The Contagion of Tyranny

I recently shared my thoughts on the Cult of Trump, which I warned was a religious affinity that has the potential to end poorly for freedom-loving folk (the same people who, ironically enough, put him into office). Though I stopped short of predicting that Trump will become a tyrant, I reminded the reader that many of the tyrants of our modern era began their regimes as savior types--revolutionaries who promised to restore and repair a broken land. Now I'd like to take a look at the psychological issues that underlie that phenomenon.

We live in an age where much of the world views freedom as an inalienable right. Freedom of religion, speech, and self-expression are championed as untouchable, even if those freedoms are poorly defined and the assurance of those freedoms for some restricts the freedoms of others. We're not as free as we think we are, but we certainly believe in the ideal. We have this notion that freedom has triumphed over tyranny and that this transition is irreversible. History, however, would seem to contradict this notion.

Troublesome times often breed chaos among a populace. War, financial hardship, and cultural discord threaten the stability of any democratic people. The strong tendency is for the people to turn to a strong voice who can restore order, regardless of the cost. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and so tyranny results. History demonstrates the near-inevitability of this downward spiral. This is a well-documented concept, but I have lately wondered if there is anything to be done about it. What if mankind, resistant to responsibility, will ultimately gravitate towards tyranny? What if stability ultimately requires a strong leader to unite the people? America is known as the melting pot of nations. What if freedom in that sort of culture is not a viable option? What historical option do we have of freedom being maintained over the course of several centuries, particularly in a culture as ethnically, religiously, and politically diverse as ours the United States? A study of history affords us little hope in this department.

Here's the really awful question: what if Donald Trump is the only answer to the unrest of our nation? What if his polarizing personality is the only way to bring people together? What if he makes an unprecedented grab for power, defacing the foundations of America, while simultaneously creating a strange sense of order in our chaotic land? What if our hatred for a tyrant is what must unite us?Trump is, of course, just a figurehead in this hypothesis. He symbolizes greed and the thirst for power. He epitomizes the ideals of the tyrants throughout human history. What if we as a race must spend the rest of our history vacillating between tyranny and anarchy?

Further, what role will technology have in the political development of our world? Understanding history is important for predicting the future, but even history cannot show us what will happen in a world with things like universal surveillance and widespread internet accessibility. Will this lead to greater accountability or stricter control?

Let me be clear that I am not advocating tyranny. In fact, I sincerely hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm just being a cynical pessimist and that mankind finds a way to perpetuate liberty. I won't be holding my breath though. I have little faith in mankind. Mankind is by nature greedy, selfish, lazy, and lawless, and that combination does not bode well for maintaining freedom. Leaders usually end up reflecting and taking advantage of the character flaws of the populace. True, lasting freedom will not be possible until we are self-governed, but even that is no guarantee. Power hungry tyrants are usually waiting in the wings, ready to pounce on any opportunity to enslave.

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion . It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate. Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC. I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC. I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did. So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical. Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion. However, l...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations. As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae. Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict. What does it mean? Who may partake? What do we call it? These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts. Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention. PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it. I underst...

Anglicanism, Paedocommunion, & Being Reformed

I consider myself Reformed. I was baptized as a baby in a PCA church. I grew up in a Reformed microdenomination that allowed its member churches to subscribe to any of the Reformed confessions (we subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity). In many ways, whether I like it or not, I still think and act like a Reformed Presbyterian. Some, however, would seek to deny me that label. I suspect there are many reasons for this, but paramount among them is that I hold to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), which, for some reason, is absolutely the worst thing ever to these people. Some would go so far as to say that PC makes me a heretic, but they all agree that I am certainly not Reformed . My recent engagement with these opponents of PC has caused me to reflect on what it means to be Reformed and what it means to be a Christian. This online jousting has dovetailed well with some of my recent study, particularly An Apology of the Church...

Always Reforming

Search This Blog