Ceaselessly Tossed To and Fro

Seething In Vain

All Christians are utopians insofar as they believe that a day is coming when the Lord of heaven and earth will descend from heaven to dwell here and establish a perfect world, without sin–the unfolded and optimised and glorified Paradise of God’s original creation. 

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more  And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.  And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man.  He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.  He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”  (Revelation 21: 1-4)

Most human beings–whether Christian or not–are utopians of one stripe or other.  But at the same time, there is a strong streak of dystopianism running through the race.  In the Unbelieving frame, evil threatens to destroy us all; were it to succeed, suffering devastation would be universal.  The causes vary–global warming, asteroid strike, economic inequality, famine, destructive ideologies, disease–but the general theme remains fairly constant.  So, the human race is bedevilled by a contradictory utopian-dystopian antithesis which gives no peace–social, personal or otherwise.  Sound familiar?  Any regular reader of a daily metropolitan newspaper will confirm it so. 

The Christian perspective is that evil is real, but since the incarnation, birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, evil and its powers have been defeated.  The Church is engaged in a mopping up operation, removing the last vestiges of sinful rebellion–pretty much like the Cleansing of the Shire, after the final defeat of Sauron the Great.  Thus, for the Christian, whilst evil is real, the possibility that the world will become a dystopian horror is a falsehood.  The world now belongs to our Man in heaven, not the Devil and his demons.  He rules, not they.  Thus, whilst creation groans under the weight of sin, awaiting its final redemption (as described in Revelation 21 above), the certainty of the coming utopia is already absolute, final, and inevitable.  Our Lord, our Man at God’s right hand, will see it done. 

The mind of Unbelief, however, is tossed back and forth between wild enthusiasm and euphoria, on the one hand, and dyspeptic discouragement and depression, on the other.  Societies and cultures ceaselessly move from one to the other as new generations succeed the former.  Christopher Dawson provides an historical example of utopian euphoria that erupted during the Enlightenment.  Commenting upon the Abbe de St. Pierre, he wrote:

But underlying all this was his fundamental doctrine of the “perpetual and unlimited augmentation of the universal human reason,” which will inevitably produce the golden age and the establishment of paradise upon earth.  Nor would this happy consummation be long delayed.  All that was necessary was the conversion of the powers that be to the Abbe’s  principles, for St. Pierre shared the beliefs of his age as to the unlimited possibilities of governmental action.

And this doctrine became the ruling conception of the new age, for while the God of the Deists was but a pale abstraction, a mere deus ex machina, the belief in Progress was an ideal capable of stirring men’s emotions and arousing a genuine religious enthusiasm. . . . The French Enlightenment was, in fact, the last of the great European heresies, and its appeal to Reason was in itself an act of faith which admitted no criticism.  [Christopher Dawson, Progress and Religion: An Historical Enquiry (London: Sheed and Ward, 1945),  p. 191f.]

The unquestioning belief in Reason and a belief in an inevitable Progress–technological, scientific and moral–still mark our age.  It is the secularist version of the Gospel.  Yet, despite all the hoopla and triumphalism of Man and His Progress, secular society is, at the same time, gnawed by fears of terrible calamities and fearful catastrophes.  Entire industries have been built upon such fear-mongering. 

The prevailing utopian-dystopian antithesis tears modern Unbelief apart.  It is the diabolical pattern of arrogance racked with perpetual fear.  It’s father is the Devil.  It is an accurate reflection of his heart.  It is the course of the Demons.  It leaves modern Western culture seething in vain, all its vainglorious hopes marred with dyspeptic fear-ridden discontent. 

Douglas Wilson’s Letter From Moscow

Nature By Grace

Posted on Monday, May 5, 2014  

By Douglas Wilson 

Blog and Mablog

All right. Now it is time to bring a number of threads together.

The great American classicist Basil Gildersleeve once said that the American Civil War was fought over a point of grammar. He said that it was over whether we should say “the United States is” or “the United States are.” Other great and complicated issues can be reduced to a simple question as well. When it comes to culture wars, same sex mirage, natural law, and so on, we are really asking this: “What is the universe actually like?”

There are two basic options confronting us today. Either the cosmos was created, made, fashioned . . . or it was not. Either God spoke everything into existence from nothing, or there is no God. Eternality is an attribute of something — either the living God, or time and chance acting on matter and energy. If the former, we must do what He says. If the latter, we may do what we want.

But as it is, we are a rebellious house, and want to do what we want to do. We are a conclusion in search of a premise, and so it turns out that all respectable science testifies that Genesis is not a textbook of science, anything but that. The materialists say that Genesis is bogus, and the Christian abandoners of Genesis say that the book is crammed full of spiritual truths for your faith to believe, but you have to take care what you believe. You can’t believe everything you read. But the whole thing is a power play, seeking to drive from the field the only real alternative to their hellish vision for mankind.

Following Foucault, what these men want to do is hump the world, and they want the authority to make anything they want into an object for their lust. The first questions in their sexual catechism always have to do with sodomy, and this is why America now finds herself fiddling “with the lock on this cage of demons” (Swanson, Apostate, p. 24). Sodomy is simply perversion for beginners — anyone who thinks that we are anywhere close to being done with this foolishness is trying to make his peace with the foolishness himself. “Sheol and Abaddon are never satisfied, and never satisfied are the eyes of man” (Prov. 27:20, ESV).

The entire rebellion is built on the foundation of a denial of creation. Evolution must be affirmed as the foundational article. There is only one process, and Darwin is its prophet. If we affirm creation — sun and moon, sea and dry land, male and female, and so forth — we are affirming that heaven and earth have set characteristics. Everything has a nature. They all came off God’s workbench, and He is a craftsman who always builds to a purpose. Everything has a telos, and it has that telos all the way down to the atoms and quarks that make it up, and all the way up to the decrees of God that set a place for every numbered hair on every human head. The Word of God cannot be broken, and there is no aimlessness anywhere.

But in the pleasure of God, the Word of God can be resisted for a time. Genesis does not just tell us that all existence came from the mouth of God, according to His purposes. It does not just tell us that everything has a nature that equips it to fulfill those purposes. Genesis also tells us that our first parents fell into sin and confusion. The created order fell together with them, and so it is that we can see that nature has a nature, and that this nature fell and is broken.

God’s redemptive purpose is to restore that created order, to restore that nature, and it is the contrary purpose of the rebels to keep it broken, and moreover, to keep on breaking it into smaller pieces. Since the trouble began with man, who opted for a broken nature to supervise his ongoing breaking of things, any redemption that is to be accomplished must be done by means of a restored nature in man.

The first Adam defected and rebelled, lost his innocence, and became, by nature, an object of wrath. The last Adam refused to defect and never rebelled, retained His righteousness, and persevered in the holiness of His nature. Because of His obedience, we are invited to participate in His nature and in Him, our broken nature is being restored.

This next point is crucial. We are not contrasting a realm of nature and a realm of grace, as though they were two different countries. We are not being invited to go live in the grace country instead of the nature country. No, we are living in the broken nature country that by His grace is being put back into the restored nature country. It will always be nature, and it will always be nature by His grace. When Jesus turned water to wine at Cana, it was natural water and natural wine. The grace was in His Word.

One last thing is essential. Because God has not abandoned us to our folly, when He intervenes in the lives of particular individuals, He grants them the new birth, which has the effect of restoring nature. The new birth does not obliterate nature, any more than a remodel project obliterates the house.

This new birth — not to be confused with the sacramental signs and seals of it — must be indefectible. This is because we are talking about a work of re-creation, and the Word of God in such contexts must accomplish what it speaks. And when it is spoken, there is no going back. Jesus told us not to set our hand to the plow, and then just turn back. When He said this, is it not plain that He never sets His hand to the plow, only to turns back? “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6).

When God first spoke and said, “Let there be light,” the darkness did not say it would think about it. There was light. And this is what the new birth actually is. It is an efficacious Word from the Almighty God that cannot be resisted or undone. We are not just talking about a decree that cannot be reversed, we are talking about a light that cannot be put out.

“For God, who commanded the 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” (2 Cor. 4:6).

And this is why we cannot fight the forces of polymorphous perversity with arguments alone. We cannot resist it effectively with laws or referenda alone — although good arguments, righteous laws, and good referenda are to be applauded. But what must happen is that we must deploy the only thing capable of countering the seemingly inexorable forces of autonomous lust. That is the gospel of efficacious grace. We have to plead with the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into the harvest. And what will they encounter when they get there? They will find a once happy and prosperous nation, huddled immobile in the corner of a wheelchair.

“And there he found a certain man named Aeneas, which had kept his bed eight years, and was sick of the palsy. And Peter said unto him, Aeneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole: arise, and make thy bed. And he arose immediately” (Acts 9:33–34).

In our day, this would have been like Peter coming across a quadriplegic named George Washington, and telling him that Jesus Christ has made him whole. And he rose up and walked.

“And a certain man named Simon came to Peter, with silver in his hand, and saith unto him, ‘Canst thou give me this power, only without using the name of Jesus? We don’t want to put off the big money Republican donors’” (Acts 52:9).

Nothing New

Taking Offence at God

Lucia, over at NZ Conservative, says she has come across some folk amongst the Chattering Classes who lump the Bible in with Mein Kampf because, by their lights, both are equally offensive.  The pretext has been the revelation that an aspiring politician in this country, a German national no less, has a rare signed copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf in his possession, along with a pen once owned by Stalin and a cigar holder once owned by Churchill.

Books can offend because of what they avow.  The Bible clearly offends multitudes of people because of what it reveals and avows.  After all, the Jewish leaders and the multitudes were grossly offended by Jesus Christ, the Son of God and had him executed with the willing complicity of the Gentile rulers, Pilate and Herod.  But not just the leaders were offended.  Common people who became his disciples for a time were so disillusioned and offended by His teaching that they turned away and had nothing more to do with Him (John 6: 66).  Even His own family rejected Him for a time.
  He has warned us that if they did that to Him, we can expect likewise.  Consider how the Apostle Paul, before he was converted, was filled with murderous rage against Christians, (Acts 9: 1). It takes special divine intervention to change sides from rejection of the Christ to humble repentance and faith in Him. 

Whence this enmity?  Again, the Bible is very clear on this: there are two human races–the descendants of the woman, Eve and the descendants of the serpent.  According to Genesis 3:15 God says to the serpent, He will put enmity between the two races:

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise you head, and you shall bruise his heel.  [Emphasis, ours.]

Thus, people taking offence at the Bible is to be expected.  It is the norm.  When Unbelievers tell us that they are offended by the Bible, the appropriate response is to agree with alacrity: “Of course you are.  We expected that would be the case.”  So much so, that it is pleasantly surprising when Unbelievers show a positive interest and curiosity about the Bible.  It is so counter-normal it can be taken as a sign of God at work in their lives.

What then should we make of those who slander the Living God by putting the Bible in the same category as Mein Kampf–that is, equally offensive?  We know that such opinions are either disingenuous or ignorant.  Moreover, there are grounds to suspect that the protagonists have read neither book.  The two books are so dissimilar that to claim offence at both is  as nonsensical as taking offence at both ice-cream and granite.  While the vehemence of prejudice is evident, meaning or coherence has not even drawn nigh, let alone entered the room.  It is a silly statement, derived from ignorant prejudice and a contumacious bent.

But had they read both, we would not be surprised that the deeper wells of outrage would bubble up against the Bible, not Mein Kampf.  It is the natural mien of Unbelief–murderous rage against Christians and the Messiah, whereas Hitler has been repeatedly dismissed in our day as a mere lunatic (by implication needing loving care, understanding,  and medical intervention of some kind).

But as for us and our houses, we fear Living God, love the Lord Jesus as our Sovereign King, and seek to serve His people and do good to all men.  As for Hitler, he was no madman–but a true son of his father, the Devil. 

Modern Education and Sinking Ships

The Great Antithesis Engaging with Secular Humanism

We blogged previously on the inevitable outcome when secular humanism–the dominant religion of our age–tries to construct and maintain an education system.  You get more spluttering bubbles than a Rotorua mudpool.

Here is an example of the torment and ceaseless quarrelling about education that results when a nation has no settled epistemic foundations.  It ends up arguing about everything.  Every view is equally meritorious, which is to say that none are.  There truly is no rest for the wicked.  It is a terrible place to be–something we must never forget.

Michael Gove hits out at Downton Abbey-style education

Poor teenagers are being failed by a Downton Abbey-style education system in which academic subjects are reserved for privileged pupils, Michael Gove warned today. 

By Graeme Paton, Education Editor

The Telegraph

Children from disadvantaged backgrounds risk being left behind after missing out on the chance to study rigorous disciplines and proceed on to the best universities, according to the Education Secretary. In a speech, he accused Labour and the left-wing establishment of constructing a two-tier education system that effectively blocked access to core subjects such as foreign languages, history and geography for many pupils.

Mr Gove also warned that a relentless rise in GCSE results under the last Government had been an illusion and masked a significant gulf between rich and poor. The comments come just days before the publication of a new National Curriculum which is expected to emphasise the importance of promoting core academic knowledge at each key stage of children’s education. It also follows controversy over the Coalition’s controversial English Baccalaureate school performance measure.

The “EBacc” was added to official league tables two years ago to reward pupils who gain at least a C grade in five core academic subjects – English, maths, science, foreign languages and either history or geography. These subjects are often cited by employers and academics as vital to enable pupils to proceed into the workplace and further study.

The move has been heavily criticised by Labour and major teaching unions who claim that it marginalises subjects such art, drama and sport. But in a speech to the Social Market Foundation think-tank, Mr Gove said the EBacc had exposed “how poorly served so many state students were” under the last Government.
Headline GCSE results soared between 1997 and 2010 but good grades were often achieved with a focus on easier subjects at the expense of core disciplines, figures suggest.

Fewer than one-in-10 students in 33 local council areas gained at least five C grade passes in EBacc subjects in 2011, it emerged.  Mr Gove likened the education system to Downton Abbey – the ITV drama depicting the lives of servants and their masters in post-Edwardian Britain.

He claimed many key figures on the Labour frontbench opposed a focus on traditional academic subjects while studying them during their own childhood to get into Oxford.  “The current leadership of the Labour Party react to the idea that working class students might study the subjects they studied with the same horror that the Earl of Grantham showed when a chauffeur wanted to marry his daughter,” he said.

“Labour, under their current leadership, want to be the Downton Abbey party when it comes to educational opportunity. They think working class children should stick to the station in life they were born into – they should be happy to be recognised for being good with their hands and not presume to get above themselves.”  He added: “The comforting story we had been told about rapid and relentless educational improvement – based on GCSE results – was shown up as a far more complex narrative of inequality and untapped potential.

“But instead of using this information to demand that poorer children at last enjoy the education expected by the privileged, far too many on the left attacked the very idea that poor children might aspire to such an entitlement.” Stephen Twigg, Labour’s shadow education secretary, said Mr Gove was “clearly rattled by the widespread opposition to his EBacc exams”.

“Instead of lecturing others, he should listen to business leaders, entrepreneurs, head teachers and parents who think his plans are backward looking and narrow,” he said. “We need to get young people ready for a challenging and competitive world of work, not just dwell on the past.”

Note how the debate over education, curricula, standards, content has devolved down to quasi-Marxist arguments over social class–which are ultimately ad hominem.   There is no way of discussing and debating the question on a common ground of truth and worldview.  The secular humanist worldview itself destroys such a possibility. 

Once some sections of Christendom used to say, “Don’t polish brass on a sinking ship”.  They withdrew from engagement with the culture into Christian ghettoes.  We do not advocate such a position.  But, in our involvement in education, in schools, and in teaching we must not destroy ourselves by tacitly accepting the assumptions and epistemology of secular humanism.  It is a death culture, ultimately destructive of all it touches. 

We need to be skilled in doing two things: we must remind people of the great antithesis between Belief and Unbelief, Christ and secular humanism, on the one hand, whilst arguing for Biblical common sense.  One of the most disarming things is to preface remarks with something like, “I know most of you folk will not agree with this, because I am speaking as a Christian, from a Christian perspective.  But I believe reading, writing, and mathematics are the key to all other knowledge and they are the essential subjects which all children must become competent in–above all other subjects.” 

That is how we should polish brass on a sinking ship.

 

Lines of Antithesis

Rebekah’s Womb

The lines of antithesis are not like chalk lines left on the sidewalk after a child’s game, to use Van Til’s illustration. Those lines can be washed away by the next rain. The lines of the antithesis are two lines of generation, two lines of seed — the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). These two races occupy the same human history, and all is not well between them.

The history of the world is Rebekah’s womb, and she picked up on the fundamental problem early on. “But the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If all is well, why am I like this?”(Gen. 25:22, NKJV). The elder humanity is Esau, but the older will serve the younger — Jacob — and the meek will inherit the earth. 
Douglas Wilson.