Mark Lilly

This single juror said, “No. I’m not letting this woman get off with a fake insanity plea. She is not insane. No.” They argued with him. They thought he was arrogant. They showed him their credentials and expected him to say yes, but he wouldn’t. He just kept saying no. This is our culture: crazy people who will not listen to no and who demand that the rest of us affirm their craziness. It is a crisis of accountability. For years and years, parents have accepted excuses from their children instead of telling them no and holding them accountable for their actions. For years, pastors have failed to practice discipline, especially as it relates to women. If they ever got up the guts to say no and the women screamed, they would immediately back down. Part of reclaiming a sane culture is telling people no. No, you don’t get to do whatever you want. No, you don’t get to escape the consequences. No, you don’t get your way just because you scream louder. No. We need much more no in our culture.

We are being destroyed by agreeable men. It's easy to like an agreeable man, at least at first. He presents himself as polite, reasonable, and warm. He avoids friction. He avoids awkward or uncomfortable topics. He smiles and nods wherever he can. A conversation with him at a backyard BBQ or in the church foyer can make for a pleasant time. And those pleasant times can keep on rolling, unless you disturb what the agreeable man mistakes for peace. That is something he will not tolerate. In many cases, he'll simply avoid anything disagreeable. He would truly rather be in the room with a repugnant man who plays along with his desire for agreeableness than with a virtuous man who won't. Tolerance and avoidance are the twin pillars of his modus operandi. False peace is his idol. But when the agreeable man's idol is touched, and he is forced to confront friction he can no longer avoid, the façade quickly evaporates. He lashes out. What follows is usually an irrational, emotional warpath. And because violating the shallow rules of decorum is, in his mind, the greatest sin, he must lie. He must misrepresent. He must spin the story lest the bystanders see him for what he really is. His goal is to preserve the appearance of reasonableness while shutting down and driving away those with reasonable objections that inevitably create discomfort. He is an enemy of the reformer, who must press the issue and do so forthrightly. He is a friend of the smiling subversive who quietly corrodes institutions under the camouflage of false peace. He is a destroyer.