Douglas Wilson’s Letter From Moscow

The Paideia Principle

Douglas Wilson
Blog and Mablog
Thursday, June 19, 2014 
The Christian faith is a religion of world conquest, and no, not that kind of world conquest. If we do not believe this, then every form of cultural engagement will be simply a form of slow surrender. It is the way of compromise. You can always tell this kind of person because they are always wrestling with the contours of something or other. And if you don’t believe in the triumph of the gospel, and you don’t want to surrender, then the only safe thing to do is to go the way of the neo-Amish. But there is another approach.
“And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

I want to take a moment to review what we mean by the paideia of God. No doubt many of you have heard me on this topic before, and so I will just take a few moments with some review. But I want to do this so that we can go just a little bit further up, and a little bit further in.

So Paul tells Christian fathers to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. One of the words he uses here is paideia, which for the ancients was a loaded term.
Shoe, and table, and glass are common nouns. Paideia is freighted with meaning, an abstract noun that was a big Hellenistic deal. If you haunt bookstores, occasionally you will run across a quirky history of something like salt, or the table fork, and the fun is the novelty of it. But back home I own a three-volume treatment of the word paideia, and the author was in deadly earnest. This work is not a symptom of scholarly mental problems, but rather a sober and helpful study of a word that held for the ancients the same kind of meaning that democracy would for us.

My understanding of paideia in this sense (the sense I believe Paul is using) would be summed up with the word enculturation. But enculturation presupposes a culture. The idea refers to the insinuation of Christian kids into a Christian culture, the incorporation of our children into a mere Christendom.

In Paul’s day, that presupposed culture did not yet exist, and so the parents of Ephesus were being instructed to create one. But how do you do that? In our day, that culture existed once, and is now a magnificent ruin, with stones of varying size scattered about. How do we—referring now to the name of our conference—rebuild the ruins?

Why do we flatter ourselves, as though we had the right to shrug and give up? Why do we abandon hope regarding the building of a mere Christendom, when our only argument is that it been done before? What kind of sense does that make?

Since this is our assumed task, then this is the question. How are we supposed to accomplish something like that? Initially it might sound a little bit crazy to our modern secular age, but when I am done I trust they will think that I am barking mad.

How do we call things that are not as though they are (Rom. 4:17; Is. 46:9-10)? Only God can create ex nihilo, but we are commanded to “create” after Him, imitatively. The biblical way this is done is through the word. In and through the Word all things were created. And that is the way things are to be recreated also. That is the way everything is rebuilt. The Word must come first.

Words do not simply come after the fact, describing things as they exist, raw and in their own right. Words do far more than simply attach labels. It is not simply a descriptive slave of “the way things are.” No, the word is also prescriptive—the authoritative word goes out, and a new world comes to be. The world of the future is taking shape around us, and it is the Word that makes it come to be. The Word brings new life. “For God who commanded light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. We have this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us” (2 Cor. 4:6-7). And as the Word does what it does, our imitative words follow after, doing the little follow up things that they are capable of doing, like creating new civilizations.

There are many areas where this has an application, and obviously I believe the central one has to do with preaching. That is another subject for another time, but it is related to the topic before us. Teaching and education are right up there. We are teachers, we work with words, which means that we are builders of worlds.

In your context, in your classical Christian school, what does this mean? Let’s bring this down to a practical level. It means two key ingredients—books and imagination. Let’s consider each of them in turn. Earlier I mentioned stones of varying size, scattered stones in the ruins. Most of them are shaped like books. They are how we can make out the formation of the ruins. We can tell where the city needs to be rebuilt again. Let us stop by the river. The leaves of the trees are for healing, and so let us build by the river.

In this respect, we have a great advantage over the Christian parents of Ephesus. They had never seen or heard of the Christianization of a sophisticated and urbane pagan civilization. That kind of an overthrow had never happened before. From our vantage, it has happened before. The thing has been done. You can read about it in books. They had the assignment, and no examples. We have the same assignment, and one grand example. Remember—never argue for the impossibility of a task from the fact that others with fewer resources have done it before.

So, books. Distance learning is not a new thing. We have always had distance learning. That is what books are. Augustine was sitting in his study in North Africa, feeling a certain way about the pears he had stolen as a youth. He put those feelings down on paper, and many centuries later I extracted those same feelings from different paper, with intervening translations, wars, empires, reformations, all doing their part.

This is one of the most exciting things in the world. I mean, how is this even possible? But this exciting thing is not beyond the contaminating grasp of dullards. Remember—oh, ye classical and Christian educators!—that Jesus taught with authority and not like the scribes. Scribes are those who shuffle around learnedly, and to borrow a phrase from Yeats, coughing in ink. Scribes are those who tear out pages from the classics, wad them up into elephant pills, in order to choke the children. Scribes are the musty smell of death you get in a used bookstore with a mildew problem. Scribes are the wrecking ball of a marred culture, which is nothing at all like the fancy dress ball of a merry culture. Scribes take the milk of education, which is to be the life of the children, and boil them in it.

Please don’t mistake me. I am not at war with learning, or with great learning, or with vast learning. I am not backing away from a recovery of discipline. I do not advocate a floating moonbeam approach to classical Christian education. What I am saying is simply this. There are the nazi schoolmarms and the gradgrinders on the one hand, and those who, on the other hand, would change all our classical disciplines into a national free verse tournament, attended exclusively by thousands of junior high girls. The former want the kids to choke down a bowl of driveway gravel, while the latter urge them to try to get down a bowl of cotton balls, soaked in maple syrup.

Why not the paideia of God? Why not intelligent and focused discipline that knows where it is going and why? This leads to the second point. We must have hard work. We must have discipline. We must have pedagogical order. But it must be anointed with imagination.

Going back to Rom. 4:17, God is the one who calls things that are not as though they are. But when God calls it that way, what does Abraham do? He believes, and in the Bible, when we believe, we speak (Ps. 116:10; 2 Cor. 4:13). Speaking with faith means speaking with true imagination. And Napoleon was right, at least on this point, when he said that imagination rules the world.

What is it that overcomes the world? Is it not our faith (1 Jn. 5:4)? But faith does not just overthrow worlds, it replaces those worlds with another world. We do not want to cast out a devil, and then wait for seven worse devils to return. And so true imagination speaks with real authority.

What are your materials? Books, books, and more books. Purchase them with imagination and faith. You need grist for your mill. The books are the grain, your mind is the mill, and your imagination bakes the bread. Your students should eat the bread, so make sure it is fresh, and make sure there is plenty of honey butter.

Build a civilization in front of your students, and do it while waving your hands in the air. Let your cheeks get hot. Use the glorious examples we have, not to mention the tragedies and disasters. Talk about Roland, and Alfred. Tell them what happened at Lepanto and Malta. Tell them how many times God’s people have been beleaguered and surrounded, how many times we have been just a huddled camp of refugee saints—just like we are now—and tell them how God delivered us. Tell them that He has done it hundreds of times, and yet we still have trouble believing He will do it the next time. Our hearts grow thick, a fly buzzes in the window, and we stare malevolently at yet another book that has covers too far apart. But the problem is not there, in the material, but here, in the heart of unbelief. Shake yourself free of apathy and sloth. But lift up your heads; our redemption is drawing nigh.

The fact that we need to go over this so many times is the first argument for it. If we had had a Christian education, it wouldn’t take so many times for us to grasp the concept.

The secular state, and its various projects, will collapse when Christians stop supporting it. Their cathedral of secularism only stands because we are willing to be the flying buttresses. But that is not our assigned role.
One last thing, a personal note. After this talk, Nancy and I will be sitting at the Canon table in case you want to come by and say hey. I want to do this to encourage you to get in amongst the vendors and make every one of them sad—sad that they did bring more of whatever it was that you went and bought them out of.

If the apostle Paul were here at this conference, do you know where he would be? He wouldn’t be in here listening to me. He would be in the room next door—without his name tag—hovering over the book tables. “The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments” (2 Tim. 4:13). Whatever you do, Timothy, don’t forget the parchments. Forget the food, forget the winter cloak, but don’t forget the parchments.

And any book that he bought from our worthy vendors and took home to read would be read with faith, hope and love, with a baptized and sanctified imagination. “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Rom. 12:1–2).

I wish I had the imagination to describe it for you, but I don’t, and I am done. But no matter. When you are done building it, you will know what it looks like.

 

Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

June 21

A First Book of Daily Readings

by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (selected by Frank Cumbers)
Sourced from the OPC website

To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion,
to give unto them a garland for ashes,
the oil of joy for mourning,
the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness

To “mourn” is … quite inevitable. As I confront God and His holiness, and contemplate the life that I am meant to live, I see myself, my utter helplessness and hopelessness ….But it obviously does not stop there. A man who truly faces him­self … is a man who must of necessity mourn for his sins also … if I bemoan these things in myself, I am truly mourning.

Yet the Christian does not stop even at that. The man who is truly Christian… mourns also because of the sins of others. He sees that the whole world is in an unhealthy and unhappy condition. He knows that it is all due to sin; and he mourns because of it.

That is why our Lord Himself mourned. … He saw this horrid, ugly, foul thing called sin which had come into life … and had upset life and made life unhappy…. That is what is meant by mourning in this spiritual sense in the New Testament…. It is the very antithesis of the spirit and mind and outlook of the world, which, as our Lord puts it, ‘laughs now’…. It laughs, and says, ‘Don’t dwell too much upon these things” The Christian man’s attitude is essentially different….

[But] our Lord in these Beatitudes makes a complete state­ment and it must be taken as such. ‘Blessed are they that mourn’, He says, “for they shall be comforted.” The man who mourns is really happy, says Christ; that is the paradox. In what respect is he happy?… The man who truly mourns because of his sinful state and condition is a man who is going to repent; he is, indeed, actually repenting already…. If we truly mourn, we shall rejoice, we shall be made happy, we shall be comforted…. That is the astounding thing about the Christian life. Your great sorrow leads to joy, and without the sorrow there is no joy.

Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, i, pp. 58-60


“Text reproduced from ‘A First Book of Daily Readings’ by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, published by Epworth Press 1970 & 1977 © Trustees for Methodist Church Purposes. Used with permission.”

Basic Economics

What God has Given, Let Not Man Wrest

The Pope has come out recently, criticizing the market economy.  His public ruminations are, to put it baldly, silly.  He has done our Lord and the Christian faith no honour in this instance.

To go to the heart of the problem, the Law of the Living God grants ownership and protection to the property of those made in His image–aka, human beings.  He prohibits us stealing the property of others (the Eighth Commandment).  He also prohibits us coveting what others have (the Tenth Commandment).  These two commandments, amongst other things, exclude (in the sense of condemning) the rulers, powers, and authorities intruding into the “stuff” of citizens, taking what they see fit, and enforcing distribution to others.

In a nutshell, these two commandments prohibit all forms of socialism–that horribly pagan idea which proposes that society (the community, the governing authorities, the rich and powerful, the Collective, the Politburo, etc.) is the ultimate and final owner of everything and that private ownership rights are always only at the final pleasure of the Collective.  In his decrying the market economy, the Pope was siding with socialistic doctrines whereby some other authority (state, church, “society”) has prior ownership of Mrs Smith’s garden spade, and can–for whatever reason or pretext–requisition it.

The Ahabs and Jezebels of this world are forbidden wresting  vineyards and spades from the Naboths

Now, we know that this is not what the Pope actually said.  He spoke of the inequities of wealth–by which he meant some people and nations were “filthy rich” whilst others were starving.  Some people have too much property; others have not enough.  Something has to be done to close the gap.  But such arguments in principle lay a higher claim to Mrs Smith’s garden spade, provided the exigencies of the day are severe enough (such as no-one else in the village having a spade, only Mrs Smith) and are grounded in the notion that the spade really belongs to the “original owner” of all things, which is the Collective.)   Such nostrums are transgressions of the Law of God.    

The free market economy is an adjunct of property ownership rights.  Because Mrs Smith really does own the spade–it is her property–she can decide what to do with it–whether to keep it, sell it, or donate it to the village.  The Ahabs and Jezebels of this world are forbidden wresting  vineyards and spades from the Naboths (I Kings 21).  If any Christian fails to stand for such truths, he or she is going to have a hard time arguing that the commandments prohibiting lying (the Ninth), and adultery (the Seventh) and requiring honour for parents (the Fifth) still apply as God’s Law.  Maybe these too should be subsumed under the “higher” authority of the Collective.

Allister Heath, writing in the NZ Herald, explains why the Pope’s understanding of Christian economics is deficient.

There can be no doubt that Pope Francis is a devoted and selfless man who has dedicated his life to serving others. A phenomenal theologian, he abhors war and poverty and is an inspiration to hundreds of millions of believers.

He has gained widespread respect even among those who disagree with the Catholic church’s teachings.
So it is with great sadness that I must take exception to the Pope’s views on economics and business. His hostility to capitalism, shared by the Church of England, is tragically misplaced. He has repeatedly savaged free markets, most recently at a Vatican conference this week, and aligned himself with the views of Thomas Piketty, the intellectual who obsesses about inequality and advocates crippling taxes on income and wealth.
In one key intervention, the Pope claimed that the “absolute autonomy of markets” was a “new tyranny”. It was a strangely inaccurate vignette of the modern economic system, which is characterised by not-so-free markets that are routinely bailed out, subsidised, taxed, capped, fettered, regulated and distorted by activist governments and their monetary and fiscal policies.

North Korea is a genuine tyranny; free trade and genuine free markets are anything but.

It gets worse, unfortunately. At the height of Pikettymania, and before many leading economists punched holes in the French economist’s thesis, the Pope took to his Twitter account to state, without any caveats or context, that “inequality is the root of social evil”. He was clearly referring to differences in financial outcomes and wealth – and crucially, not to poverty or to inequalities of opportunity, both very different concepts.

In any free society characterised by private property rights and folks endowed with differing tastes, ambitions, talents and aspirations, there will inevitably be a divergence in earnings and wealth. Francis’ wholesale condemnation of inequality is thus tantamount to a complete rejection of contemporary economic systems. It is not a call for reform, or for moderation, but a radical denunciation.

The logical conclusion of the Pope’s tweets is that it is “evil” for the likes of Sir Richard Branson to have been allowed to keep the money he earned by providing the public with goods and services, and that we need immediate equalisation through punitive taxes. Such an extreme view would have catastrophic consequences, annihilate incentives to work, save and invest and halt the progress of human civilisation.

The Pope’s latest critique this week was equally unfounded, blaming speculators for high food prices. “The few derive immense wealth from financial speculation while the many are deeply burdened by the consequences,” he said, claiming that “speculation on food prices is a scandal which seriously compromises access to food on the part of the poorest members of our human family”.

Francis’ predecessor, Benedict XVI, made similar comments, as have many pressure groups, but food prices have actually been falling recently. The truth is this: speculators are not to blame for high (or low) prices over any meaningful period of time; there is no genuine, robust statistical evidence to back up the Pope’s claims and any profits traders make do not come at the expense of the poor.

Those who buy and sell and seek to predict the future perform a crucial and legitimate social function; without them, the economy would lurch from over-supply to under-supply. Markets would be horrendously opaque and illiquid, with some consumers paying far more than others for identical products. When the price of food goes up, it means experts collectively feel demand will rise or supply will fall; thanks to such speculation, market prices are the best possible early warning signal. They allow farmers to plant more of the right kinds of crops, and futures markets allow them to insure themselves against price changes. Food is relatively expensive because it is relatively scarce. Many countries are becoming richer and thus consuming more of it – which is wonderful – and more agricultural land is being used to produce biofuels and ethanol. Yet we have coped: technological progress, fuelled by entrepreneurial innovation, has made agriculture immensely more productive.

Over time, it is these trends which determine the cost of our lunch and dinner, not traders.

Of course, the system can break down. Bubbles can appear: quantitative easing and ultra-low interest rates have pushed up a variety of asset prices over the past few years; too much money is chasing too few commodities. The Pope also recently slammed “trickle-down” economics – in fact a caricature of free-market arguments – in scathing but equally incorrect terms. “There was the promise that once the glass had become full it would overflow and the poor would benefit. But what happens is that when it’s full to the brim, the glass magically grows, and thus nothing ever comes out for the poor,” he said. It is hard to reconcile such a baffling statement with recent economic history. Even the poorest among us today have access to medical technologies which the richest of the rich couldn’t even have dreamed of a century ago. The number of people living in extreme poverty in emerging markets has collapsed from half the population in 1981 to 21 per cent in 2010. A giant new global middle class has emerged in China, India, Africa and Latin America.

Yet no real free marketeer believes that growth alone is enough to solve all problems. In the West, wages are under pressure and youth unemployment elevated, among myriad other urgent issues.

The solutions are complex; they include boosting entrepreneurship, improving education and more flexible labour markets. They certainly do not involve wholesale, ill-informed attacks on the market economy.

Religious groups have a central role to play in improving society: they can promote self-control, civility, respect and ethical behaviour, and help to reduce fraud, manipulation and other illegal activity in all spheres of human action. They can remind their followers that there is more to life than merely accumulating goods, and that reading, learning and thinking are wonderful things.

They ought to emphasise the oneness of humanity, and thus help remove protectionist barriers which prevent people from poor countries from selling their wares to richer countries. The task is immense.

But unthinkingly to fight capitalism – the greatest alleviator of poverty ever discovered – makes no sense.
The sooner the world’s great religions learn to love the wealth-creating properties of the market economy, the sooner they will be able to harness them to make the world a better place.

Allister Heath is editor of City A M

Depravity Without Bounds

Planned Parenthood: Kill Amendments to Ban Sex-Selection Abortions

17 Jun 2014
Breitbart News

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California have issued a floor alert to members of the California legislature urging lawmakers to defeat all pro-life amendments to budget bills, including any that ban sex-selection abortions or require parental consent for minors to obtain an abortion.

The memo to California lawmakers, dated June 12, speaks on behalf of more than 110 Planned Parenthood facilities in the state and declares California to be a “pro-choice state,” based on a Field Poll from four years ago which they claim found 71 percent of Californians opposed to any further restrictions on abortion.

In addition, the Planned Parenthood affiliates’ memo states that any amendments that could restrict abortion are “hostile” to “choice,” and it threatens that lawmakers who vote “on any budget amendments to restrict abortion access may be included on the PPAC Legislative Scorecard.”

To justify their demands upon lawmakers, the Planned Parenthood affiliates cite:

  • In American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997), the California Supreme Court ruled in [sic] that minors have a constitutionally protected right to privacy and that it is unconstitutional to require a minor have parental consent prior to obtaining an abortion.
  • The California Supreme Court ruled in Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers (1981) that budget restrictions on Medi-Cal abortion funding are unconstitutional and violate privacy and equal protection provisions in the state constitution.
  • Bans or restrictions on abortion infringe upon the doctor-patient relationship; determinations about about [sic] appropriate medical procedures should be left to medical professionals.

“Restrictions like mandated waiting periods, sex selection abortion bans, required ultrasounds, or those that apply only to abortion providers, facilities or drugs,” states Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, “do not improve or protect women’s health, they simply limit access to reproductive health care.”

The Planned Parenthood floor alert comes just as pro-life organization Live Action released a new investigative video exposing a Planned Parenthood facility in Indiana’s counseling of a 15-year-old girl on how to engage in bondage and sado-masochistic sex with her boyfriend:


Despite the pro-abortion industry’s focus on “privacy” and “women’s health care” in defending abortion, even major liberal American judiciary figures find fault with Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that decriminalized abortion.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, told a University of Chicago Law School group last year that Roe overruled the democratic will by handing down a ruling made by “unelected old men.”
In addition, liberal constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz told CNBC last October that the U.S. Constitution does not provide for a right to an abortion.

“I can’t find anything in the Constitution that says you prefer the life of the mother, or the convenience of the mother if it’s an abortion by choice, over the potential life of the fetus,” Dershowitz said. “Look, I think women if they’re required to not have abortions could die… so I favor a woman’s right to choose. But I can’t find it in the Constitution. And everything I favor I don’t think is necessarily constitutionally based.”

Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

June 20

A First Book of Daily Readings

by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (selected by Frank Cumbers)
Sourced from the OPC website

The change the Spirit makes

The disciples received [the power of the Holy Spirit] on the day of Pentecost… Peter began to preach immediately with boldness, authority and power, and three thousand were converted. We read in Acts 4 that the authorities could not dispute the boldness with which Peter and John bore witness to the resurrection and said these things. It was nothing but a manifestation of the Holy Ghost. The same Peter who had been so nervous and so apprehensive (indeed, who had been such a coward that, because he was afraid of losing his life, he had denied his own Lord, his greatest Friend and Benefactor), now stands up with boldness ready to confront the whole world and all the devils in hell, and proclaims this Jesus whom he had so recently denied What is this? The authority of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit manifesting His authority in an extra­ordinary manner.

We read later that after these men had been arrested and had become free again, they met together and had a prayer meeting (Acts 4:23-33). When they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness”…. Again, in Acts 4:33 we find that “with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus….” What was the secret of their power? That they were able to argue scientifically that resurrection is possible? That they were able to reconcile the miraculous with the scientific? No! It was the authority and power of the Holy Ghost turning these men into living witnesses who were irresistible. ‘And great grace was upon them all.”

Authority, pp. 83-4


“Text reproduced from ‘A First Book of Daily Readings’ by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, published by Epworth Press 1970 & 1977 © Trustees for Methodist Church Purposes. Used with permission.”

Greenist Purity

The Horrors of Genetically Modified Food

Genetically modified organisms are seen by many as the avatar of the End.  Terrible evils will be unleashed upon the human race because genes are spliced and foods are made more productive, more nutritious, more technologically supercharged for human consumption.  In New Zealand, the Greens have long campaigned that it must be outlawed with a capital “O”.  As it stands, there is a fair old sequence of hurdles to jump before genetic modification is deemed kosher.

The historical reality is somewhat different.  Most food that we consume has been genetically modified in one way, shape, or form.  Take the carrot.

We believe that carrots should be woody and unpalatable and horrid to eat

It never used to be orange until the jolly Dutch genetically modified it in celebration of the House of Orange–and forever after we in the West have been corrupted and physically sickened by this monstrous genetically modified vegetable, unknowingly imbibing craven Dutch nationalism.

Wikipedia provides a brief history of the carrot’s genetic modification:

The wild ancestors of the carrot are likely to have come from Iran and Afghanistan, which remain the centre of diversity of Daucus carota, the wild carrot. Selective breeding over the centuries of a naturally occurring subspecies of the wild carrot, Daucus carota subsp. sativus, to reduce bitterness, increase sweetness and minimise the woody core, has produced the familiar garden vegetable.

In early use, carrots were grown for their aromatic leaves and seeds, not their roots. Carrot seeds have been found in Switzerland and Southern Germany dating to 2000–3000 BC.  Some relatives of the carrot are still grown for their leaves and seeds, such as parsley, fennel, dill and cumin. The first mention of the root in classical sources is in the 1st century. The modern carrot originated in Afghanistan about 1100 years ago.   It was purple in the 10th century in such locations as the Middle East, India and Europe.  It appears to have been introduced to Europe via Spain by the Moors in the 8th century.  The 12th-century Arab Andalusian agriculturist, Ibn al-‘Awwam, describes both red and yellow carrots;  Simeon Seth also mentions both colours in the 11th century.  Cultivated carrots appeared in China in the 14th century, and in Japan in the 18th century.  Orange-coloured carrots appeared in the Netherlands, where the flag included orange, in the 17th century.

Are new diseases rampant? Blame the carrot. Is cancer becoming a scourge upon the population? It’s due no doubt to the widespread consumption of genetically modified carrots in the West.   We could go on, but you get the point. There is no doubt that Armageddon lurks because of the genetic modification of foods, carrots being the primary culprit.

. . . we are told that the banana is to undergo genetic modification. The banana! Is nothing sacred?

Now, in the face of all the evidence, we are told that the banana is to undergo genetic modification. The banana! Is nothing sacred? No–and it appears that it is the edge of a thickening  wedge. A tsunami of genetically modified foods is about to drown the human race in rampant disease and devastation.

Researchers Hope ‘Super Bananas’ Will Combat Vitamin A Deficiency

Melissa Hellmann
June 16, 2014
Time Magazine

If approved for cultivation, the genetically engineered fruit could revolutionize child health in much of the developing world

Genetically engineered bananas, packed with micronutrients, are to undergo their first human trial in the United States to test their ability to battle rampant vitamin A deficiency — a large cause of infant death and blindness throughout low-income communities around the world.

“The consequences of vitamin A deficiency are dire with 650,000 to 700,000 children worldwide dying … each year and at least another 300,000 going blind,” the project leader, Professor James Dale from Australia’s Queensland University of Technology, told AFP.

The six-week trial backed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation expects to have results by the end of the year and plans to have the bananas growing in Uganda by 2020. Standard Ugandan bananas provide sustenance to East Africa but have low levels of nutrients such as iron and vitamin A. “Good science can make a massive difference here by enriching staple crops such as Ugandan bananas with pro-vitamin A and providing poor and subsistence-farming populations with nutritionally rewarding food,” said Dale.

Researchers infused the staple crop in Uganda with alpha- and beta-carotene — which the body turns into vitamin A — as an easy solution to the problem that plagues the country, but the same modification could be used on different crops as well. If the bananas are approved for growth in Uganda, other staple crops in Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya could also be engineered with micronutrients.

“In West Africa farmers grow plantain bananas and the same technology could easily be transferred to that variety as well,” Dale said.

For our part, we want to go on record as upholding the genetic purity of food. We believe that carrots should be woody and unpalatable and horrid to eat. At least cancer would not stalk the land. Vitamin deficiency, maybe. Hunger for sure. But cancer would be curtailed.

And as for genetically modified bananas, don’t get us started. Apparently these beta-carotene bananas are going to be orange coloured. Yuk. One more Dutch conspiracy and myriads more super-diseases hover over humanity. Sure 700,000 lives per year may be saved by these genetically modified bananas. But purity is what counts.  Greenist purity. 

Silly, Febrile Journalists

Abbott Derangement Syndrome

In New Zealand, we are familiar with what has become known as the Key Derangement Syndrome.  The reference is to Prime Minister, John Key.  For a long time, the establishment media and opposition political parties appeared to lose their ability to think when it came to the Prime Minister.  They collectively went agog and aghast whenever Key featured, seeing all kinds of sinister plots, disasters, and repeated faux pas.

Now Australia has been caught in the same syndrome, only this time it is the Abbott Derangement Syndrome.  Miranda Divine documents the nonsense pouring forth from the minds, mouths and scribblings of the media:

Lefties living in a parallel world

Miranda Devine
The Sunday Telegraph

 if you rely for your news on the ABC, the Fairfax press, the Guardian, ­Crikey, the Saturday paper, Channel Ten, a good chunk of the Canberra press gallery, Twitter, or any of the plethora of Left-leaning media outlets in Australia, you are destined to be perpetually surprised by real-life events.

As Tony Abbott stumbles across the world stage like an antipodean George Bush, Canada (or Canadia in Tony talk) becomes the latest nation to be embarrassed on Australia’s behalf.
– Chris Roylance, Paddington Qld

This is the parallel world in which Prime Minister Tony Abbott is a “Nigel No Friends”, embarrassing Australia on the world stage while copping a frosty reception from the US President.

The Age’s front page thundered last week that Abbott was endangering Australia’s relationship with the US because of his “global plan to kill carbon pricing”.

ABC’s Radio National was breathless with anticipation at the looming rift between the The Prime Minister and President Obama on climate change.  “Tony Abbott is leading the world in going backwards” was the headline on the Sydney Morning Herald’s letters pages on one of the many days of self-flagellation.

“As Tony Abbott stumbles across the world stage like an antipodean George Bush, Canada (or Canadia in Tony talk) becomes the latest nation to be embarrassed on Australia’s behalf,” wrote Chris ­Roylance of the “other” Paddington, in Queensland.

“I am embarrassed by our Prime Minister,” wailed Elizabeth Frankel from Good Hope Landing (as good a parallel universe address as could be). “Watching him during his trip abroad makes me cringe to be Australian.”

Meanwhile, in the parallel world, Melbourne radio host Jon Faine, of Winkgate fame, claimed last week to have bombshell evidence of a conspiracy to destroy Julia Gillard that the Royal Commission into Union Corruption could not examine.

Images of President Obama warmly embracing the Prime Minister must have perplexed consumers of parallel media.  Twitter had a quick explanation: that Obama was a good actor, with the diplomatic skill, patience and tolerance required of a real leader … And Abbott should be taking notes.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the White House dismissed any talk about disharmony over climate change policy as “all hat and no cattle”.

Similarly mystifying must have been the praise heaped on Abbott’s sure-footed diplomacy by Kim Beazley, the Labor leader turned US ambassador, and the positive reception the PM has received wherever he has travelled.

Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

June 19

A First Book of Daily Readings

by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (selected by Frank Cumbers)
Sourced from the OPC website

He that spared not His own Son, how shall he
not also with him freely give us all things?

[Our Lord’s] argument [Matthew 6:25] is a very profound and powerful one; and how prone we are to forget it! He says in effect, ‘Take this life of yours about which you are tending to worry and become anxious. How have you got it? Where has it come from?’ And the answer, of course, is that it is a gift from God. … So the argument which our Lord uses is this. If God has given you the gift of life—the greater gift— do you think He is now suddenly going to deny Himself and His own methods, and not see to it that that life is sustained and enabled to continue? God has His own ways of doing that, but the argument is that I need never become anxious about it.

Of course I am to plow and sow and reap and gather into barns.
I am to do the things that God has ordained for man and life in this world. I must go to work and earn money and so on. But… I need never be concerned or worried or anxious that suddenly there will not be sufficient to keep this life of mine going. That will never happen to me; it is impossible. If God has given me the gift of life, He will see to it that that life is kept going. [Jesus] is not arguing as to how this will be done. He is just saying that it will be.

I commend to your study, as a matter of great interest and vital importance, the frequency with which that argument is used in the Scriptures…. It is a very common biblical argument, the argument from the greater to the lesser, and we must always be watching for it and applying it. The Giver of the gift of life will see that the sustenance and support of that life will be provided … that is exactly what God does with the [birds of the air]. They have to find their food, but it is He who provides it for them; He sees that it is there for them.

Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, ii, pp. 113-14


“Text reproduced from ‘A First Book of Daily Readings’ by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, published by Epworth Press 1970 & 1977 © Trustees for Methodist Church Purposes. Used with permission.”

Limping Limpidly

The West’s Double Standards

As we write this the Western world is agog with disgust at the brutality of an insurrection unfolding in Iraq.  People are being lined up and mown down.  Others are subjected to public beheadings because they don’t believe in the peculiar doctrines of the Islamic Sunni sect.  The West decries such behaviour as medieval by which it means, primitive–that is, ibehaviours that belong to an age which has not benefited from the Enlightenment. 

The West, in its preening desire to be inclusive and tolerant towards all has conveniently forgotten that the historical symbol of Islam is the scimitar.  The ardent Islamic Sunni soldiers now operating in Iraq are simply being consistent.  And, we want to ask the chattering classes and the Commentariat in the West, what could possibly be wrong with that?  Upon what high moral stool is the West sitting whence to declaim such behaviour? 

The established religion of the West is secular humanism, and its philosophy of existence is evolutionism.  But the West has conveniently forgotten that secular humanism and evolutionism is morally neutral at best, vacuous at worst.  Yet still the West clings forlornly to notions of morality, of right and wrong.
  In one of the weirdest and most circular circumlocutions ever devised, the Commentariat and the Academy have argued that our moral notions are better than the morality of the Medieval Period because we are more evolved.  We have progressed.  We declaim murder, rape, incest, and even theft sometimes because we have morally developed.  Our public morality is evolved

But secular humanism has no morality: it is built upon brute materialism.  Whatever is, is right.  Evolutionism, similarly, has no morality.  It is neutral or amoral–whatever survives is right.  Whatever passes away out of existence and history is wrong–in the sense of inferior, or unfit for purpose.  So, if the active and energetic rebels in Iraq succeed, all power to them.  They are the more evolved species in that land, not the effete chattering classes in the West. 

The problem lies right here: the West hates the God of the Ten Commandments.  But, the West wants to continue believing in the last six commandments–from honouring father and mother to not coveting what belongs to one’s neighbour.  The West wants the Law, without acknowledging nor worshipping the God whose Law it is.  Thus, the West lives an acute contradictory nonsense. 

As historian Christopher Dawson expressed it:

. . . the moral idealism which is still so characteristic of the Western mind is the fruit of an age-long tradition of religious faith and spiritual discipline.  Humanitarianism is the peculiar possession of a people who have worshipped for centuries the Divine Humanity–apart from all that even our humanism would have been other than it is.  It is from this Christian moral tradition that both the older Deist movement and the new movement of evolutionary vitalism have derived whatever positive religious value they possess.  Nevertheless this element cannot continue to exist indefinitely, if it is divorced from the historic religious beliefs on which it is really founded.  [Christopher Dawson, Progress and Religion: An Historical Enquiry (London: Sheed and Ward, 1945),  p. 242f.]

So, when the Modern Man, the card carrying member of the Academy or the Commentariat, declaims the brutality being perpetrated in Iraq he or she is drawing on a mere echo–and a faint echo at that–of the Law of the Lord of Sinai and Calvary.  In the light of the evolutionary secularism prevailing in the West it comes across as quaint, even foolish. 

In the spirit of Elijah we find ourselves wanting to cry out, “Grow up, and get a life!”  If the Baal of secular humanism is true, stop prattling on about morality and immorality, right and wrong, decency and indecency.  Live before and serve your god with a modicum of integrity and consistency.  But if God be true, then repent and embrace His Law and His Word with fear and reverence. 

The West is both limping and limpid.  It claims both the autonomy of evolutionism, and the righteous decency of the Lord.  It lives in a pathetic joke.  The Sunni warriors no doubt get the punchline.  That’s why they call the West the Great Satan. 

Letter From the UK (About Warmongers and A War-wearied Nation)

More Brits Joined Jihad Than Volunteered For UK Army Reserves

17 Jun 2014, 5:08 AM PDT

More British citizens joined the jihad in Syria and Iraq than signed up for the Army Reserves over the last twelve months, according to the MailOnline. Whilst “several hundred” have gone to fight for militants in the Middle East, only 170 have enlisted for the British Army Reserves despite a major recruitment campaign.

Foreign Secretary William Hague believes that as many as 400 Brits have gone to fight alongside the jihadists of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis). Their activities are now a major concern for the government, as they are likely to return to the UK radicalised and with military training. It is widely believed that these British militants will continue their ‘struggle’ when they get back to the United Kingdom.

In a statement to the House of Commons on Syria and Iraq yesterday Mr Hague said: “As I have previously told this House, we estimate the number of UK-linked individuals fighting in Syria to include approximately 400 British nationals and other UK-linked individuals who could present a particular risk should they return to the UK.”

Shadow defence secretary Vernon Coaker said that scale of jihadists from Britain was humiliating for the country because it outstripped the number of Army Reserve volunteers.
Mr Coaker said: “The government’s own figures show more UK citizens are joining ISIS than signing up for the Armed Forces Reserves. This is shameful, embarrassing and will cause deep concern.  We need to see action to ensure recruitment to the Armed Forces meets the targets set. Otherwise, Britain will be left with a dangerous capability gap.”

In the whole of 2013 the number of British Army reservists actually fell by 50 to 19,150 with only 170 new recruits coming in. Under normal circumstances this decline would be a blow but because of the government’s policy to rely much more on the reservists it is catastrophic.

The Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond has recently made large numbers of full time soldiers redundant and hopes to replace them with part timers. The target is to have 35,000 reservists by 2018, a level that seems unattainable given this year’s performance.  News that the jihadists are recruiting more British people than the Army will once again raise concerns that the strategy of bringing in part time soldiers is a risk to national security. Ministers are accused of undermining the military by starving it of funds and downplaying the important role of full time personnel.

Over a thousand regular soldiers have been made redundant in the latest round of cuts. In previous rounds the Royal Air Force search and rescue group was privatised, meaning that Prince William had to leave the RAF to avoid the embarrassment of being made redundant.

Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

June 18

A First Book of Daily Readings

by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (selected by Frank Cumbers)
Sourced from the OPC website

Grace was more abundant

You and I must never look at our past lives; we must never look at any sin in our past life in any way except that which leads us to praise God and to magnify His grace in Christ Jesus. I challenge you to do that. If you look at your past and are depressed by it . . . you must do what Paul did. ‘I was a blasphemer’, he said, but he did not stop at that. Does he then say, “I am unworthy to be a preacher of the gospel’? In fact he says the exact opposite: ‘I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful putting me into the ministry.’ When Paul looks at the past and sees his sin he does not stay in a corner and say, ‘I am not fit to be a Christian, I have done such terrible things’. Not at all. What it does to him, its effect upon him, is to make him praise God. He glories in grace and says, ‘And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.’

That is the way to look at your past.
So, if you look at your past and are depressed, it means that you are listening to the devil. But if you look at the past and say, ‘Unfortunately it is true I was blinded by the god of this world, but thank God His grace was more abundant, He was more than sufficient and His love and mercy came upon me in such a way that it is all forgiven, I am a new man’, then all is well. That is the way to look at the past, and if we do not do that, I am almost tempted to say that we deserve to be miserable. Why believe the devil instead of believing God ? Rise up and realize the truth about yourself, that all the past has gone, and you are one with Christ, and all your sins have been blotted out once and for ever. O let us remember that it is sin to doubt God’s word, it is sin to allow the past, which God has dealt with, to rob us of our joy and our usefulness in the present and in the future.

Spiritual Depression, pp. 75-6


“Text reproduced from ‘A First Book of Daily Readings’ by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, published by Epworth Press 1970 & 1977 © Trustees for Methodist Church Purposes. Used with permission.”

Meditation on the Text of the Week

Once Was Blind, But Now I See

Let the sea roar; and all that fill it;
The world and those who dwell in it!
Let the rivers clap their hands;
Let the hills sing for joy together
Before the Lord, for he comes
To judge the earth.
Psalm 98: 7-9

The biblical perspective on the Creation is that first and foremost it belongs to God and exists for His glory.  The inspired psalmist confirms that the entire creation sings hymns of glory to God.  These hymns are heard first by Him.  They are unto Him; His ears reverberate to the glorious orchestra and choir.

The trees, the grasses, the seas and all that is in them, the animals and birds, the sun and the moon–they all sing to God’s glory.  When we see them and rejoice in the glory of this created world we see what non-Christian folk struggle to comprehend–we comprehend that the Creation is singing to God and the magnification of His glory before it sings to us.  That makes the Creation even more glorious to our eyes and ears.

If we are listening to a choir singing we may be profoundly moved by the beauty of the music.  When we realise that the beauty is first heard by God Himself, appreciated by Him, and loved by Him before it is known and appreciated by us, the glory of the music becomes more weighty, more significant, more holy.  The services of the choir become all the more valuable in our eyes.
 

When the vast rollers break upon the shore, their loud roaring trumpets in celebration of the glory of God.  The world is clapping God, its Creator.  The glory of the purple hills at sunset is a song of joy raised to God. And because they magnify Him, the hills become even more precious to us, their beauty more sacred.  These are things which the Christian sees and knows.  He sees more than Christless eyes.

Heaven above is softer blue
Earth around is sweeter green;
Something lives in every hue
Christless eyes have never seen
Birds with gladder songs o’erflow
Flowers with deeper beauties shine
Since I know, as now I know,
I am His, and He is mine

Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

June 17

A First Book of Daily Readings

by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (selected by Frank Cumbers)
Sourced from the OPC website

Blessed are they that mourn

This … marks off the Christian as being quite unlike the man who is not a Christian and who belongs to the world…. The one thing the world tries to shun is mourning; its whole organization is based on the supposition that that is something to avoid. The philosophy of the world is, Forget your troubles; turn your back on them, do everything you can not to face them. The whole organization of life, the pleasure mania, the
money, energy and enthusiasm that are expended in entertain­ing people, are all just an expression of the great aim of the world to get away from this idea of mourning and this spirit of mourning. But the gospel says, ‘Happy are they that mourn.” Indeed, they are the only ones who are happy! [see also Luke 6]….

This … is something which is never found in the world … this is something which is not as evident in the Church today as it once was and as it is in the New Testament. . . [an] idea has gained currency that if we as Christians are to attract those who are not Christians we must deliberately affect an appear­ance of brightness and joviality … not something that rises from within, but something which is put on…. I cannot help feeling that the final explanation of the state of the Church today is a defective sense of sin and a defective doctrine of sin.
Coupled with that, of course, is a failure to understand the true nature of Christian joy . . . [these things,] working together, of necessity produce a superficial kind of person and a very inadequate kind of Christian life…. It is not surprising that the Church is failing in her mission if her dual conception of sin and joy are thus defective and inadequate … conviction must of necessity precede conversion, a real sense of sin must come before there can be a true joy of salvation. … So many people spend all their lives in trying to find this Christian joy. They want joy apart from the conviction of sin. But that is impossible; it can never be obtained.

Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, i, pp. 53-6


“Text reproduced from ‘A First Book of Daily Readings’ by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, published by Epworth Press 1970 & 1977 © Trustees for Methodist Church Purposes. Used with permission.”

The Rise of the Secular Clerisy, Part II

Will the Secular Clerisy Triumph?

In Part I of “The Rise of the Secular Clerisy”, published here, Joel Kotkin argued that an elite has arisen to  coalesce around a series of propositions and ideas which are now being enforced with regularity.  To espouse a contrary opinion is to enunciate heresy.  The enforcement sanctions used by this new elite have gone beyond mere public opprobrium to sending the guilty to Coventry, and to sacking offenders from their jobs.  Not that their employment had anything to do with the hateful opinions being expressed.  It’s just that what they believe is increasingly seen as an anathema. Witness the case of the CEO of Mozilla forced to resign because he happened to give a small donation several years ago to a political campaign opposing homosexual “marriage”.   It is getting very close to the ancient punishment of exile. 

In the second part, Klotkin analyses the seat of the power of this new clerisy.  Whilst he is analysing the battlefield as it exists in the United States, we are confident the same patterns and nodes of power are to be found in almost all countries in the West.  The first bulwark of influence and power is found in the nation’s bureaucracies, both federal and state. 

America’s Nomenklatura

The Clerisy has thrived during these hard times. Since 1990, the number of government workers has expanded by some five million to some twenty million. That’s four times the number who were employed by the government at the end of the Second World War, a growth rate roughly twice that of the population as a whole.

The upper bureaucracy have been among the greatest beneficiaries—along with Wall Street and the green crony capitalists —of the Obama Administration’s economic policy. The number of workers, particularly at the federal level, continued to rise even at the height of the great recession. Between late 2007 and mid-2009, the number of U.S. federal workers earning at least $150,000 more than doubled. The ranks of federal nomenklatura—combined with a host of related private contractors —- have swelled so much that Washington DC by 2012 replaced New York as the wealthiest region in the country .

The upper bureaucracy has evolved into a privileged and cosseted caste. In California, state workers are allowed such special privileges as having their Department of Motor Vehicle records kept confidential; a sensible precaution for those, like police, who deal with criminals but now expanded to cover a vast array of public servants, including social workers. Naturally, as beneficiaries of an expanded government, public sector unions have been among the strongest backers of regulatory growth and ever increased social services. Their political power has also been on the rise; since 1989, public sector unions accounted for two of the top three top ten donors to political candidates.

More important still is the bureaucracy’s ability to control society through unelected agencies, something that grew even during Republican administrations, but has achieved unprecedented scale under President Obama. Increasingly, agencies such as the EPA and HUD, seek to shape community development patterns—for example on land use policies —- that traditionally fell under local control. With their power, the agencies have harassed unfriendly conservative organizations, as seen by the IRS, and monitored the populace’s private conversations, seen in the case of the NSA. But to some prominent members of the Clerisy, these power grabs haven’t gone far enough.

Leading figures of the Clerisy, like former Obama budget advisor Peter Orszag and Thomas Friedman, argue that power should shift from naturally contentious elected bodies—subject to pressure from the lower orders—to credentialed “experts” operating in Washington, Brussels or the United Nations. The popular will, according to the Clerisy and its allies, lacks the scientific judgment and societal wisdom to be trusted with power.

Here the naked ugliness of elitism is displayed.  Ordinary people are deemed stupid (unless they think like the clerisy).  They cannot be trusted with government.  The opinions they hold are not just ignorant, they are flat out dangerous to the survival of the planet, at the broadest level, and to civilised society, such as our own country.  The clerisy alone is sufficiently educated, clever and able to protect the interests of all other people–or at least, the interests other people ought to have.   If you think the clerisy treats you with condescension herein lies the reason.  They know you better than you know yourself.  They believe themselves to perceive your interests far better than you do–which is to say that at root you are profoundly ignorant of yourself and what is best for you.

The Real College of Cardinals.

Like the upper bureaucracy, academia has also expanded rapidly in recent decades. In 1958 universities and colleges employed under 370,000 people; by 2014 that number had expanded to roughly 1.7 million. With universities now serving roughly twenty million full and part time students, academics have never exercise more influence over young Americans.

Ironically, despite its patina of egalitarian beliefs, the academic world now epitomizes the new hierarchical class order as much as any major institution. The roughly 1.4 million instructors in the University system, have experienced what one writer calls “the great stratification” between roughly 500,000 largely older tenured “alpha” Professors and a vast “beta” of low-paid teaching assistants, contingent faculty and those working in extension programs.

At the same time, the bureaucracy of the University, like that of the government, has exploded, even more at elite (and tax-favored) private schools than among public ones. Whereas there were about 250,000 administrators and professional staff members in 1975, about half the number of professors, by 2005 there were over 750,000, easily outnumbering tenure-tracked professors. As the University has gained in power, those in control have taken on ever more the trappings of an aristocracy whose primary mission is self-preservation—not unlike the Medieval European clergy.

The Academy sees itself not just as the protector, preserver, and transmitter of our historical culture along with its values, to present and future generations.  It has gone way beyond that.  It now sees its role as redeemer and saviour–ushering in the new world of redeemed men and women.  

The Creative Elite

The final element of the Clerisy’s triumvirate is the culture-based industries and their upper middle classes participants. Arnold Toynbee identified the “creative genius” as the historic leader and savior of society—an apt description of the self image held by many of the new tech and media elites.

Today, this “creative” element has grown ever more pervasive. Artists, writers, fashion designers and actors have achieved enormous status in our society; and a handful has become very wealthy. More important still has been the rise of media oligarchs, some tied to the tech establishment, who now rank among the wealthiest Americans. Indeed of the world’s 25 richest people, a majority come from either the information sector, the fashion industry or media. These new media elites, combined with the tech oligarchy, could well emerge as the dominant economic force of the 21st Century, surpassing fortunes made in energy, manufacturing, or housing.

The media itself is increasingly populated by the children of prominent politicians and by those who come from the ranks of the plutocracy. These include the offspring of the Reagans, GOP stand-bearer John McCain, various Kennedys, and Nancy Pelosi. In Hollywood, meanwhile, some of the new powerful producers come from the ranks of the ultra-rich, including heirs to the Pritzker fortune and the daughter of Oracle Founder Larry Ellison, one of the world’s ten richest men.

The celebrity culture is the creative elite on public display.  The outpouring of adulation, the self-congratulation, the narcissistic preoccupation with oneself, daaarhling, is not just obnoxious, it is contemptible.  By-and-large these folk are tinpot wannabes.  The genuine artists among the media  are far too weighty and serious about their craft to want to have anything to do with celebritism.  

The Clerical Consensus

Today’s Clerisy attempts to distill today’s distinctly secular “truths”—on issues ranging from the nature of justice, race and gender to the environment—and decide what is acceptable and that which is not. Those who dissent from the accepted point of view can expect their work to be simply ignored, or in some cases vilified. In the Clerical bastion of San Francisco, an actress with heretical views, in this case supporting a Tea Party candidate, who was pilloried, and lost work for her offense.

The pattern of intolerance has been particularly notable in the area of climate change, where serious debate would seem prudent not only on the root causes and effects, but also what may present the best solutions. Climate scientists who diverge from the warming party line, even in a matter of degree, are routinely excoriated by the Clerisy as “deniers” of “settled” science even in the face of 15 years of relatively stable temperatures. The media also participates in this defense of orthodoxy. The Los Angeles Timesas well as the website Reddit have chosen to exclude contributions from skeptics.

The stifling orthodoxy from the technocrats and media elite is benign compared to the inquisitional behavior can be seen in institutions of higher education. It is nothing short of tragic, notes civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, that a 2010 survey of 24,000 college students found that barely a third thought it “safe to hold unpopular views on campus.”

Such attitudes seem natural in an environment where, according to various studies, liberals outnumber conservatives by between eight and fourteen to one. Whether this reflects natural preferences among the well-educated or is partially due to institutional discrimination remains arguable. But consider that 96 percent of all Presidential donations from the nation’s Ivy League schools went to Barack Obama, something more reminiscent of Soviet Russia than a properly functioning pluralistic academy. Nor is there any sign that this trend is slowing. Between 2007 and 2010, a University of California study revealed that “far left” and liberal views grew from 55 percent to almost 63 percent of full-time faculty while the conservative segment dropped from roughly 16 % to less than 12%. If the academic left simply waits long enough, it could look forward to a conservative-free faculty on many campuses.

A similar, if less uniform, clerical consensus suffuses the media culture, led by the television networks and the leading newspapers. In fact nearly half of all Americans consider the media too liberal, more than three times as many who see it as too conservative. Overall, reports Pew, the percentage who feel news is tilted to one side has grown dramatically from 53 percent in 1985 to 77 percent in 2011.

To be sure, there remain important exceptions to this rule, notably Fox News and talk radio, and the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. Yet the right’s hold on the major media is demonstrably weak, and likely to decline further once Murdoch himself is no longer on the scene. A detailed ++UCLA study found that of the twenty leading news outlets in the country, eighteen were left of center.

Despite the journalistic embrace of the idea of diversity, a recent Indiana University Study notes that journalists themselves have become increasingly homogeneous.  Journalists are far more likely to be college educated than they were in 1970, and less likely to be a racial minority than just a decade ago. But the biggest change has been an ideological one; barely seven percent in 2013 were Republican, compared to nearly a quarter in 1971.

Even Arnold Brisbane, the former ombundsman of the The New York Times, has noted the group-think that now overshadows objectivity, long cherished by that most important of America media outlets.  Brisbane observed that, “so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism—for lack of a better term—that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.”

These positions are all reflected in almost lock-step media support for President Obama. Over sixteen prominent journalists joined the Obama administration, which was something of a record; in 2012 employees at the major networks sent President Obama almost eight times as much in contributions as they did his Republican opponent.

This consensus of views prevails as well in the electronic media. As the liberal author Jonathan Chait suggests, the media increasingly reflects not just commercial values, but “a vast left-wing conspirary.” He adds: “You don’t have to be an especially devoted consumer of film or television (I’m not) to detect a pervasive, if not total, liberalism.”

What of the future?  What are the prospects for this new clerisy?

Will the Clerisy rule after Obama?

The fact that Republicans continue to maintain considerable power in both Washington and the states suggests that the Clerisy’s power is not yet determinative. And indeed after President Obama leaves office, the Clerisy’s reach may be temporarily diminished, but its ability to set the social and political agenda will likely persist and even grow given their influence to shape perceptions, particularly among the young.

The current atmosphere of ideological unanimity—in academia, the arts and much of the government bureaucracy—set the stage for the outrages of this commencement season, making painfully palpable the growing authoritarian spirit in so many of our leading institutions. They often see themselves as a liberating force in our society, but in their dislike of conflicting ideas and open debate, today’s  Clerisy increasingly resembles the closed-minded dogmatists of the Medieval church.

This article first appeared at The Daily Beast.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and Distinguished Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University, and a member of the editorial board of the Orange County Register. He is author of The City: A Global History and The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. His most recent study, The Rise of Postfamilialism, has been widely discussed and distributed internationally. He lives in Los Angeles, CA.

Letter From the UK (About Obama’s Flunkery)

Obama Flunks his Climate Science 101 at University of California, Irvine

15 Jun 2014

Denying climate change is like saying the moon is made of cheese, President Obama has said in his latest attempt to persuade an unconvinced world that “global warming” is the most urgent crisis of our time.

Obama was speaking to a crowd of around 30,000 at a commencement ceremony at the University of California, Irvine. Justifying the extravagance of his metaphor he said: “I want to tell you this to light a fire under you.”
Here are some lines from his speech which explain why those present would be better off ignoring their pyromaniacal president’s entreaties.

“I’m not a scientist.” Possibly the only factually accurate words in the president’s entire speech.

“But we’ve got some good ones at NASA.” “Did have some good ones at NASA” would have been more accurate. Problem is, the organisation that put man on the moon is now in the grip of climate alarmists like Gavin Schmidt, successor to activist James “Death Trains” Hansen. In 2012, 49 former NASA astronauts and scientists wrote to protest against the anti-scientific, alarmist position being adopted by Hansen and Schmidt at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). They wrote: “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.”

“I do know the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change, including some who once disputed the data, have put the debate to rest.” No, you don’t know, Mr President. You’re just repeating the multiply discredited “97 per cent” consensus meme. And even that figure were accurate – which it isn’t – scientific knowledge is not a numbers game. If it were, we would still be going with the majority view that tectonic plates are a myth, that stomach ulcers are caused by stress, that combustion is caused by phlogiston, that leeches can relieve fever, that malaria comes from the bad air in swamps, etc.

“In some parts of the country, weather-related disasters like droughts, fires, storms and floods are going to get harsher, and they’re going to get costlier.” Technically accurate, utterly meaningless. Given the chaotic nature of weather, records are always being broken somewhere in the future. Increased costliness is a given as populations grow and more expensive houses and offices are built to accommodate their needs.

“Today’s Congress is full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence.” Indeed. They’re called Democrats and most of them refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that there has been no global warming since 1997, that the computer models which predicted catastrophic warming have been proved wrong by real world data. If it weren’t such an ugly term you might almost call them “deniers.”

“They will tell you climate change is a hoax or fad.” There is a name for people who say such things. Truth-tellers.

“One member of Congress actually says the world might be cooling.” Only one? Only one person in the whole of Congress knows that the Earth has entered a prolonged cooling period, the result of weak solar activity?

“It’s pretty rare that you’ll encounter somebody who says the problem you’re trying to solve simply doesn’t exist. When President Kennedy set us on a course to the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it. But nobody ignored the science. I don’t remember anybody saying the moon wasn’t there or that it was made of cheese.” 
As Anthony Watts says, this is ‘grade school level logical fallacy.’ No one said the moon wasn’t there or that it was made of cheese because neither statement is true. There is, on the other hand, a large – and fast-growing – body of evidence, well understood by many distinguished scientists and economists, that the catastrophic man-made global warming “problem” Obama is so keen to fix is, to all intents and purposes, non-existent.

Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

June 16

A First Book of Daily Readings

by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (selected by Frank Cumbers)
Sourced from the OPC website

Look at Him, keep looking at Him .

… am I poor in spirit? How do I really feel about myself as I think of myself in terms of God, and in the presence of God? … what are the things I am saying, what are the things I am praying about, what are the things I like to think of with regard to myself? What a poor thing it is, this boasting of the things that are accidental and for which I am not responsible, this boasting of things that are artificial and that will count as nothing at the great day when we stand in the presence of God. This poor self! That hymn of Lavater’s puts it perfectly: “Make this poor self grow less and less,” and “O Jesus Christ, grow Thou in me.”

How does one therefore become “poor in spirit”?
The answer is that you do not look at yourself or begin by trying to do things to yourself. That was the whole error of monasticism. Those poor men … said, “I must go out of society, I must scarify my flesh and suffer hardship, I must mutilate my body.” No, no, the more you do that the more conscious will you be of yourself, and the less “poor in spirit’… look at God. Read this Book about Him, read His law, look at what He expects from us, contemplate standing before Him. It is also to look at the Lord Jesus Christ and to view Him as we see Him in the Gospels. The more we do that the more we shall understand the reaction of the apostles when, looking at Him and something He had just done, they said, “Lord, increase our faith…. We thought we had something because we had cast out devils and preached Thy word, but now we feel we have nothing; increase our faith.” … Look at Him, keep looking at Him. Look at the saints, look at the men who have been most filled with the Spirit and used. But above all, look again at Him.

Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, i, pp. 51-2


“Text reproduced from ‘A First Book of Daily Readings’ by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, published by Epworth Press 1970 & 1977 © Trustees for Methodist Church Purposes. Used with permission.”

Defence of Britain Hangs on Skyhooks

Trojan Horse debate: We were wrong, all cultures are not equal

For years, we all turned a blind eye to the segregation of Muslim pupils. Now it is time to stand up to propagators of barbarism and ignorance 

We have been following the “Trojan Horse” issue Birmingham where a group of dedicated, consistent Islamic activists have sought to take control of some public schools by means of infiltration, subterfuge, and dissembling, until it is too late.  They regard this attempt as jihad–a manifestation of holy war.  The matter has become exposed, the government has reacted, and for now, it seems, the effort has failed.  We said at the time that this would shake the British establishment, for two reasons.
Firstly, the establishment for years has told itself and everyone else that Britain is a multi-cultural, tolerant nation.  Thou shalt not judge.  Thou shalt not offend.  Thou shalt accept each and all in good faith–etc. etc.  Secondly, the establishment has chosen to adopt the view that underneath all cultures and religions everyone really is a thoroughly good chap.  Therefore, all cultures are benign, positive, and fundamentally humanist in their ideological framework.  
In this view, Islamic schools would basically be schools where teachers and pupils dressed quaintly, but apart from that delightful oddity, would be champions of secular humanism.  
The Trojan Horse project of an attempted Islamic takeover of some public schools has shaken the toleranzistas up a good deal.  But, ideologically the establishment has nowhere to go.  Long ago it threw out the Christian faith in favour of secular rationalistic jibberish.  It’s between a rock and a hard place.  It does not want Islamic schools, but the grounds of its opposition are tenuous indeed.  
Allison Pearson, writing in the Telegraph provides us with an example of the confused melee now on display.

Let me quote Myriam Francois-Cerrah, a writer and Muslim convert, who told Channel 4 News on Tuesday that she rejected calls by the Prime Minister and Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, for schools to promote British values. “In many ways, the problem is creating a hierarchy of cultures when you say you need to promote British values,” she objected. “What does that say to children in a classroom whose heritage harks from outside the British Isles? It says this country has superior moral values and you are coming from some backward culture whose values you … must not consider equal to our own.”

Funnily enough, that’s exactly what we are saying, Myriam. Spot on! A Muslim girl who winds up in Bolton or Luton should thank her lucky stars she doesn’t live in Sudan – or Pakistan, where, only last month, a woman was stoned to death by her family for the crime of marrying a man of whom they disapproved. Farzana Parveen’s father explained: “I killed my daughter as she had insulted all of our family by marrying a man without our consent, and I have no regret over it.”

Are British values superior to Mr Parveen’s? I do hope so. 

Yes, but here’s the rub.  By what standard are British values superior?  Rigorously remove the consideration of the command of God, Thou shalt not kill–as Britain has done, on what basis does one prove conclusively and certainly that Mr Parveen’s values are wrong, or evil. 

Ah, yes, we cannot say that–for to speak of evil implies there are ultimate standards by which things are to be judged, which in turn requires, or presupposes a holy eternal, ultimate God.  The best that the establishment can intone is that such things are not British.  But Britain has already committed itself to the ultimacy of multi-culturalism.  It’s a bit late now to raise objections.  Despite this, Pearson makes the attempt:

Unfortunately, the great lie underpinning the creed of multiculturalism, as spouted by Francois‑Cerrah and her ilk, is that all cultures are “equally valid”. Well, patently, they’re not. The reason irate Pakistani patriarchs are not chucking bricks at their errant daughters in the Birmingham Bull Ring is because Britain has a basically uncorrupt police force, a robust judiciary and an enlightened, hard-won system of liberal values that regards women and girls as equals, not third-class citizens.

But instead of standing up to barbarism and ignorance, too often we have looked away in embarrassment or fear. How many teachers have averted their gaze when 13-year-old Muslim girls suddenly disappear from the classroom to be taken “home” for a forced marriage, because this would present unwelcome evidence that some cultures are less valid than others?

How many health professionals in Bradford are concerned, but never say so, that intermarriage in the Muslim community – 75 per cent of Pakistanis in the city are married to their first cousin – is causing babies to be born blind, deaf and with other disabilities? Back in 2008, when Labour environment minister Phil Woolas said that British Pakistanis were fuelling the rate of birth defects, he was slapped down by Downing Street, with a spokesman for prime minister Gordon Brown saying the issue was not one for ministers to comment on. Government after government has filed this thorny issue in “The Too Difficult Box”, the title of a timely new book edited by former Cabinet minister Charles Clarke. . . .

Already reactionary forces are emerging.  Since Islamic faith schools appear unacceptable, let’s not discriminate against them.  Let’s get rid of all faith schools so that we can prove non-discrimination and even-handedness. 

Growing suggestions that all faith schools should be banned because some Muslims cannot be trusted to prepare their children for life in contemporary society are simply outrageous. Why should Catholic, Jewish and Church of England schools, which provide a terrific, disciplined learning environment for millions of children, be forced to cease their good work and shut down? Why must the tolerant be made to carry the can for the intolerable? 

But it’s secular humanism that gave us the relativistic framework in the first place–a world-view which preached the equality of all views ancillary to a secularist core, which all men of good will would embrace (unless they were reactionary primitives).   

The crisis in Birmingham made me look up Ray Honeyford. The headmaster of a school in Bradford, Honeyford published an article highly critical of multiculturalism around the same time that I was wondering why Muslim girls in west London weren’t allowed to learn how to swim. Honeyford was damned as a racist and forced to take early retirement, but how prophetic his words seem now. The alarmed headmaster referred to a “growing number of Asians whose aim is to preserve as intact as possible the values of the Indian subcontinent within a framework of British social and political privilege”. Honeyford questioned the wisdom of the local education authority in allowing such practices as the withdrawal of children from school for months at a time, in order to go “home” to Pakistan, on the grounds that this was appropriate to the children’s native culture.

“Those of us working in Asian areas,” he wrote, “are encouraged, officially, to ‘celebrate linguistic diversity’ – ie, applaud the rapidly mounting linguistic confusion in these growing number of city schools in which British-born Asian children begin their mastery of English by being taught in Urdu.”

Ray Honeyford died in 2012, so he didn’t live to see the Leeds secondary school where every single pupil, including a handful of white ones, is being taught English as a foreign language. He didn’t need to see it. He knew it would happen, and what the cost would be, and his warnings were shouted down or put away in the Too Difficult Box. 

Pearson’s naivete leads her to think that if children are really exposed to British values they will experience a gravitational pull.  What on earth is that, you ask.  Is she suggesting that the human heart is bent instinctively and natively to “British values”?  How parochial.  How quaint.  How Victorian.  How unChristian!  And there lies the rub.  We have arrived at the real problem.  Britain is not God-which doubtless will come as a bit of a shock to some.   It’s this kind of thinking which implies that Britain will not win this battle. 

I think the battle we must fight now really has very little to do with sincere religious belief. It’s about social control, repression, misogyny and cruelty. The battle is about Kamaljit, a 14-year-old girl I once taught, who chided me when I read the class a story about snakes in India, like the good, clueless multiculturalist that I was. “Please, Miss, we don’t like that stuff,” she said. “We’re English. We like ice skating.”

We have to expose Muslim children to as wide a range of experiences as possible so they will feel the gravitational pull of British values. . . . But there is another song, and a better one, and children will learn it if they are only given the chance: Belong, belong, belong.

Good luck with that.  

Letter From America (About Oppression on College Campuses)

Colleges Use ‘Anti-Discrimination’ Rules Against Christians

Can school administrators decide who belongs in a Christian group?

Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

June 14

A First Book of Daily Readings

by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (selected by Frank Cumbers)
Sourced from the OPC website

This means you!

The trouble with this type of unhappy Christian is that he does not really believe the Scriptures. You say: “My trouble is that terrible sin which I have committed.” Let me tell you in the Name of God that that is not your trouble. Your trouble is unbelief. You do not believe the Word of God. I am referring to the First Epistle of John and the first chapter where we read this: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” That is a categorical statement…. There is no limit to it….

Whatever your sin—it is as wide as that—it does not matter what it is, it does not matter what it was, “if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” So if you do not believe that word, and if you go on dwelling on your sin, I say that you are not accepting the Word of God, you are not taking God at His word, you do not believe what He tells you and that is your real sin…. “What God hath cleansed, that call thou not common” (Acts 10:15)….

That is precisely what I would say at this moment to anybody who may have been held in depression by the devil fora number of years over some particular sin…. I do not care what it is… “The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin” and all unrighteousness. Believe the Word of God, my friend…. Believe God’s Word. Do not ask Him for a message of forgiveness. He has given it to you. Your prayer may well be an expression of unbelief at that point. Believe Him and His Word.

Spiritual Depression, pp. 72-3


“Text reproduced from ‘A First Book of Daily Readings’ by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, published by Epworth Press 1970 & 1977 © Trustees for Methodist Church Purposes. Used with permission.”

The Rise of the Secular Clerisy

Misanthropic Distrust of Humanity

We have posted several pieces in recent months on the rise of ideological authoritarianism in the West, particularly in the Europe, Canada, the UK, and the United States.  Further in this vein we are going to reproduce an article written by Joel Kotkin, entitled “Watch What You Say, The New Liberal Power Elite Won’t Tolerate Dissent” that not only calls attention to this phenomenon in the United States, but identifies the nodes of its influence and power.  

We believe Christians, along with all citizens should be not just aware of these developments, but conscious of the implications for civil freedom, liberty, and the threats to the right of dissent.  One of the reasons Christians need to be aware is that common to all the nodes of influence of the new ideological authoritarianism is a disdain, if not outright hatred of the Christian faith, and a despising of Christians and the Church. 

Watch What You Say, The New Liberal Power Elite Won’t Tolerate Dissent