A friend of mine keyed in on a seminal thread of, in his words, ‘sugarlibspeak,’ in a statement which deserves elaboration:
Liberal Alienist claim – “God doesn’t make mistakes”:
This slogan is a prime example of how a crap-for-brains moron can use perfectly true statements for evil purposes. In order for this to mean what she thinks it means, we have to dispose of the whole concept of sin. Because after all, God doesn’t make mistakes, and to create a universe that included creatures who DO make mistakes would be a mistake in itself, which is impossible – ergo humans never do anything that displeases God – the worst they do is upset each other, and therefore it’s impossible to offend God, which is to say it is impossible to sin.
In this cosmology, Humans are the party subject to offense, and it is the court of humanism which must settle questions of guilt and atonement. “God doesn’t make mistakes” is sugarlibspeak for “God doesn’t exist.”
~ Habakkuk Mucklewrath
This is what Aristotle called ‘revolution within the form,’ a transvaluation of content. As Mucklewrath notes, the fact that God does not err, while true, is generally invoked now only to affirm a thing which does not truly follow from that premise, validating not just one lie, but all of them: that those overtly flawed in some way are perfectly equal to those lacking such flaws, be it the deformed, the infirm, the feeble-minded, the sodomite-inclined, the child of rape or incest, the born-psychopath, the bastard or mongrel, and all others born into negative conditions. Since there is no error in God’s doings, and He having made all men, whatever flaws we see in men are illusory. And any acknowledgement of moral statuses is thereby deemed immoral.
While this sentiment has taken on the caste of a sort of “Christian self-help” lingo in the churches as a comfort to those born into the circumstance of orphan, bastard, or cripple, the principle extends unobstructed beyond those with congenital afflictions to all pre-conditioned by circumstances of life. Given an inch, this principle takes a mile.
To draw equivalence between all conditions of being under God is ultimately to accuse God of moral relativism, as it literally absolves the Devil of wrong. In which case, abdicating the roles of Lawgiver and Holy Judge, the god of which they speak consigns himself to irrelevance. On balance, if such a god existed, there would be absolutely no reason to care about the fact one way or the other. Such a wan shade lacks all the attributes of the true God whom Anselm described as “that than which none greater can be conceived.” So, yes, Mucklewrath pegs it aright – ‘God doesn’t make mistakes’ really is sugarlibspeak for ‘God doesn’t exist.’
As diabolical as these implications are, we may cast about in vain to locate any prominent figures in the church addressing the portents of this coopted language head-on. On the contrary, the insidious germ is everywhere creeping through the collective conscience of the churches unopposed, unlocking unintended and unarrestable consequences at every turn: if cited to assuage the angst of an orphan without qualification, as if the state of being an orphan is equivalent to that of a beloved son, all the same predication and ingredients are present to say the same of the one who claims to have been born a sodomite. Thus normalizing a perverse bent, denying original sin, and at length, all debauch manifestations endemic to it and potential in it.
Other permutations of this sentiment popularized in all those edgy “recovery” ministries is “God don’t make no junk,” a phrase coined by bisexual jazz singer, child of rape, mulatress, and all-around cultural terrorist, Ethel Waters. along with its close cousin, “God loves you unconditionally.” While the initial application of the concept in those quarters was meant as assurance to those overwrought by guilt or depression that their lives are worth living, it is apparent how the lie is smuggled in: under the presuppositions of this lingo of indiscriminate love it is clear that given the opportunity, they would have counseled Judas against suicide on the grounds that ‘Jesus loves you just the way you are’; which would be as false in the case of Judas, whom Christ said was not saved (John 17:12), as in the case of Esau for whom God professed hatred from eternity past (Rom. 9:13). Yes, Judas, like Esau, and like all “vessels of wrath” (Rom. 9:22), are ‘junk.’ This is why hell (Gehenna) is emblematized in Scripture by the trash heap. Scripture tells us that the very purpose of the reprobate’s existence, such as in the case of Pharaoh (Ex. 9:16), is as a means to show God’s glory as foreordained receptacles of divine wrath (Rom. 9:17). For even the wrath of man is ordained for His glory (Ps. 76:10).
While the modern churches boast deludedly that this nonjudgmental ethic is the antithesis of worldly ethics, they only pantomime the same.
And this idea has been peddled by the intellectual elite . . . for many years . . . to the extent that it is now taken for granted. There has been a long march not just through the institutions but through the minds of the young. When young people want to praise themselves they describe themselves as “nonjudgmental.” For them the highest form of morality is amorality.1
Yes, what the churches peddle as contra mundum thinking, imparted of the Holy Spirit, is in fact nothing but the politically correct zeitgeist dominant in every secular academic lectern, (post-Walt) Disney film, and every children’s book penned by lesbian Wiccans today. Moreover, it is part and parcel with the modern churches’ recent turn to making bold stands against the cardinal evils of ‘racism’, ‘nativism’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘patriarchy’, ‘homophobia’, and ‘Islamophobia’. How courageous! As if they were preaching something out of step with secular humanist thought.
But the primary and most beguiling touchpoint of the concept with which we meet in Christian circles today is with respect to the family and all things natal. Such as in these examples tendered by Reverend McAtee:
God doesn’t make mistakes; therefore rape is acceptable because the cute child produced from rape herself proves that God don’t make mistakes.
God doesn’t make mistakes; therefore incest is acceptable because the cute child herself produced from incest proves that God don’t make mistakes.
The same is invoked on the matter of adoption, but all the more emphatically when it is interracial. Much in keeping with the carnal inclination to lie to children about any number of things, Leftists in particular are overtly committed to bolstering children’s sense of status beyond reality. And the more so the lower their actual station – especially if they are non-whites adopted by Whites. Never mind that the Scripture has nothing positive to say of such adoptions, and that these adoptions are frequently irresponsible and harmful. And again that the Law prescribed inheritances to remain within the tribe, not given to foreigners (Num. 36). And likewise again that the Law prohibits the “bastard” from entering the body politic (Deut. 23:2) – ‘bastard’ there being the Hebrew word mamzer, which is typically translated as ‘mongrel-race’ in Zechariah 9:6, thus precluding the offspring of miscegenated unions from citizenship.
But even if arbitrarily dismissing the primary (racial) definitions of the words mamzer, nothos, nothus, mischling, and bastard from consideration in Deuteronomy 23:2 on the grounds that discrimination against an otherwise innocent child by accident of his racial makeup runs contrary to egalitarian sensibilities, it only shifts the matter from one accident of lineage to another – incest, marital infidelity, or what have you. No imaginable definition of the word escapes the concept of illegitimacy, and, therefore, demoted status by birth. So thrash though they might, they cannot pry the matter loose from the reality that God’s Law overtly discriminates against people on the basis of natality. Thus felling every pretense that God does not appoint people to unequal states of being by circumstances outside their volition. And as the law lays the onus on men, we are duty-bound to acknowledge those unequal states of being. But that’s really just the vanilla doctrine of election. Calvinism 101. It’s why covenant children are reckoned members of the promise, receiving signs and seals thereof, for goodness’ sake. Because they are born into a higher spiritual status than the children of heathens.
So even if launching from the thoroughly Calvinistic premise that God does not err, they postulate, in effect, that since God is perfect, His love must be indiscriminate and promiscuous. Because equality is their vision of perfection. But this reveals the sort of god they worship. He is not the Holy God of the Bible who foreordains men to unequal states of being in time and eternity, and who commands us to differentiate between our own children and those of others (1 Tim. 5:8). He is rather an impersonal deity whose bare existence could make no difference. If the god of equality existed there would be no reason to care one way or the other. He would affirm the devil as his equal. Such a squalid deism is functionally atheist, but also explicitly Satanic, and nothing less than an oath of hatred against the true God.
- Theodore Dalrymple, Our Culture, What’s Left of It, p. 14 ↩