In George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the fictional language imposed upon the characters by the totalitarian government is Newspeak. This language consisted of specific vocabulary and simplified grammar approved by the government that met certain ideological requirements and was meant to limit not just the speech of the masses, but their very thoughts. Newspeak imposed itself upon every facet of self-expression and free will so much so that those who are familiar with the book will remember the eventual criminalizing of ideas as “thoughtcrime.” It’s no wonder books like Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World are at the top of book sales in these past few months as we’ve seen an uptick in propaganda promoting the idea of limiting words, phrases, and yes even ideas. Thoughtcrime has become a recurring joke on social media, but it rings true in a terrifying way. Even big social media platforms like Twitter have begun indoctrinating the masses with Newspeak words and phrases that are meant to include, but in actuality hinder creativity, freedom of expression, and create and sow division among people groups of different ethnicities, religions, and ideologies.
In this article, non-SBC author Rod Dreher explains, “I received the following e-mail from a reader, in response to my “Race, Identity Politics, and Evangelicalism” post. He gives me permission to use it, so long as I keep his name out of it. There’s a lot to think about here. By publishing it, I’m not necessarily endorsing his conclusions. I just think there’s something here worth considering.“
When it comes to biblical authority, slavery is the progressive’s favorite wedge issue. It’s not hard to imagine a conversation with a non-Christian or with a progressive Christian going something like this:
PROGRESSIVE: You hold to the traditional view of marriage?
CONSERVATIVE: Yes. Scripture is clear on that.
PROGRESSIVE: And you also hold to ordination of men only?
CONSERVATIVE: Yes. Scripture is also clear on that issue.
PROGRESSIVE: Well, why don’t you follow the Bible’s teaching on slavery then? It’s special pleading to ignore all of that material and claim that you are “biblical.” In reality, you are only selectively “biblical.”
A conservative who is unprepared for that argument and who holds to a surface level apprehension of the issues at stake might find himself taken in by the logic, ultimately leading to a shaking of his confidence in Scripture’s authority. With the image of African slaves being kidnapped, sold, and abused hovering in the background, the conservative may find himself at a loss to defend the authority of Scripture under the assumption that it clearly endorses such moral atrocities. And from there, the whole fabric of biblical authority might begin to unravel.
In this article, Lanie Anderson explains the Guilt by Association fallacy, “Since the election of 2016, guilt-by-association tactics […] have only worsened. ‘Guilt by association’ occurs when guilt is ascribed to someone not because of evidence but because of his or her association (real or perceived) with a person or group.”