In my readings and explorings, I come across people who understand the totalitarian reality of the West (and Geopolitics, generally) and who pass the Litmus Tests; and are not Christian.
Indeed, such people may be anti-"Christian" - especially when they define Christianity as a compulsory package necessarily administered by an institutional church - a package that it is not possible or allowable to un-pick and discern-among; but a package that must be swallowed whole...
Or else rejected, which is what they do with it.
On the flip-side; most self-identified Christians fail one or more of the major Litmus Tests and are substantively on-board-with the globalist totalitarian (hence necessarily leftist-materialist-atheist) socio-political agenda.
This indicates to me that - at least as of 2025 - it is possible to be negatively-correct about the nature of evil in this world; while rejecting Christianity.
Indeed; some not-Christians are better at the negative-task of discerning evil, than are Christians.
How could this be?
I think the answer is quite simple: which is that both the non-Christian discerners and the church-Christians accept a stark dichotomy.
The stark dichotomy is as follows:
Most Christians are first-and-foremost institutionally-led; and they therefore (following institutional teaching and rules) agree with the "not-Christians Litmus Test passers" in assuming and asserting that Christianity really is A Package.
Therefore it is regarded as a stark choice between either affiliating to a Christian church and supporting totalitarian evil, or else rejecting totalitarian evil and therefore rejecting "Christianity".
I, of course, do not regard Christianity as a package; and I do not regard churches as the ultimate authority on what it is to follow Jesus; so I reject the stark dichotomy.
But the above analysis seems to explain how Christians have, in such large numbers, ended-up on the side of evil; and how anti-Christians have been able consistently to reject this dominant source of evil - albeit they do not support positive Good.
2 comments:
Thanks, I never noticed the problem of "accepting or rejecting as a package" dichotomy that directly. But I recognise it instantly and can see now I never do that. About 60 years ago I was invited to join the Trotsky Club in lower Manhattan - the one Trotsky himself founded there - and was told that I had to declare I was an atheist. I thought about it for a moment and said, "No, I can't honestly do that". These days, I greatly prefer associating myself with Anglo-Catholicism with all its noticeably fallible Monarchs and Archbishops than one that is run by a infallible bloke from Chicago. Thank Bruce.
@Igude - Any church is okay on the basis that we understand that *ultimate* authority and discernment lies within ourselves, and not an institution.
Post a Comment