Orthodoxy, Progressives, Tolerance — Pick Any Two
Text from the Slides:
Orthodoxy, Progressives, Tolerance—Pick Any Two
Hello everyone, and welcome to Original Apologetics, where we seek new ways to defend Christians and Christianity. As always, I hope that you are doing well.
Alright, so, for this video, we are going to be discussing a fact about Christianity that traditional orthodox Christian believers need to be acutely aware of. And being aware of this fact is especially important as we Christians move into the future, for a previous lack of awareness about this fact is what has led, in large part, to the shift of many Christian denominations and churches away from traditional orthodoxy and towards liberalism, progressivism, and denominational collapse.
Now, to better understand the issue that we will be discussing, first consider that in the political realm, there is an idea which states that a country, if it wants to maintain the cultural and social norms that it currently has, can only choose two of the following three options: immigration, multiculturalism, or democracy. What this means is that if a country chooses to endorse a policy of large-scale immigration, as well as a policy of multiculturalism, then, to ensure the survival of its cultural and social norms, such a country will need to restrict its democracy. Why? Because if it does not do so, then the combination of a large population of immigrants, combined with the fact that such immigrants do not have to assimilate under a multicultural scheme, means that, eventually, such immigrants will use the democratic process to change the country to their image, rather than assimilate to the cultural and social norms of the country itself. But if a country wants to be democratic, and yet remain the country that it presently is, then such a country has two options: 1) it can either embrace multiculturalism, but not immigration, thus allowing small immigrant populations to maintain their cultures but not allowing them to get so large as to gain influence democratically, or 2) the country can embrace immigration but not multiculturalism, thus forcing immigrants to drop their old culture and embrace the culture of the country they just moved to, thereby not changing the country’s cultural and social norms via the means of democracy.
So, as stated, the idea is that a country, to remain the country that it is, must accept the following truism: democracy, immigration, multiculturalism—pick any two. And regardless of whether we are speaking of a country that considers itself a so-called civic-state allegedly built on a common creed, or whether we are dealing with a genuine nation-state, the fact remains that if a country does not limit itself to two of those three options, then very soon, it will no longer be the country that it once was. For any country that allows large quantities of immigrants to enter it, but also allows such immigrants to keep their previous cultural and social practices, and then also allows such immigrants to vote, will soon find itself slowly transformed—culturally, socially, and politically—by the very immigrants that it let in. And it is quite possible to see this in the world today, where multicultural Western democratic countries with many immigrants, have seen such immigrants create ethnic enclaves and vie for political power and cultural concessions based on their strengths as tribal voting blocks. Furthermore, in many cases, such immigrants have also demanded that their past cultural practices be either tacitly permitted or even actively embraced by the very country that hosts them. And so again, we see the truth of this maxim: democracy, immigration, multiculturalism—pick any two.
Now, the reason that the aforementioned political maxim is important to the discussion at hand, is because a similar maxim also applies in a Christian context. In particular, for traditional and orthodox Christian denominations and churches, such Christian entities must realize that they have a similar three-way choice to make. Specifically, they must select between holding to orthodoxy and traditionalism, or allowing progressives to enter into their churches, or embracing niceness, tolerance, and weak-kneed doctrinal openness. So, in short, orthodox Christian denominations and churches must realize that, for them, the simple truth is the following: orthodoxy, progressives, tolerance—pick any two.
To understand why this is the case, it must be understood that the nature of a progressive-leftist is to seek to change any traditionalist institution that he or she enters into. Indeed, the progressive will unavoidably attempt to make any group or organization that he or she enters into a more progressive one. That is what the progressive wants. That is what the progressive strives for. In fact, that is what, in large part, drives the progressive forward. And indeed, the history of previously-traditional-but-now-progressive Christian denominations and churches, not to mention the history of many once-traditionalist Western institutions over the past few generations, is a testament to this fact. Nor should this idea be surprising: after all, when people believe something, especially when they believe it fanatically—as many progressives do with progressivism—then they will naturally want to change any institution that is not in-line with their beliefs to an institution that is in-line with their beliefs. So it is no surprise that progressives do the same with any non-progressive groups that they run across, such as traditionalist Christian denominations and churches.
But what this entails is that if a Christian denomination or church wants to remain traditionalist and orthodox, while at the same time being open to all people, including progressives, then such a Christian organization cannot allow itself to be “nice” or tolerant. And what is meant by this is that an orthodox Christian group cannot be tolerant of internal dissent, nor allow the questioning of its core orthodoxy by its own practitioners, nor embrace “dialogue” with those members who want to destroy the denomination or fundamentally change the church. Why? Because if a Christian denomination or church does allow these things, then progressives will use such openings to gain positions of power and influence within the Christian institution, and then they will slowly destroy the orthodoxy of those institutions from the inside out by spreading and codifying their progressive opinions, all while claiming that it is not “nice” or “tolerant” to silence or punish them for doing so.
However, given their belief in their own righteousness, the progressives themselves will have no qualms about using whatever organizational power or tools that they have to silence, crush, or oust their own critics, which will all be done in the name of “tolerance” and combating “bigotry”, of course. Indeed, such things as vague and infinitely-flexible codes of conduct or speech codes against “hate”, “bigotry” and “intolerance” will all be used by progressives to legitimize their maneuvers to suppress and remove impediments to their progressive cause, while ensuring that they never need to be held accountable by their own rules.
And indeed, there are numerous examples where progressives use the ideas of tolerance, dialogue, and openness to gain positions of power and influence within an organization, and then, once sufficiently embedded in that organization, those same progressives turn around and attack the non-progressives in the organization, seeking to oust them because they are alleged “intolerant” or “bigoted”. This, of course, is just double-speak, for all it means is that the non-progressives are a potential threat to the progressive cause, and so they must either go or be cowed into submission. And the non-progressives, because they buy the fake idea of tolerance, but also because they are not as hypocritical in their use of the idea of tolerance as the progressives are, still try to have a “dialogue” with the progressives and apologize in order to work things out. This, of course, leads to the non-progressives constantly losing the ideological struggle, because they are fighting on the progressives’ own terms, which is always a losing strategy. And again, remember that this danger from progressives is not just theoretical; such tactics are used daily by progressives across the West today. Just see Vox Day’s two books SJWs Always Lie and SJWs Always Double-Down for numerous real instances of the use of such tactics by progressives in various areas of life.
So again, what all of this means is that if a Christian denomination or church wants to remain traditional and orthodox, but also wants to be open to everyone, including progressives, then such a denomination or church must ruthlessly reject the idea of tolerance; they simply cannot be tolerant of dissenting progressive views within their own ranks and long survive as an orthodox denomination or traditionalist church. Because again, remember, tolerance, in the hands of a progressive, is a one-way weapon; it is an ideological sledgehammer that is always used against traditionalism, but is almost never turned back on the progressives themselves.
Furthermore, as a Christian, it is also interesting and important to realize that Jesus Christ Himself understood the need to ruthlessly reject tolerance of dissenting views within His own ranks. For example, when Christ, in the Gospel of John, Chapter 6, Verses 35 to 70, offered a hard teaching which many of His disciples grumbled about and rejected, Christ did not open a dialogue or try to be tolerant with those that rejected the teaching; instead, He let those disciples go, showing that His teachings were not open to debate. And if you did not like that fact, then it was you who could leave. Or when Peter, in the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 8, Verses 31 to 33, tried to stop Christ from fulfilling His mission, Christ did not open a tolerant dialogue with Peter, nor was Jesus “nice”; instead Christ yelled at Peter, called Peter ‘Satan’, and firmly rebuked Peter in the harshest terms. And also remember that when Christ sent out His disciples to the villages, the disciples were to preach the kingdom of God, but if they were rejected by some village, then they were to wipe the dust off their feet and leave the village, not open a tolerant dialogue with it. So again, the point is that even Christ and the early Church understood that to maintain orthodoxy, but to be open to everyone, then so-called niceness and broad tolerance for overtly dissenting views was simply not permissible. And we need to realize this again today.
So, to recap, realize that if your now orthodox and traditionalist Christian denomination or church does allow progressives and other dissenters into its ranks, and yet your Christian group maintains a stance of weak-kneed niceness and tolerance when dealing with its members, then, over time, your Christian group will lose its orthodoxy and either become progressive, or collapse, or it will fracture into multiple different denominations, some progressive, and some not. By the same token, if your denomination or church actually wants to be nice and tolerant with its members and yet still remain orthodox, then it cannot allow progressives either into its ranks or to remain in its ranks, for to do so is to invite an unavoidable shift into a more progressive direction within your denomination or church. And, ultimately, this point applies to all traditionalist Christian groups, not just different denominations or individual churches.
Thus, to remain orthodox, a Christian group must either be restrictive concerning who it allows in its door or it must be restrictive concerning who it allows to speak once they are inside the walls. This is just a fact. Indeed, it is an experienced and lived truth, as many once orthodox but now progressive Christian groups testify to. And so, in the end, this whole video is a more complicated way of saying that orthodox and traditionalist Christians must remember this maxim: orthodoxy, progressives, tolerance—pick any two.
Alright everyone, that concludes this video, which I hope you enjoyed. And remember, if you ever have a question for Original Apologetics or if you would like to submit any material to the site for potential publication, then please e-mail Original Apologetics at ‘email@example.com’. Thank you and good-bye.