Archives For Chuck Colson

Chuck Colson saw in advance the contradictions of a society guided purely by the sexual revolution.

In the late 1960s feminist sexual liberation was celebrated as a utopian moment; the elevating of an oppressed “class” through the seizing of power from both men and women, to achieve biological equality.

The great feminist cry against misogyny, through “equality with men” become a misandrist war against men. Its high point was the sexual revolution, and its war-cry ever since has been “choice.”

Respect for women was never the goal. The movement’s primary motivation was the impossible goal of irradicating natural inequalities, through the equality of biological choice.

Raising woman in the eyes of man, for him to see woman as being of equal value, was, at best, a bonus. Not necessarily desired, but welcomed as a consolation prize, should the great feminist war be lost.

Respect for women wasn’t a core virtue. Feminists tended/tend to disrespect other women, and show contempt towards them for not making pro-feminist choices.

Illustrated by author, political scientist, and early feminist, Jean Bethke Elshtain, who, after choosing to join a feminist group with a friend in the 70s, found that being married, and having children appeared to exclude them from being allowed to express an opinion.

Elshtain said, ‘my friend and I left, for we could not treat our children as abstractions, as nuisances to be overcome, or as evidence of our “sad capitulation” to the terms of patriarchy.’

The group’s facilitator had ‘abruptly and publicly’ cut off their discussion declaring, “We will have not diaper talk here. We’re here to talk about women’s liberation.”

Feminists won battles, not just with their ambivalence towards respect, or ignorance of their own hypocrisy, but with their dismissal of restraint, and revelation.

Restraint was considered repressive, and God’s revelation, which included the objective moral law, was demonised as archaic, oppressive, and patriarchal.

According to the thought leaders of the day, such as Simone de Beauvoir, restraint and revelation didn’t liberate women from being a ‘parasite’ on man. They protected, and were used to propagate the parasitical condition of woman, by equally oppressed man. [i]

The feminist bible peached that the human condition wasn’t oppressed by sin. It was oppressed by objective morality, and the shackles of Christendom’s institutionalisation of marriage. Marriage was no longer a vocation, or Godly union where man exists for woman, woman for man, both free before God, but as matrimony –marriage reduced to a woman becoming a mother. [ii]

While feminists got the latter partly right, they got the former spectacularly wrong.

The condition of the human heart is ‘deceitful above all things, desperately sick, outside understanding.’ (Jeremiah 17:9) Without God’s revelation empowering restraint there is no genuine liberation.

Which is why Colson’s brief analysis finds relevance with concerns about reactionary feminist protests today, and the over-reactions to them by Governments.

In observations he’d made about the ‘self-refuting nature of the post-modernism social model,’ Colson wrote: ‘the irony of removing all restraints of shame and modesty is that women led the charge. The feminists thought this was great: women could be “equal” to men, sexually speaking.’ [iii]

It was, he said, ‘the great liberation movement that would lead us to nirvana, freedom, equality.’

Colson added, ‘feminists [haven’t yet] realized [that] they’ve sold their constituency down the river, because the only people who profit from “no restrictions, no limits” philosophy are men’, who are encouraged by this way of thinking to look at women ‘as objects of gratification, and pleasure.’

The ejection of restraint and revelation has ‘reverted culture back to the ancient Greeks, who viewed women as property – as chattel.’

For Colson, the rejection of ‘radical Christian doctrine that considers all human beings to be created in the image of God, with innate dignity’, has created the ‘ultimate post-modern impasse.’

Society wants ‘total freedom [from objective morality] (nihilism), but then, all of a sudden, when it begins to hurt and be untenable, people scream.’

They then turn to big government to solve the problem.

In other words, feminists are running to government, after running away from God, to bring in moral restraints on sexuality, that they’re advocacy for nihilistic, no-restraints, free-sex pandemonium has birthed.

This is the great feminist contradiction, born from legitimate feminist criticisms, that were taken too far by people high on the myth of man created by De Beauvoir, Daly and Greer.

Feminism hasn’t delivered a utopia for women, it’s in fact bought them a ticket on the Titanic. A gargantuan enterprise in the pitfalls of good ideas, corrupted by human arrogance.

It is, as Karl Barth wrote, ‘the myth of man, built up without respect to man and woman’s relationship to the Divine command, which, ends in the negation of real man.’ (paraphrased)

Freedom cannot be maintained where virtue isn’t flourishing, asserted Colson; and he’s right: ‘Moral chaos will lead us to lose our freedoms. The inevitable consequence of the modern project of complete liberation from all restraints is slavery.’

Women’s liberation cannot be achieved through humiliating man, in order to exalt woman, humiliated by man.

The crux of liberation is God on the Cross, who, in, through and, with Jesus Christ becomes our only way to freedom from sin.

It’s the choice between a House of Freedom, and a House of slavery.

It’s the essence of the Easter message, reminding us that it’s not man’s humiliation of man that saves, and exalts, but the humiliation of God, and His exaltation of humanity. [iv]

‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.’ – John 3:16, NIV

God is true to His Word. Restraint and revelation will never lose its relevance, because the liberating, living God, commands it, and still speaks through it.

References:

[i] Beauvoir, Simone de. 1949. The Second Sex Vintage Books

[ii] I’ve merged Kierkegaard’s critique in ‘The Instant’ with Barth, K. Man and Woman, Church Dogmatics: Doctrine of Creation KD 3:4, (p.127)

[iii] Colson, C. 2015, My Final Word: Hook Up Culture, Zondervan (pp.89-90)

[iv] See Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q. 27), Dietrich Bonhoeffer DBW 12 (p.343) & Karl Barth, Respect for Life, KD 3:4 (p.397)


First published on Caldron Pool, 31st March 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Most honest, level-headed people on both sides of the political aisle would agree that the unrestrained, self-centred use of censorship as a weapon, is barbaric discrimination.

It’s big, bright, and dangerous false dawn; cheered on as it sets civil liberties and civil rights on fire wherever it is blown or directed.

The burnt scarring it leaves behind is left screaming silently to the world that the doctrine of original sin can be ignored, but never truly rejected, because its barbarism has, once again, punched its bloodthirsty fists through the gates; salivating after any opportunity to remove, censor, and/or if possible, rape and behead (Cancel Culture style) Conservative Christians, and Classical Liberals.

Chuck Colson called barbarism, ‘inhumanity done in the name of humanity, the killing of people for their own good.’

He said that the new Barbarians weren’t Goths or Vandals, with ‘clubs climbing over the walls, but the well-dressed people [comfortably] sitting in well-lit rooms with clean fingernails, deciding what was best for other people.’

You’d be spot on if you thought Colson was describing the current bureaucratic caste, legacy media, big tech, big medicine, big business, and their elitist egos, buttressed by self-congratulating sanitised tax-payer funded, leftist political bubbles, and a conditioned public programmed to kneel at every word.

High profile examples of this new barbarism were added this week to the systemic trend blacklisting all those refusing to fall in, line up, goose step in unison, salute, and take the [proverbial] Hitler oath of allegiance.

The cancelling of Gina Carano, Disney stamping trigger warnings all over Jim Henson’s creative legacy, ‘The Muppets,’ and Legacy Media throwing outspoken, Australian politician Craig Kelly under a bus, calling him, in sum, an “ego driven Trumpist, and threat to democracy.”

Christian conservative and former Western Australian, LNP candidate, Andrea Tokaji, ‘was dis-endorsed by the WA Liberal Party weeks before the 2021 Election after five months of campaigning for simply exercising her freedom of speech in an article she wrote months before being endorsed.’ (Rowan Dean, SkyNews)

Then there was Coca Cola repackaging the Nazi doctrine of Blut und Boden, by using their brand to push Critical Race Theory, telling white people to be less white.

While the woke World Council of Churches literally called the modern nation of Israel demonic, claiming that alleged human rights abuses were on the same level as white supremacists in South Africa. Noteworthy, the WCC failed to mention the Chi-comms crushing Hong Kong, threatening Taiwan, and incarcerating ethnic minorities, and Chinese Christians.

In addition, privileged “popstar” Madonna, worth $850 Million, while remaining completely silent about Gina Carano being booted from The Mandalorian, demanded an end to the patriarchy, because of male “systemic oppression”.

Even the Vatican was seemingly keen to join the bandwagon.

NPR reported that ‘Pope Francis accepted the resignation of Cardinal Robert Sarah (of Guinea), removing a conservative who was seen as an opponent of the Pope’s vision for the church.’

The differences were stark. Along with Cardinal Sarah’s conviction for the priesthood to maintain the practice of celibacy. Sarah held the line on irresponsible immigration (open borders), and the clear Biblical Christian line on homosexuality, Western Civilisation, and the ‘Churches’ relationship with the Muslim world.’

An exposition from the Express in the U.K. said that the relationship soured years ago. Instead of ‘removing Sarah directly, Francis decided to fill the liturgy department with a number of [centrists] who opposed his views.’

The Summit news concluded that the 75-year-old Cardinal’s retirement was ‘more of a firing’ because Sarah was ‘mandated to submit his resignation when he turned 75, while other serving in the position have been known to continue.’

Barbarianism is punching its way through the gates.

Out of control censorship is a false dawn, consuming all its being directed towards, and there are very few willing to put up a fight.

To paraphrase Colson, it’s easier to fight those whose actions are clearly inhumane. It’s harder to fight those who do inhumane things and call it “humane”.

References:

Colson, C. 2015. A Flight to Amsterdam, My Final Word, Zondervan (p.42)


First published on Caldron Pool, 24th February 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.