The Danger of Consensus…
March 20th, 2007
One of the difficulties, currently, with living at the end of the age is how that paradigm has shifted the nature of my ministry. It has taken a course that I never could have anticipated when I began to explore and study what the Bible says about the end-times years ago. I am now, at times, given to what I distrust about those who preach about the dangers of global warming. I am an alarmist. I find that I have (according to what I believe is the grace of God to do so) retrained my mind to hear and perceive that which is going on around me differently than when I was younger. I believe, with great conviction, that when one gives themselves to a focused and biblical study of where history is going, one has a better chance of identifying the factors today that will contribute to the end of the story. Thus I endeavor to be a biblically informed alarmist.
In that I took note during the recent discussion when the word “consensus” emerged. I understood the context - scientific consensus is a powerful weapon in an argument. Few want to be listed in the annals of history alongside those who refused to believe that the earth was round and not placed in the center of our solar system. Often Christians are easily viewed in that light because of how often we seemingly rage against the consensus; thus in our desire to avoid being labeled as “unenlightened” in areas of obvious scientific proof we take the opportunity when possible to show that we can love Jesus and be reasonable. I understand that dynamic.
I still am wary of consensus as the guiding principle for fact and truth. Facts and truth are what they are regardless of human opinion. Objective truth is not in the eye of the beholder - it transcends argument and establishes a foundation and anchor point for knowledge that transcends our sensibilities. The reason that I am stating the obvious is because I am troubled today by where the argument for truth by consensus goes in a democratic society. The consensus - scientifically - in Nazi Germany was that the Jew had genetic inferiorities from birth. The consensus among much of today’s Islamic community, historically, is that the holocaust never happened and that there was never a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.
This is how Barack Obama defines morality: “the standards and principles that the majority of Americans deem important in their lives, and in the life of the country”. This sounds, in his book “The Audacity of Hope”, so noble and excellent - particularly compared with the frustration many in our nation currently have with the “Christian Right” and their grating notions of antiquated morality. What a worthy goal - to contend for what the majority of Americans deem important! Hearing this definition, however, makes me cringe. Why? What the majority of Americans deem important, related to morality, is radically different today than what was considered unacceptable just a decade ago! The “consensus” changes so fast, that it is difficult to keep up with what constitutes morality today versus the morality of our fathers.
What Obama and others have not considered is that the Bible depicts the destination for the nations in their zeal to redefine morality by consensus rather than biblical truth. Great judgment is coming, and those who subscribe to the consensus will be swept away suddenly in its relentless power. This is what Jesus was describing in Matthew 24:36-44, when He compared the hour that is coming to one of the the last times there was a global consensus - the days of Noah.
What Obama can not promise, nor reconcile in his book or personal ideals, is that the Bible is clear about the cost of human consensus apart from God. I tremble at the consequences of his ideals and the manner in which many will hail with great joy his deceiving and sinful genius, disguised as a benevolent and conciliatory plea for togetherness and cooperation.
David
12 Comments Add your own
1. Jerry James | March 20th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Wait a minute.
Your saying it is possible to love Jesus AND be reasonable.
Wow.
2. Theresa | March 20th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
This post is referring to another similar concern; situational ethics. Whatever I or my group decide is ethical is. A scary place to be compared to biblical standards.
3. Jerry James | March 20th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I can’t help but comment again, this time more seriously.
The only problem with a dictator is that they always get it wrong.
When Jesus rules and reigns as King of kings, and Lord of lords, there will be NO vote. Every decree will be made with perfect wisdom and love with not recount of the ballots.
Democracy has served the United States well because we are a “Christian” nation, and so the majority have mostly from a Biblical viewpoint. It seems we are reaching a place where believers are no more in the majority and so a democracy becomes a very scary place.
David, I hold you in high regard. I appreciate greatly your wisdom and always sit up and listen to what you have to say. I pray that you will continue to go lower so that you can keep coming up higher.
4. Scott | March 20th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Consensus in disagreement with God began with Eve and the Serpent and has continued unabated since. The ultimate consensus that governs the world is mankind’s unspoken agreement that his own ways are better than God’s ways: “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”
In politics the use of “hope” as a theme is an appeal to our consensus that our ways are right, and if we could just pull together, everything would be fixed. JFK and Clinton used hope as well; its a popular tactic that appeals mostly to the idealistic and naive. We know there is no real hope apart from God, and all man’s attempts to rally “together and cooperate” are humanistic fluff, waiting to be undone by our sinful nature.
Reagan, whom I loved dearly, had a similar approach, in that he inspired hope. But in his case it simply flowed from his genuine human warmth and optimism. Whatever his flaws, he always appealed to God for this nation.
My point isn’t to evaluate politicians, it is to encourage us to recognize a ruse when it is being employed. Satan disguises himself as an angel of light because it gets better results; politicians who try to sell us on togetherness and cooperation apart from the Spirit of Truth are appealing to our consensus that our ways are right, but in so doing they make of no value the cross of Christ.
5. Molly Mosack | March 20th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
The scientific consensus is almost as bad as the ambigious “they” - you know, the “they” who are always saying things, as in, “well, you know what ‘they’ say…”
The trouble with the scientific consensus is that it is, in a general way, neither scientific nor a consensus. Many scientists today are not driven by the study of science, but by the manipulation of facts to drive their own agenda. Currently there is no consensus among scientists, especially regarding global warming. I would term it not “scientific consensus” but rather, “humanistic strongarming”. Having made these broad, generalizing statements, I would like to mention that I recognize and appreciate that there are indeed ‘real’ scientists out there who do strive to pursue the pure, unadulterated study of our world (they actually are part of the reason there is no consensus).
6. Matthew | March 21st, 2007 at 8:49 am
What did we consider unacceptable a decade ago that we accept today? If you had said two decades ago then homosexuality would’ve to mind, but even that was somewhat acceptable in ‘97.
7. Jeremy | March 21st, 2007 at 8:56 am
SAT flashback:
Question number 4,251,203:
Waves are to consensus as
Rock is to ____?
Good post
8. David | March 21st, 2007 at 10:08 am
Jerry - (and Theresa) check out today’s post. Great comment.
Scott - very, very well said. This was one of the meatiest “comment sections” I’ve ever read. You restated my point better than I said it.
Molly - They aren’t really happy that you said that.
Matthew - I’m thinking about pop culture standards, particularly television. I can’t watch commercials ay more. Sexual immorality and murder are more graphically portrayed in common ways than any time I can remember. Theft is being trivialized, popularized, and made “slick” and hip. And of course, this means that more graphic and popular expressions of demon worship are around the corner (Rev. 9:21).
-ds
9. John Cross | March 21st, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I think that David has made a very important point about morality by consensus. A great deal of evil has been done in the world by those who accepted a consensus view of morality.
However I would differentiate this from scientific consensus. What is generally understood as scientific consensus is not created by a vote, but arises. It is formed by 100’s of researchers who each see where their little piece of research fits into the larger scientific view. The interesting thing about scientific consensus is that it can seem very strong (the scientists defend their data) but it is in fact very weak and just one experiment can redefine our whole understanding (for example the work of Milliken or the Michaelson Morley experiment).
10. David | March 23rd, 2007 at 7:22 am
Great point, John.
11. Can morality ever be bad?&hellip | March 26th, 2007 at 8:36 am
[…] righteousness and not by what our current culture deems as moral. Morality apart from God is sin. Dave Sliker talks about this trend of Christians to conform to the worlds ideals about morality and why […]
12. genavieve talbott | April 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I agree…morality based on the consensus of today=disaster awaits us…
I’m not sure that there is anyone, politically, who is willing to stand against the consensus and fight for God’s values…if there were, they’d probably have to lie to get elected, and then be impeached shortly there after…what then?
I think we put to much emphasis on the “leader” of our nation. I know our country affects the rest of the world in huge ways (and that is precisely why I think this point is so important), but in terms of judgment and the Lord’s favor…I think consensus does matter. If we as a people were turned towards the Lord this would be a different place and our affect on the world would be positive…but we are not, and one person (other then Christ) will not be able to turn the whole country, or redirect the momentum with which we are traveling due to an ever-unfolding list of transgressions we as a nation are committing.
This is a good topic, specifically the point about Obama using the morality issue to manipulate the vote, what he says is pleasing to the ears, but troubling to my conscience. Without saying it outright people seem to think voting for him means huge changes. Voting for one person over another will not change this society’s consensus of values…that must be done on an individual basis.
What really is the point of government? Affecting the world in a positive manner so as to make things “better” by whatever deffinition you deem? Even by that measure I think many would say we have failed and will continue to fail regardless of how “moral” our leader is until we repent as a nation…
Leave a Comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed