Let us set the stage.

The USA has just completed the mid-term elections of 2018.  A few of the races had margins of victory that were clear and decisive.  Most were very close; and as I write this on the day after, a few are still undecided.  If we just look at the majority of races, the worldly wisdom tells us that the electorate (and thus the nation) is equally divided and that the wounds are incurable.  We are told that there is an unprecedented animosity and an irreparable division.  There is the hint, if not outright declaration, that both sides (let us call them world views) are co-equal in responsibility for the chaos.

We are living in a post-Christian society.  Some may argue that the USA was never Christian but simply theistic.  But even the broader sense of theism can now be put on the shelf of history.  The inescapable result is that the concept of antithesis is lost.  There is no right or wrong. There is no narrow path of discipline, only many wide paths of personal preference.  There is no concept of the requirement of roots for production, just an expectation of the fruit thereof.  The authority and privilege to lead others is no longer earned, but leadership is now determined by power.  The philosophy of the age is simple hedonism.  There is no argument against hedonism when the creature assumes the authority of Creator. If there is no Creator, then, personal comfort and anarchy are the only disciplines.

“Both sides need to settle down.”  “Or, both sides should just talk with one another.”  How many times have we heard that?  But how many times have you heard someone disagree with that statement?  There is the tacit acceptance that the statement is true and that both sides are equally to blame.  Let us call it the “co-equal argument.”  This argument stands without questioning if no one thinks about its veracity, especially if one side has no intention of settling down and one side has no desire to talk. Thinking only has value if the concept of antithesis is reconsidered.  Without a “right” and a “wrong,” debate becomes discussion, conviction becomes convenience, definitions become distorted, and respect for others becomes rule over others.  Here are some examples.

There is the “co-equal argument” that since the Republicans impeached Clinton, then the Democrats can impeach Trump.  Let us think a moment.  Clinton used his power over a White House intern for sexual gratification. Clinton lied to congressional investigators, thus accusing the intern of lying.  Clinton was accused of and found guily of felonies. Trump is disliked by many and, and thus, he should be impeached.  Please, could someone in authority now state what his impeachable offense is and provide evidence.  Until then, this “co-equal argument” lacks substance.

Violent protests in our streets have generated many pleas for both sides to calm down, a “co-equal argument.”  Let us think a moment.  Who has incited 95% (just a guess) of these intentionally violent activities?  Why do they frequently wear hoods?  Did they apply for and receive a permit to protest?  Probably, 95% (just a guess) of the conservative protests did have permits and had no intention of violence.  Do the college Republicans and Antifa share equal responsibility?  The dishonesty of trying to make these “co-equal” is appalling.

There is another “co-equal argument” that is currently seducing our society.  Many are now saying that socialism and our constitutional government are compatible (a co-equal argument).  Let us think a moment.  Let us think a moment.  There is a phrase in The Declaration of Independence that reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Socialism would have the phrase stop after the word “equal,” so that our expectations are the same and what is mine is yours and what is yours is mine.  The concepts of a republic and socialism are not compatible.  If we subtly replace “the pursuit of Happiness” with “the position of Happiness,” the slippery slope has been engaged.

The willingness to think beyond the “co-equal argument” is not easy.  In fact, even many conservative commentators either give in to the argument or refuse to think.  In the middle of the parable of the sower, Jesus says: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Luke 8:8).  So, there are ears and there are ears. As a physician, I learned early on that hearing is a passive process but listening was active and required effort.  True listening requires assessment and usually, action.  What would happen if we regained an understanding of antithesis, rediscovered our Creator, and were willing to critique the “co-equal argument?”  We must listen and think.