Ravi Zacharias has taken us through two of the three moods of our culture. First, he showed us how secularization led to the loss of shame. Ultimately this destroys even those we love. Then he described how pluralization led to the loss of reason. When this is worked out in society, it generates evil towards all those whom our culture chooses to hate.

Next, he discusses how privatization, the third mood of our time, leads to the loss of meaning. Privatization kills meaning and gives rise to evil against ourselves because it creates internal division that mutilates the soul.

Privatization can be defined as the socially required and legally enforced separation of our private lives and our public personas. In effect, privatization insists that issues of ultimate meaning be kept within our private spheres.

Naturally, this will have no impact on someone who believes that there is no supernatural or spiritual dimension to life. Although that too is a religious belief, a policy of suppression of spiritual thoughts would not impact someone with such a belief. But for anyone with a deep conviction about the existence of God--a conviction based on a study of facts such as we have just concluded--this amputation of our convictions from life's most basic question is a form of spiritual mutilation.

Illogical Premise

Privatization is logical only if one's religious belief is founded on mere opinion. It becomes an illogical premise when religious belief is founded on fact.

Imagine if you made the statement that "John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963" and someone insisted that you keep that to yourself because it was a religious belief. As you go through your day, every fact you state is suppressed because it is deemed to be religious. "I had a delicious sandwich." Sorry, religious belief. "What a beautiful home." Can't say that, because you might offend someone. Ridiculous? Impossible fiction worthy of George Orwell? As illogical as this looks when taken to its natural conclusion, it is happening in our society. Celebrations and public discussions of Easter and Christmas--based on historical facts of real people and events--are increasingly banned from the public square on the basis that they are "religious" topics. What's the difference between a discussion about the life of John F. Kennedy and the life of Jesus Christ? Why is one name considered "historical" and the other considered "religious"?

The suppression of any discussion regarding a religious theme, whether based on fact or opinion, has lead to a vast increase in anguish-ridden confrontations in the public square, says Ravi. "Not only are we each marching to a different drummer, finding no commonality to harmonize life, but a concerted effort is made at the same time to ensure that any public expression of the Christian message is silenced. The extent to which Christian conviction is muzzled reaches new and bizarre dimensions each succeeding year."

Again we are reminded of the illogical basis behind this kind of thinking. As Daniel Taylor put it in an article in Christianity Today, "Should no one try to convince anyone to believe what they are convinced is the truth? Are feminists and environmentalists equally wrong to evangelize? Is not spreading to others the truth as one sees it a sign of respect and sensitivity, or is it a sign of indifference? If I have a life-saving medicine and don't share it, I am selfish and properly condemned. What am I to do if I believe I have a life-saving message?"

The allowance for personal convictions is the primary distinction between the original concept of Democracy and that of Totalitarianism (where one's personal belief is dictated by the state). What horror that what was once a marvelously free democratic culture is turning into a totalitarian state ruled by a mob mentality orchestrated by a cultural elite.

next: the unfinished symphony

top of page

Voice of the People?

In his book "A Dance With Deception," author Charles Colson talks about the differences between America the Democracy and "the Republic for which it stands." So what's the difference? Why is America a republic rather than a pure democracy?

In a pure democracy, public officials have a duty not to vote their convictions but to be a mouthpiece for the people. They can essentially make no decision on their own, and even if they knew that the wish of the majority would lead to destruction, they would have to support it. In a republic on the other hand, elected officials are required not to vote by public opinion polls alone but by constitutional principle and wisdom. While there seems to be a wide gap between the two concepts, the American founders put that distinction in place for a reason. They proposed that the basis of government was not the will of the people alone but their rational consensus. In the Pledge of Allegiance, it is summed up in the phrase, "the consent of the governed." This was to be a system where popular passions were sifted through a process of reasoned and principled debate until a consensus was reached.

Colson points out that the American founders chose this system because they regarded it as consistent with the biblical teaching that all human beings are fallen. The American system recognizes that people often want what is wrong or harmful. It therefore constructs a series of barriers through which every idea must pass before becoming law.