Thanks to a slew of modern thinkers reveling in the death of God, and working with a vengeance to prevent what they would therefore have to call His resurrection, modern”social science” is predicated on what C.S. Lewis accurately recognized as the “Abolition of Man.” These days, of course, the people dedicated to achieving this result do not confine their efforts to deconstruct humanity to educational institutions. In the course of my lifetime, they have moved into and through all the major institutions of our society, as the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci directed them to do. We must be nearing the decisive culmination of their efforts to transmogrify what were once called “liberal” institutions.
Those institutions deserved the label “liberal” because they were established meant to preserve human liberty, in the true sense of the term. The use of the word “true” points to a standard of truth. In respect of the institutions the God-slayers are targeting, that standard is the one uplifted by St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Galatians, when he wrote to those he had discipled, saying:
“Stand fast, therefore, In the Liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. … For, brethren, you have been called to liberty. Only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all law is fulfilled in one word even this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you be not consumed of one another.” (Galatians 5:1, 13-15)
I pity many of the people of the United States who cannot see that this is exactly the understanding of liberty that impelled America’s founding generation to rebel against the British monarchy. It is the liberty the American Declaration of Independence declares to be among the unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator, God, which it is the purpose of human governments to secure. Tragically, in an era when scheming would-be dictators strive with one another to procure the demise of our liberty, this meaning of the term has been targeted for oblivion.
Understood in this proper sense of right, liberty is not the freedom to do what you want to do; be whatever it pleases you to be; and, by all means, covet and pursue, in every imaginable form, all the goods and pleasures material life affords, along with the power to grasp and hold on to them. It is rather the free choice to do what God pleases and to pursue all that He intends humanity to have, hold, share and enjoy by every means consistent with His benevolent will for the whole of His creation, so that all created things work together for good.
In respect of God, humanity is not just a pious abstraction, evoked to soothe the aching consciences of people who care only for themselves. Humanity is a way of being according to God’s intention. Therefore, it imitates the trajectory of God’s will, in order to follow, in every moment, the movements by which His being accommodates itself to our being here, in harmony with the being of every other expression of His goodwill in all Creation. For in God, all things work together for good, including, of course, the good of those whose love for Him impels them to obey the bonds and limits He sets within Himself so that created things can appear to exist without Him.
Liberty is thus the free choice to identify with God. Does this make sense to you? If it does, how can you think that some identity embraced in defiance of His will and purpose for your existence, and that of all Creation, has something to do with the Being in which you live and move and have your own?
I understand that people for whom all trains of thought that begin and end in God can have no meaning will find none in what I write here. But to those who seek God, and therefore look everywhere for the meaning that binds them to His heart, I pose a question: If politics is the business of a citizen (the root meaning of the ancient Greek word “politics”), how can any people whose citizenship derives from the authority of God adamantly insist upon an identity that rejects His authorship?
But isn’t the invention and defense of such identities the whole import of the agenda for disunity that celebrated “identity politics” is the unifying rubric for a new politics of rights, which include the right to deny what is right according to the rule that has made our self-government as a people possible, and so long-lasting? It’s more than ironic that politicians who blather on about “humanity” and “unity” eagerly exploit an approach to politics that promotes the specious allure of human self-construction, even when it insists that all must worship the idol of self-regard that this or that one erects to himself; or the slaughter of helpless, innocent born and nascent life that this or that one seeks to destroy.
Is it just a coincidence that “identity politics” is on the same agenda as the politics of socialist deconstruction and dictatorship? The first disintegrates the common ground that is the common possession of every human being, endowed by God. The other fires the conscience that applauds the persecution of any who will not worship at the altar of self-idolatry, in whose service hecatombs of God-made innocents are offered every day, so that when the waiting idol of unconstrained human power is finally placed on high, no one but those already taken for sacrifice will remember the good conscience that once impelled good human hearts to hear the voice of God, calling it by its proper name of “murder.”