The West, including Europe and the U.S., is losing liberty and experiencing spiritual death.
The strongest and clearest indicator of this is the tyranny of ‘Absolute Relativism’.
Under Absolute Relativism, liberalism has become self-contradictory and has led to bondage.
Under Absolute Relativism, there is no moral bottom, only yet-to-be-manifested corruption.
Under Absolute Relativism, there is no spiritual light, only darkness.
A society cannot survive if it believes ‘there is no absolute right and wrong’, let alone if it believes ‘there is absolutely no right and wrong’, which is the doctrine of Absolute Relativism.
Liberalism
In 1859, John Stuart Mill published a book called On Liberty. This book became a representative work of Western liberalism.
The book, though only essay-length, has had a significant impact because its standpoint is not simply about individual freedom. Instead, it starts from the most fundamental point of human society to propose a systemic solution that the author believes fundamentally addresses the relationship between individuals and society:
Liberalism.
In other words, Mill formally introduced a systematic liberalism, providing the world with a unified ideological and political system.
The basic idea is to demonstrate, from an argumentative perspective, the importance and necessity of individual freedom. It advocates maximizing individual freedom and preventing or abolishing various forms of tyranny and despotism—not only the tyranny of the few over the many in the form of governmental dictatorship but also the tyranny of the majority over the minority, as well as the tyranny of traditions and customs over nonconformists.
Over the past hundred years, Mill’s thoughts have greatly influenced American liberal thought, and liberalism as a whole has had a significant impact on American society. For example, most people believe that the civil rights movement was driven by liberal ideas.
The internal paradox of liberalism
However, when Mill was conceiving his ideological and political system of liberalism, he faced a fundamental problem for which he had no answer. The more than one hundred years following him, especially in recent decades, have shown that this problem within the liberal system not only remains unsolved but increasingly proves fundamentally impossible to solve.
The inherent, essential problem that liberalism faces is related to this question:
Does truth exist in this world? Or, more specifically, are there things that are inherently right or wrong?
An increasing number of followers of liberalism have become increasingly straightforward in their answer to this question: No.
That is, today’s liberals increasingly come to assert that there is no inherent right or wrong in this world; everything is relative. (Mill himself held this worldview, although he did not state it explicitly in his On Liberty.)
This kind of “absolute relativism” seems to answer the problem faced by liberalism, but in essence, it does not, because this answer immediately leads to an internal paradox of liberalism:
If someone believes that there is right and wrong in certain matters, does this person have the freedom to uphold their own views?
If you think this is a hypothetical, theoretical question, you may not have been paying attention to social dynamics in Europe and America in recent decades.
The tyranny and despotism of political correctness
Today, the liberalism that Mill initially envisioned has itself been elevated to the position of a religion and belief, has been hijacked by “political correctness,” and has become a type of despotism and tyranny that Mill himself classified at the time. (It is uncertain whether the word “hijacked” is accurate because I personally believe that regardless of Mill’s original intent, the current result is actually inevitable, not accidental.)
For example: Today, any hint that Islamic terrorism has some relation to Islamic doctrines will be labeled as prejudice or a hate crime. It should be noted that what this brings is not different viewpoints on whether Islamic doctrines have any relation to terrorism, but a priori determination that, in principle, no one can say that others are wrong. In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI of the Roman Catholic Church was accused with various terrible labels after very mildly suggesting (not even proclaiming) that Islamic terrorism has some relation to Islamic doctrines (especially Islam’s concept of God). Those attacks were not rebuttals with different viewpoints but were based on the a priori determination that there is no right or wrong in religious beliefs, and therefore, in principle, no religious doctrine can be criticized.
Another example: Today, any research or statements about physiological differences between men and women will certainly be labeled as prejudice or even a hate crime; any suggestions about profiling analysis in security will be automatically considered racism; any viewpoints about the inefficiency or ineffectiveness of social welfare systems will be deemed discriminatory, etc. Similarly, note that the issue here is not that someone has different opinions or hold strong opposing views. No. Under the despotism of political correctness, these topics are not allowed to be raised and discussed at all.
Another example: In 2018, after the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled that a Colorado baker had the right to refuse to make a cake for a same-sex couple due to his religious freedom, the person who originally challenged the baker went to request a cake depicting Satanism, claiming worshiping Satan is his religious freedom. This is actually a very clever tactic because it directly exposes the hypocritical reasoning on which the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling is based, which, if solely from a logical standpoint, is untenable unless the court admits that there is indeed a distinction between right and wrong, good and evil in this world. However, in today’s political climate, if the U.S. Supreme Court directly admits this, it would violate the big taboo of political correctness.
(Note: The above is not to say that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling itself is incorrect, but that under the current political climate, the court does not have the courage to provide an honest reason to support its ruling, and does not dare to admit that this world requires not only logic to operate normally but also needs truth as a foundation, and although truth must conform to logic, logic alone does not necessarily lead to truth. Some basic truths are axiomatic.)
Who pays for freedom, equality, and fraternity?
Today, whether you are liberal or conservative, the real question we all face is:
Can a society that does not believe in right and wrong survive?
The answer is definite: No.
If our society has not collapsed yet today, it is precisely because this society is actually at least partially still based on the foundation of truth. A society where everyone absolutely does not believe in a common truth and only insists on pure individual freedom does not exist today.
But when people who know and uphold the truth become fewer and fewer, liberalism will become a completely hypocritical and self-contradictory system and will soon turn into a dead zombie.
Because there is a universal law: Truth is the guarantee of freedom.
Unfortunately, many liberal people, out of rebellion and defiance, are convinced that truth is the enemy of freedom.
Liberalism overthrows all the premises and experiences in the Bible, overthrows all the lessons and experiences of the 4,000 years of Jewish history, overthrows all the practice and achievements of nearly 2,000 years of Christianity’s spread and deepening in Europe, and constructs a new ideological system from the starting point of a set of smart people (like Mill) imagining “utilitarianism”.
Here, it should be noted that one should not despise Mill upon seeing the words “utilitarianism,” thinking that he might be the kind of vulgar utilitarian who only cares about immediate interests. He is not. Mill is thinking about big issues concerning human society; his utilitarianism is a kind of “first principle,” which is the most rational, reasonable, profound, and unified standpoint that people can find after denying God and ultimate truth.
In other words, if what ordinary people think of as “utilitarianism” is building a nest for themselves, Mill’s utilitarianism is building a Tower of Babel for all humanity. If what ordinary people think of as liberalism is seeking personal convenience, then the liberalism constructed by Mill is seeking happiness for all humanity.
You may say, this is strange; in today’s Western society, isn’t the banner that liberals hold “freedom, equality, and fraternity”? Isn’t this precisely the thought advocated by the Bible and Christianity? Why say that liberals deny the Bible?
The key lies in who defines freedom, equality, and fraternity, for whom they are defined, and ultimately who pays for them.
When freedom, equality, and fraternity come from the revelation of the true God (an objective creator and ruler of the universe) and are embodied in individuals and groups who believe in this true God, both individuals and society enjoy true freedom, equality, and fraternity under the guarantee of truth (objective truth).
This is because, in such a society, there is sufficient moral capital supplied by a sufficiently large “middle class of morality” who pays for “freedom, equality, and fraternity” at the individual level.
But if freedom, equality, and fraternity come from the thoughts of smart people, and are themselves elevated to the position of a religion, not only becoming a man-made religion but also becoming an autocracy and tyranny that cannot tolerate the truth, then the result will be counterproductive and eventually destructive. Such a society is destined to lack sufficient moral capital, lacking a sufficiently large “middle class of morality” at the individual level to pay for this expensive welfare of “freedom, equality, and fraternity.”
European history and American history have countless testimonies from both positive and negative sides, and today’s state and development are providing clearer testimonies for this.
Freedom and Sin
Many people yearn for liberalism, admire Mill, and trace back to ancient Zhuangzi and Diogenes, praising them as pioneers of human free thought, believing that only liberalism conforms to human nature; otherwise, it is anti-human.
However, whether ancient Zhuangzi and Diogenes, modern Mill, or current liberals, no matter how reasonable and natural their standpoints sound, they all have a wrong premise, that is, they do not know or do not admit that in the dynamic equations of human society, there is a huge “force field”, which is human sin.
Sin is a force field, a powerful one, which cannot be resolved by reason and moral systems.
No matter how free and easy their philosophies are, Zhuangzi, Diogenes, and Mill cannot escape the heavy pressure of sin. They think they can “return to simplicity,” but they do not know that after “returning to simplicity,” humanity just returns to where Adam had just sinned, which is not a “return to truth” but precisely the beginning of the fruit of a lie. (But it is also the beginning of God’s salvation, but that’s another topic.)
Any social, political, and economic theory and system, whether it considers “sin,” this huge force field, leads not to a quantitative difference but to a qualitative difference of black and white reversal.
Marxist theory is an excellent proof of this.
And the liberal system of Mill is also excellent proof.
The freedom spoken of in the Bible is the freedom of people being liberated from the bondage of sin. But the freedom that today’s so-called liberals want is precisely the opposite: the freedom for people to sin at will.
However, that is not freedom but slavery to sin, a consequence of people accepting Satan’s lies, mistakenly thinking they have gained freedom.
Here, the term “so-called liberals” is used because, in essence, only those who believe and accept the truth are the true liberals.
“You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” —John 8:32
The struggle between liberals and conservatives
Today, in the United States, the struggle between liberals and conservatives may have reached a point of irreconcilable differences.
Mentioning liberals and conservatives here as completely opposite opposing sides is itself a very unfortunate matter. In American history, conservatives, many of whom are devout Christians, have always been the most steadfast advocates and defenders of human rights and freedom. But when liberalism is hijacked by political correctness, and liberalism itself is elevated to the position of religion and belief, the pattern of this world has changed.
Recently, I read an article discussing the strategy and policy of the Trump administration, analyzing from the angles of “left” and “right,” liberals and conservatives, etc.. The author’s main idea is that Trump is turning back the wheels of history. The author purports, from the point of view of a “true liberal”, to expose a “dark curtain” of the Trump team, asserting that Trump supporters have decided to make the greatest effort to pull America back onto the path of conservatism, returning to America’s traditional culture. The author further asserts that, although the United States is a country with less than 300 years of history, its traditional culture traces back to Old Testament times because the country was an embodiment of that cultural tradition and cultural spirit. However, the author believes that it is not returning to the New Testament principles of Christianity but to an iron-fisted approach of the Old Testament’s “public politics” system while advocating the New Testament’s “private morality” under this system.
(Note the distinction and association between public and private, as well as the distinction and association between the Old Testament and the New Testament, made by the author in the article.)
Secondly, even if what the author reveals is true, the conservative strategy he exposes does not conform to biblical truth, nor does it even defend it. The author may have a good understanding of European cultural and ideological history, but his understanding of the Bible is obviously inadequate and incorrect. This is typical of today’s political and social commentators. Although the Bible contains thoughts on philosophy, culture, and politics, reading the Bible from these angles is to misread it because the Bible is a heavenly revelation, and its spiritual meaning is not in philosophy, culture, and politics. The Bible concerns the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of God is not something visible in the eyes of the flesh, unlike earthly kingdoms.
At the same time, Trump does not truly stand for the Truth at the spiritual level. He and his administration may be used as a vessel by God to protect the Truth in a temporary sense, but one should not mistake God’s provisional help for God’s true intent and His ultimate purpose.
I understand the pragmatism of Trump’s supporters. The argument is that what is needed now is an unconventional person to break abnormal conventions. However, one must look at this matter from a more foundational perspective.
There is a danger that Trump’s election may be the last vigorous struggle of American conservatives attempting to stop the wheels of liberalism. Pursuing Trumpism with selfishness could lead American society to hold the conservative stance in greater contempt, thus accelerating the shift towards the left. The masses may hold conservatism in contempt and reject it, not because leftism is more correct and closer to the truth, but because the masses do not understand nor accept the truth. People, especially the younger generation, may jump onto the train heading left, leading America as a nation toward further rapid decline. By the time when people realize the danger, it will be too late.
Because people do not know who the driver of this train is.
It is sin that is driving the train of liberalism, even though that is not people’s intention. Even smart people like Mill fail to recognize this basic fact. More precisely, smart people like Mill especially do not know who the driver of this train is because they still think it is themselves who are the drivers.
But Christians should know.
What shall one do then?
Citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, do not lose the perspective of the Kingdom. Set not our ultimate hope on earthly politics, even though honest participation in politics and government is not only a good thing but also necessary.
Pursue true freedom, but first, seek the truth and stand on the side of truth.
If the history of man (the descendants of Adam) testifies and proves only one thing, it is this: Lies lead to slavery (the story in the Garden of Eden); only the truth brings people to freedom (the story on the cross).
Seek not the truth in philosophy, sociology, political science, and theories of morality. Truth is a narrow path; only when led by the Spirit of God can it be found.
Let us not rely on some social system to promote and maintain the truth, nor hope for a religious system that upholds faith. Religious systems have always waved the banner of truth but ultimately stand on the opposite side of the truth. Religious systems do not conform to biblical truth, and this is precisely what the founding fathers of America deliberately avoided because they had enough of religious persecution. When they could easily establish a country governed according to Christian doctrine (almost all the leaders at that time were Christians), they deliberately chose the separation of church and state and religious freedom.
Expect not that in the last days, the truth may reign in earthly kingdoms. The truth reigns in the Kingdom of God, but the Kingdom of God is different from earthly kingdoms. On earth, men betray the truth either by abandoning it or by abusing the authority of the truth. This will continue in our age until the next age to come when the Millennium arrives, as revealed in the Book of Revelation. The truth shall reign over the whole earth in the Millennium because the sinless and unerring King will personally reign.
Until then, one must be vigilant. When tested, one must have the courage to say no to the tyranny of Absolute Relativism. This is one’s personal responsibility as well as right. One who is temporarily placed in a dark and corrupt environment has both the responsibility and the right to be light and salt.
At the end of time, in heaven, the environment of all sinful forces, contradictions, and conflicts will disappear forever, and we will be freed from the bondage of sin and will enter into true freedom in the light and true liberty of life.