during the time of the New Testament, offering an explanation on why earmarks of proper attire for women were introduced into the New Testament cannon of Scripture by God.

Another lie fostered upon the church is that outward adornment is not important because directives for believers do not appear until late in the first century of the church. This straw man argument fails to take into consideration several facts. One of them is that adornment is the only manmade article erected by man to hide something that God repurposed as a blessing to show something. Another fact is that hordes of Roman influenced pagans joined the ranks of believers in the first century causing the need for writing apostolic epistles to teach sound doctrine regarding gender roles and gender-associated adornment. Though teachings behind the adornment of hair and clothing did not need to become codified in Scripture until the first century of the church, Scripture is filled with descriptive passages regarding both hair and clothing associated with gender that are also supported by archeological finds of ancient cultures worldwide.

Examining historical facts found within Scripture and archeology reveal a transcendent fundamental patterns regarding adornment held by the world. Aberrations to this basic pattern occasionally arose in sporadic instances, but the prevailing consensus tended to segregate or squelch these aberrations out of favor as being barbaric. With mankind's propensity to rebel and stray each to our own way through personal choices, it is difficult to account for this virtually worldwide consensus existing throughout all of history up until the twentieth century. The most plausible explanation for this phenomenon is that the gender-based adornment pattern was entrenched authoritatively by God when humanity was at its smallest numbers. In other words, a worldwide consensus regarding fundamental gender baselines in adornment was authoritatively inculcated into primitive society and largely honored from the scattering of humanity at the tower of Babel until the world was reunited under the seemingly authoritative voice of modern telecommunication. If Paul saw a need for addressing a disregard towards gender distinctives amidst the unifying voice of the Roman Empire, it is a wonder why today's pastors do not sense the same need amidst postmodern cultures taking their cues from international celebrities, the worldwide web, and national labor laws. Unfortunately, today's Christians have come to embrace a redefining of gender boundaries that virtually the entire world resisted being changed for thousands and thousands of years.

Although there are many more truth claims that could be pointed out as lies, perhaps one of the more common refrains is the insistence that God's grace somehow nullifies God's predetermined directives in favor of modern liberal concepts of complete self autonomy in such matters. This liberal preaching from pulpits today fails to consider that the man who wrote 108 out of the 159 times that grace is mentioned in the Bible also referenced the essence of godly feminine earmarks, including mentioning hair and attire, and listed them as components of godliness and sound doctrine. The Apostle Paul taught such as being transcendent concepts on faith and truth, not fads meant for only one church or time in history. Progressive liberalism cannot stomach a view of Scripture that is transcendent upon issues that they want complete self autonomy over.

The liberal mindset also blinds churches on two functions of God's grace: grace abounds much more when unrepented sin abounds or grace abounds towards us so that we may abound in every good work. For example, Jude 1:4 speaks of ungodly men who can blend into churches while speaking highly of grace. These smooth talkers will turn the grace of God into lasciviousness so that we can make choices solely upon our own desires. In short, progressive liberalism is quick to proclaim grace when we sin but slow to showcase God’s grace for performing good works because its real value is for individual choice on virtually everything. Whether we are either disregarding or honoring God's core values, God’s grace will be plentiful, but the reason His grace abounds is up to us. Will God's grace abound because of unrepented sin or because of good works?

An Ignored Battlefield

Progressivism lacks any self-correcting attributes: it has to constantly plagiarize values found in Biblical Christianity for anything that can pull progressive liberalism away from the brink of chaos. Progressive liberal assumptions about the nature of mankind undermine its own position and will eventually bring its own demise. However, what kind of society will exist in the aftermath of that demise? Will churches be prepared to fill the void with earmarks of sound doctrine that will help rebuild a Biblical worldview of ontology, restoring the family nucleus and the gender distinctions within it? Can the church give the world what it does not have? Being called a Christian does not ensure a Biblically consistent worldview, and we cannot win in God's game of life by using the Devil's playbook. If Christians continue to ignore sound doctrine and treat what the implications of being made in the image of God means, and if they continue to forget to honor choices made for us by God instead of praising only those made by ourselves, we will lose the ability to adequately mend the fabric of our own churches, let alone the rest of society. Why? Because nobody can consistently rise above the level of their own worldview.

Remember, liberalism holds individual choice and self autonomy as being the pinnacle of freedom, and shuns being cast in any mold without it being given prior consent. In contrast, though there is liberty in Christ, that liberty is the freedom to pursue a life of virtue that places our desires in subjection to God's predetermined boundaries for our lives. Today's Christians have largely forgotten this aspect of true liberty and have rather adopted certain dogmas from liberalism, especially on issues that stand as a centerpiece of our lives being placed on public display. Ask yourself again, "Why do church members have the general hair lengths they have, make specific clothing choices, or assume to roles related to supporting their family that they do?" Better yet, ask them directly and then discern if their individual choices are built around predetermined values of ancient origin or completely upon self autonomy. If they point to culture as being the prime factor, they are endorsing relativism. What if culture put trousers on women and dresses on men? There are cultures today where women go bare chested or everyone goes completely nude (video documentaries of such places reveal that such cultural displays do not come across as being erotic but rather matter of fact). If Christian women were to move to such places and adopt the local culture's lack of attire, they would be consistent in their relativism. Such Christians have already adopted liberal values on adornment and often on the options they choose to fulfill family roles as well.

In conclusion, even fundamentalist churches have to one degree or another been ideologically colonized to neglect highlighting the feminine power God intended women to wield while also failing to encourage men to be the family providers that help soberly run the world. As a result, Christians are today being coerced into following the collective in the world's gender rebellion against God; and they may, in fact, help lead the undermining of Biblical values within their surrounding culture. If religion does not speak to politics, then politics will speak as though religion is irrelevant; or worse, as being an obstacle needing to be removed.

We ought to realize that our life is not some dress rehearsal: there is a real war being waged for the mind, heart, soul, and body of those around us. Since the Garden of Eden, what we do to our bodies, how we treat them, clothe them, what we do with them, and the roles we play using them is the battlefield visibly manifested upon which this war is being waged. Unfortunately, today’s Christians have become like a nation virtually illiterate towards their own written language: very few of us remember and know how to use ancestral symbols meant to propagate cultural messages regarding our gender identity and the roles that come with them. We have shunned ancient ontological messages originating from heaven and have rather chosen to herald the power of personal choice as being supreme in such matters. We have forgotten sound doctrine.

About the Author

Tony Robinson is the author of the insightful book, The Naked Truth: Revealing Things We Hide Behind. Tony has been quoted by nationally recognized media outlets, such as USA Today, and was featured on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. He was also the co-host of a television series and the host of a Christian radio program. Tony Robinson speaks to churches by request on Creation Science, God’s criminal justice system, absolute morality, the sanctity of human life, and is a life-long proponent for debt-free living.

You can follow him on Twitter @tonymrobinson.



© Copyright 2018 Tony Robinson

Alteration of Contents Prohibited

Back to the Beginning

******



Download this book for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-13 show above.)