By David Hegg
With the installation of a new presidential administration, a sleeping giant appears to have been awakened. Almost overnight, strong voices have risen to say things most were afraid to utter only months ago. This reticence was a response to mandated ideological narratives that carried the power to ostracize, if not cancel, any who dared stand and speak the undeniable truths of history and natural law.
For example, the tidal wave of diversity, equity and inclusion had overwhelmed the decks of our governmental and industrial entities, and many were in grave danger of sinking beneath the surface of usefulness. And yet, the same proponents of this movement, built on the faulty premise that membership in a protected class was more valuable than experience, skill and knowledge, refused to tolerate anyone, regardless of class, who engaged in reasoned rebuttal.
Over the past few years, we have watched the destructive results of forced unanimity, where different views were disallowed.
When I first entered pastoral ministry, I faced several leadership challenges. I learned many churches operate under the rubric of unanimous board leadership. Simply put, many churches have decided their governing boards or sessions must be unanimous in making all their decisions. Being new to the game 35 years ago, I adopted that philosophy in my first position as a senior pastor.
Here’s what I found out. Forced unanimity stifles robust dialogue. If you have good people in places of leadership, it is often the case that they do not want to be the ones who stand in the way of progress, especially if they are not perfectly convinced of the best way to go. And if the only way forward is through unanimous consent, most good-hearted leaders will acquiesce for the organization to advance. But what is lost is the possibility that the group needs their apprehension.
It is both laudable and unsurprising that our founding fathers built our republic on the premise of separation of powers but not on mandatory unanimity. Their genius is seen in how point and counterpoint work to sharpen specific ideas while blunting others. Our entire justice system is also grounded in an adversarial system that pits the prosecution against the defense and the plaintiff against the defendant. The result is robust dialogue and argument to dispose of the chaff to find the kernel of justice.
So why do we allow our national discussion to be confined to unanimity? Here’s my answer. It is clear to me that those who know deep down that their premise is faulty, even absurd, and dangerous must demand two things to maintain their equilibrium.
First, they require not only acceptance but also approval and applause. Think about the collection of transgender assertions, arguments and examples. Consider the rationale behind the labeling of abortion as health care and reproductive freedom. In these and many more cases, those involved must know that they are waging war on natural law and colluding with those down through history who were known for their inhumane treatment of their fellow humans.
But they persist in duplicity in that, beyond all rationality, they have forced themselves to believe and demand from others. To salvage some semblance of righteousness, they require that the rest of us say their cause is good and right. When we don’t, they malign us as filled with any of their myriad types of hatred.
Secondly, they have defined all opposition and all arguments, no matter how cogent, as prejudicial, tyrannical and extremely dangerous, and therefore not permitted. When faced with the truth that their philosophical arguments are, at best, weak and, at worst, nonsensical and patently false, they do all they can, not to lift every voice but to silence all who oppose.
We have recently experienced several years of forced unanimity, and looking around, it has done enormous damage. We have suffered through a drought and now find ourselves in a famine. The drought was not caused by a lack of rain but by a severe lack of credible voices offering reasonable, rational arguments and solutions. That has left us with what can be labeled a famine of truth.
Someone has said that trust was what died during COVID-19. As I look around, I must agree. But all is not lost. Trust is a byproduct of truth, and truth must rise again in our country, our cities, our schools, our families, and most importantly, in our hearts and minds as citizens of the greatest country in the history of the world.
Local resident David Hegg is senior pastor of Grace Baptist Church. “Ethically Speaking” appears Sundays.
