Deliverance From Pride and Lesbianism

God Would See Me Home

Some instructive thoughts from Rosaria Butterfield: 

In April 1999, I felt the call of Jesus Christ upon my life.  It was both subtle and blatant, like the peace inside the eye of the hurricane.  I could in no way resist and I in no way understood what would become of my life.  I know, I know.  How do I know that it was Jesus?  Maybe it was my Catholic guilt, my caffeine-driven subconscious, or last night’s curry tofu?  We, I don’t.  But I believed–and believe–that it was Jesus.

At this time, I was just starting to pray that God would show me my sins and help me to repent of them.  I didn’t understand why homosexuality was a sin, why something in the particular manifestation of same-gender love was wrong in itself.  But I did know that pride was a sin, and so I decided to start there.  As I began to pray and repent, I wondered: could pride be at the root of all my sins?  I wondered: what was the real sin of Sodom?  I had always thought that God’s judgment upon Sodom (in Genesis 19) clearly singled out and targeted homosexuality.  I believed that God’s judgment against Sodom exemplified the fiercest of God’s judgments.  But as I read more deeply in the Bible, I ran across a passage that made me stop and think.  This passage in the book of Ezekiel revealed to me that Sodom was indicted for materialism and neglect of the poor and needy–and that homosexuality was a symptom and extension of these other sins.  In this passage, God is speaking to his chosen people in Jerusalem and warning them about their hidden sin, using Sodom as an example.

Importantly, God does not say that this sin of Sodom is the worst of all sins.  Instead, God uses the sin of Sodom to reveal the greater sin committed by his own people:

As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it. (Ezekiel 16:48-50)

I found this passage to reveal some surprising things.  In it, God is comparing Jerusalem to Sodom and saying that Sodom’s sin is less offensive to God than Jerusalem’s.  Next, God tells us what is at the root of homosexuality and what the progression of sin is.  We read here that the root of homosexuality is also the root of a myriad of other sins.  First, we find pride (“[Sodom] and her daughters had pride . . .” )  Why pride?  Pride is the root of all sin.  Pride puffs one up with a false sense of independence.  Proud people always feel that they can live independently from God and from other people.  Proud people feel entitled to do what they want when they want to.  

Second, we find wealth (“excess of food”) and an entertainment-driven world view (“prosperous ease”).  Living according to God’s standards is an acquired taste.  We develop a taste for godly living only by intentionally putting into place practices that equip us to live below our means.  We develop a taste for God’s standards only by discipling our minds, hands, money, and time.  In God’s economy, what we love we will discipline.  God did not create us so that we would, as the title of an early book on postmodernism declares, “amuse ourselves to death.”  Undisciplined taste will always lead to egregious sin–slowly and almost imperceptibly.  

Thirdly, we find lack of mercy (“did not aid the poor and needy”). Refusing to be the merciful neighbour in the extreme terms exemplified by the Samaritan traveller to his cultural enemy left to die on the road to Jericho (Luke 10: 25-37) leads to egregious sin.  I think this is a shocking truth and I imagine that most Bible-believing Christians would be horrified to see this truth exposed in such bare terms!  God calls us to be merciful to others for our own good as well as for the good of our community.  Our hearts will become hard to the whispers of God if we turn our backs on those who have less than we do.  

Fourth, we find lack of discretion and modesty.  (“they were haughty and did an abomination before me.”)  Pride combined with wealth leads to idleness because you falsely feel that God just wants you to have fun; if unchecked, this sin will grow into entertainment-driven lust; if unchecked, this sin will grow into hardness of heart that declares other people’s problem no responsibility or care of your own; if unchecked, we become bold in our sin and feel entitled to live selfish lives fueled by the twin values of our culture: acquiring and achieving.  Modesty and discretion are not old-fashioned values.  They are God’s standards that help us to encourage one another in good works, not covetousness.  

You might notice that there is nothing inherently sexual about any of these sins: pride, wealth, entertainment-driven focus, lack of mercy, lack of modesty.  We like to think that sin is contained by categories of logic or psychology.  It’s not.  So why do we assume that sexual sin has sexual or affectual origins?  That is because we have too narrow a focus about sexuality’s purview.  Sexuality isn’t about what we do in bed.  Sexuality encompasses a whole range of needs, demands, and desires.  Sexuality is more a symptom of our life’s condition than a cause, more a consequence than an origin.  

Importantly, we don’t see God making fun of homosexuality or regarding it as a different, unusual, or exotic sin.  What we see instead is God’s warning: If you indulge the sins of pride, wealth, entertainment-lust, lack of mercy and lack of discretion you will find yourself deep in sin–and the type of sin may surprise you.  That sin may attach itself to a pattern of life closely or loosely linked to this list.  While sin is not contained by logical categories of progression, nonetheless, sin is progressive.  That is, while sin does not stay contained by type or trope, if ignored, excused, or enjoyed, sin grows and spreads like poison ivy.  . . . 

These passages forced me to see pride and not sexual orientation as the root sin.  In turn, this shaped the way that I reflected on my whole life, in the context of the word of God.  I realized that my sexuality had never been pure and my relationships never honoured the other person or the Lord.  My moral code encompassed serial monogamy, “safe” sex, and sex only in the context of love.  Love, grounded only in personal feelings, as mine had been, changes without warning or logic.  The truth is, outside of Christ, I am a manipulator, liar, power-monger, and controller.  In my relationships with men and with women, I had to be in charge.  I killed with kindness and slayed with gifts.  I bought people’s loyalties and affections.  . . . 

In understanding myself as a sexual being, responding to Jesus (i.e., “committing my life to Christ”) meant not going backwards to my heterosexual past but going forward to something entirely new.  At the time I thought that this would most likely be celibacy and the single life.  Sexuality that did not devour the other person seemed unimaginable to me.  And while I never really liked the idea of growing old alone, I accepted that if God could take me this far in life safely, he would see me through this next part too. 

Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor’s Journey into Christian Faith. Expanded edition.  (Pittsburg: Crown and Covenant Publications, 2014), pp.29-33. 

The ContraCelsum S-Files

Removing Guilt

We are not big on national pride, believing it to be the cause of much evil in the world.  National pride is nothing other than personal pride writ large.  And the proverb tells us that the Lord hates and abominates haughty eyes (Proverbs 6:16-17).

But sometimes things are done in this small country which make us thankful, wanting to acknowledge special achievements.  This time, the accolades go to Environmental Science and Research (“ESR”) and, in particular, scientist Catherine McGovern and her team.  Now we are aware that ESR operates at times under severe budget constraints, and that its dedicated staff are called out all hours to crime scenes–usually the most horrific–to investigate and gather evidence.

It turns out that McGovern and the ESR has helped secure a conviction in a very cold case in Australia.  The NZ Herald has the account:

DNA evidence provided by Catherine McGovern from Environmental Science and Research helped convict serial sex offender Brett Peter Cowan, 44, this week for the murder 10 years ago of Queensland schoolboy Daniel Morcombe.

Daniel Morcombe

McGovern’s team matched DNA from the murdered 13-year-old’s toothbrush to a fragment of bone found during the search for his remains.  Cowan abducted Daniel from a Sunshine Coast bus stop.

Police long suspected the sex offender but it took a confession during a four-month undercover operation to get an arrest. Cowan believed he was about to be part of a successful crime gang and confessed to the murder, believing his associates would clean the crime scene. His associates were all undercover police officers.  Police used information Cowan provided to locate 17 bone fragments, Daniel’s Globe skate shoes, and a pair of Bonds underpants.  Cowan’s defence argued he made up the confession to be part of the crime gang and suggested the bone fragment wasn’t Daniel’s.

But McGovern told the court via video link from Auckland her testing found the bone sample was 540 times more likely to have come from Daniel than any other person in Queensland.  McGovern explained Daniel’s toothbrush established a full DNA profile. That was then compared to a humerus or arm bone search crews found.  Other items were sent to New Zealand for testing, including the shoes found at the site.

ESR spokesman Stephen Corbett said New Zealand scientists were called about six times each year to help with Australian cases.  “There are a couple of DNA technologies we have that they don’t. Our experience is world class and we are taking it to the world at the moment.”  Corbett said the case was terribly tragic but the scientists involved remained impartial dealing only with the facts of science.  “In a case like this there is some satisfaction in an outcome being reached.”

On Thursday, after Cowan was found guilty, Queensland Assistant Police Commissioner Michael Condon thanked the New Zealand scientists for their part in securing the guilty verdicts.

The Scriptures declare that innocent blood shed cries out to God for vengeance from the very ground itself (Genesis 4:10).   When murderers are apprehended, tried, convicted, and punished, their guilt, which otherwise lies upon the entire community, is assuaged.  In this case, NZ’s ESR made a significant contribution. 

The ContraCelsum S-Award is given to Catherine McGovern and her ESR team for professional achievements which have proved:

Supportive to a dedicated team of undercover Queensland police
Significant in proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Satisfying to the demands for justice.

Well done.

Our Happiness-Is-A-Warm-Gun Celebrities

Culture and Politics – Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, 02 January 2013

In a constitutional republic, the normal ways for an arrogant politician to come a cropper would be through personal scandal and resignation, and/or repudiation at the polls. That’s the way we do. Very few pols, however much they may deserve it, are struck by lightning bolts or small meteorites.

Not to probe old wounds, there really were sound reasons for thinking Obama was going to be rejected decisively in this last election (as I and a bunch of other wrong people thought). For me one of those reasons was the self-evident nature of the president’s high-octane arrogance. Pride really does go before destruction, and a haughty spirit really does go before a fall (Prov. 16:18). But as the results of the election testify, Mencken was right, at least in this instance. He said no one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Hubris radiates from the president like heat from an oil drum stove, and it is astonishing to me that so many people are blind to it.

As a side comment, since the election, I have seen Christians giving way to the very same sort of financial envy that resulted in the reelection of the president (Matt. 20:1-16). Assuming that Christians should know better simply because they ought to know better . . . does not mean that they do. The way we are drives the way they are.

But absent electoral repudiation, or stray meteorites, Prov. 16:18 remains true. Since the presidential pride has swollen significantly since the election, this means I am still expecting a crash. My prayer is that God spares the president, converting him in a wonderful way (Prov. 21:1). But if he will not soften his heart, if he will not repent of his sins, arrogance being the central one to repent of, a crash is appropriate and right. Why did God let Pharaoh win reelection? Not for the reasons that Pharaoh thought (Ex. 9:16).

Here is a small assortment of passages that the president should be meditating on:

“It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness:
For the throne is established by righteousness” (Prov 16:12).

“The prince that wanteth understanding is also a great oppressor: But he that hateth covetousness shall prolong his days” (Prov. 28:16).

“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice:
But when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn” (Prov. 29:2).

“If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked” (Prov. 29:12).

And with those passages in mind, here are a handful of interrelated issues where his arrogance is on display. These are not places where the president should “pivot,” or “walk back,” or “compromise.” These are places where the president needs to repent in order to humble himself under the mighty hand of God. Perhaps God will show mercy.

It is right and proper for us to grieve with those who lost little children at Sandy Hook. And it is right and proper for us to grieve without attaching our grief, while the smoke is still clearing, to this piece of legislation or to that candidacy. There is such a thing as propriety. But the profound cultural bloodlust issues involved are related, and as believers we are called upon to show a hard-hearted nation what that connection is. An essential part of that connection is to deny the president posturing rights. For a man who supports partial birth abortion, for example, to then posture over the bodies of these children as the president did is beyond ghoulish.

And his hubris can be found at both ends of the abortion spectrum. When it comes to the kind of abortion which results in the dead bodies of children, and which the president supports, he still gives speeches in which he acts as though the ardent defenders of life are the despisers of it (Is. 5:20). But when it comes to the kind of abortion which is academic for most people, but which is a very real matter of conscience for faithful believers — the kind that involves insurance programs, and abortifacient coverage, and pills, and clean laboratories for macabre research, and monster fines if you don’t comply — the administration’s treatment of Hobby Lobby is a complete reveal of the shocking hypocrisy. How much do they care about your consicence? About the same amount that they care for the unborn, and they have pills that will take care of both your conscience, and the unborn.
There is a conveyor belt logic to it. First you have to let other people have abortions if they want them, and they pay for their own. Then you have to pay for them through your taxes, which is horrendous. At the next stage, you have to pay for them directly, or be fined, like Hobby Lobby, over a million dollars a day.

Three things should be said about this showdown. First, high praise to the Greens who have refused to comply. Second, they should refuse to pay the fines, regardless of what happens in court. And third, about a hundred thousand people need to surround their house, facing out, if the ghouls from the government say they are going to do something about it. One comment made online (HT: Mark Tapson) is, I believe, an accurate statement of where we are right now. “Right now the resistance is a saturated solution, waiting to crystallize around an incident.” I do not know if this will be it, but I hope and pray that it is something very much like it.

Unlike abortions, guns can be used in a way that distinguishes between evil people and rightous people. This is why liberals hate them . . . in the hands of the righteous. Sandy Hook was perpetrated by a deranged individual with guns, and consequently, the whole liberal attempt to take guns away from people who are not deranged, leaving them defenseless against those who are, is yet another example of their self-serving hypocrisy. If, God forbid, I ever found myself in the middle of a school shooting, I would not be running through the halls lamenting the fact that there “had not been appropriate legislation.” In the first place, I would be looking for a weapon to fight back with. And second, because a school shooting was in progress, it is likely that there had been what the progressives call appropriate legislation already passed. When gun free zones are all legal, the only one in the gun free zone with gun will be the nutjob.

Even here, especially here, the hypocritical hubris of the left is astounding. Nothing reveals their bloodlust like a little “action” in the movies. These are the people, remember, who freak out if somebody lights a cigarette in a movie. Why? Because that might influence behavior! Ah, I see it all now. But blowing people away is “just entertainment”? Here is a little montage of celebrities telling us to “demand a plan” from our leaders on guns, woven together with clips of those very same celebrities living out their violence-ridden fantasies on the screen. [Warning: their hypocrisy is pretty stark and graphic.] I have a question for our “happiness is a warm gun” celebrities. How many of your movies had Adam Lanza seen? And without knowing the answer to that question, you come on screen for a public service announcement and demand that our political leaders “do something” about guns? Isn’t this a bit like Typhoid Mary doing PSA announcements for the Center for Disease Control?

Greg Gutfeld understands a lot more of the dynamics in play than most Christians do. “The longer I live, the more I’m convinced the world is just one big high school, with the cool kids always targeting the uncool” (The Joy of Hate, p. 48). The leftists have mastered the art of the cool-shame, and conservatives (for the most part) don’t know to do about it. Given the circumstances, and the stakes, we need to figure it out pretty soon.

Desperately Seeking Mana

The Preserve of Fools and Horses

Every society has its idiosyncrasies and fools.  The existence of tomfoolery is unavoidable in a fallen world.  How to deal with it?  Mockery and laughter are sometimes effective tools.

It’s a shame in many ways that Maori–many of whom seek mana above all else–end up the butt of jokes over their particular foolishnesses.  One could argue that the defensive, incessant quest for mana is a cruel idol.  The more mana is adulated and sought after, the more it betrays the seeker as having anything but.

Luther’s Advice For Proud Preachers

Donkey Ears

Martin Luther:

If, however, you feel and are inclined to think you have made it, flattering yourself with your own little books, teaching, or writing, because you have done it beautifully and preached excellently; if you are highly pleased when someone praises you in the presence of others; if you perhaps look for praise, and would sulk or quit what you are doing if you did not get it—if you are of that stripe, dear friend, then take yourself by the ears, and if you do this in the right way you will find a beautiful pair of big, long, shaggy donkey ears.
Then do not spare any expense! Decorate them with golden bells, so that people will be able to hear you wherever you go, point their fingers at you, and say, “See, see! There goes that clever beast, who can write such exquisite books and preach so remarkably well.” That very moment you will be blessed and blessed beyond measure in the kingdom of heaven. Yes, in that heaven where hellfire is ready for the devil and his angels.

—Martin Luther, LW 34:287-288.

HT: Justin Taylor

>Douglas Wilson’s Letter From America

>Failure and Success

Dealing With Sin
Written by Douglas Wilson
Friday, June 17, 2011

What are the odds that someone can be very successful, and yet manage to walk humbly with his God? Well, the odds are pretty thin, say most, but what we neglect to notice is that the odds are not exactly great for those who are unsuccessful either.

Among believers, we have a deep suspicion that success means automatic compromise. If someone rockets to the top, we wonder, “who sinned? this man or his parents that this has happened to him?”

And of course, we have no shortage of examples of failed successes to point to. But our problem is that we don’t point to the failed failures. There are a lot of those also. It does not profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul, but neither does it profit him to lose the world and his soul along with it.

In God’s calculus, success and failure are determined by His holy standards, which do not include money or fame. They are not included in either direction, and whichever way the money and fame are flowing, the temptations will correspond to that situation. So, whether well fed or hungry, do justice, love mercy, and walk with humility.

>Doug Wilson’s Letter From America

>The Hubris of American Exceptionalism

Written by Douglas Wilson
Thursday, February 25, 2010

In an earlier post, I wrote about American exceptionalism with something less than enthusiasm. But this kind of point, however simple it is at the center, still needs to be nuanced around the edges. Some of this is a summary of what I have written elsewhere, so bear with me and here goes anyway.

American exceptionalism is objectionable because it is a false religion, a false faith. It is a smooth and attractive idol, and probably the idol most likely to ensnare conservative evangelicals. The apostle John’s warning should be kept in mind at all times (1 John 5:21). David Gelernter has seriously suggested that we treat Americanism as one of the world’s great religions. Other treatments of the subject are less adoring, but no less problematic. The problem is that Americanism is seen as a source of ideals, an artesian well of ethics, a fountainhead of standards. This is not just nonsense, it is damned nonsense. I speak metaphorically only, but purveyors of this doctrine need to be splashed around in the village pond for a bit.

To object to American exceptionalism (for I am an American objectionalist) is not to maintain that there is nothing unique about Americans or American history. It is to say that there is nothing religiously unique. We are sinners like everybody else, we need God’s grace like everybody else, we are thoughtless when prosperous like everybody else, and peevish when not prosperous like everybody else. Take off an American’s boots, and you will find ten toes. Son of a gun.

Now one of the unique things that is striking about the wisdom of our founders is that they knew this. The constitutional arrangement they made for us presupposes that we are just like everybody else. The founders did not trust Americans with the kind of power that Obama wants, the kind that Congress wants, the kind that the Supreme Court wants, the kind that the Republicans want, the kind the Democrats want, and the kind that most American voters have hitherto wanted to surrender to the aforementioned. The founders knew that Americans were good, old-fashioned me-firsters, and so they built enough booby traps in the constitutional arrangement to make it look like the beginning of an Indiana Jones movie. They did this to trip up those sneaky, grasping, mendacious Americans — especially the kind that are tempted to run for Congress.

Reflect on what Madison said in Federalist #51.

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

The founders knew that we were in no way unique, and that really was unique. As long as we kept that Calvinistic humility in place, we were greatly blessed. And there is nothing wrong with acknowledging and rejoicing in that blessing. We need to return to it.

So American gratitude is something else entirely. That is not what I am shooting at when I go after exceptionalism. Acknowledgement of God’s great blessing is not just okay, but is rather mandatory. But note how it works.

Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the LORD thy God, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage (Deuteronomy 8:11-14).

If anyone could believe in exceptionalism, and have actual verses to point to, it would have been the Hebrews. And yet note that God warns them of this pattern, which is as old as dirt. He included them. Nothing is as ordinary and boring as nationalistic hubris. Displays of this sin with the stars and stripes waving in the background are just as obnoxious and just as wicked as when anybody else does it — and everybody else has done it. Read a book, somebody!

When you are on the top of the world and on the top of your game, you can go the Ozymandian route — you can descend into madness like Nebuchadnezzar — or you can pour out your thanksgiving to the God of heaven. If you choose the latter route, it is because you have recognized that you and your entire nation breathe through your nostrils. And if you want to use that breath to thank Him, you must mention His name, and you have to use the name of His Son in order for Him to hear you. Do it like they taught you in Sunday School.

Liberals are ungrateful whiners. They are ungrateful because they don’t think there is anything to be grateful for. They are surrounded by unbelievable blessings, greater than any people in the history of the world have known, and they avoid the grace of gratitude by complaining about the pollution, the fact that we stole it from the Indians, the additives in the bread, and the fact that it is all propped up by CIA assassinations overseas. No need to thank anybody for the meal if you think the cook poisoned it.

Conservative exceptionalists (who conserve nothing but this most scarlet of sins) are ungrateful because they deny what the 100th psalm says — they insist that it is “we ourselves” that set this bright and shining light on the hill. There was an old guy up there praying, but we chased him off. Said his name was Winthrop. Then we really got the fire going, for all the world to see! Bring your huddled masses yearning to be free! These so-called conservatives aren’t grateful because they think they did it all themselves. No need to thank anybody for the meal if you think you’re the cook.

Left and right, united in their ingratitude. One is mopey in that ingratitude, hair in his eyes, and the other is sleek and fat, with eyes like Wall Street grease, but they both share a true common bond. They do not honor God as God, and they do not give Him thanks.

Most of the outrage from the idolatrous right that was directed against the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for his “God damn America” sermon was not because of the typical leftist loopiness that caused Wright to say it, but the fact that he even had a category in his mind for saying it. But let me tell you this — people who don’t have a category in their minds for the wrath of God are prime candidates for that wrath. When the sky and oceans have fled away, and the nations are assembled before the great, white throne, will there be any fools who will be elbowing their way to the front of that great and terrified assembly? Will there be any fools on that day who have no category in their minds for the concept of judgment? A nation that slaughters over a million kids a year is a nation that really needs to stop and reflect. That reflection, if it takes a right turn, might become repentance.

So what is this sin of exceptionalism? It is here: “And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth” (Deuteronomy 8:17).

>Meditation on the Text of the Week

>Songs That Define the Kingdom

For though the Lord is exalted,
Yet He regards the lowly;
But the haughty He knows from afar.
Psalm 138:6

The Kingdom of God has many enduring and persistent themes. Our text reveals one of them. It pleases the Lord to lift up the eyes of His countenance upon the lowly, but to resist and hold at arms length those who are proud.

This theme is repeated throughout Scripture. Significantly, it is found at the portal to the coming of the Davidic kingdom, which is itself a quantum leap in redemptive history, both a foundation and a foreshadowing of the coming forth of the Son of Man Himself. The enduring realities and characteristics of God’s Kingdom become apparent in the person and throne of David. These realities are all foreshadowed in the Song of Hannah in I Samuel 2:

The Lord makes poor and rich
He brings low, He also exalts,
He raises the poor from the dust,
He lifts the needy from the ash heap,
To make them sit with nobles
And inherit a seat of honour;

David epitomized this ideal, as did Hannah herself. Saul, the “blind alley king”, was raised up first by the Lord to teach us all the lesson: Saul looked the part of a king. He was tall, noble. He won the acclaim of the people because of regard for the countenance of men. Through a pair of Unbelieving glasses, Saul was the Man! Haughtiness and arrogance wrapped around him like a cloak. His faux-humility was a stench.

David, by contrast, was a nothing. Of a no-account family (following sheep was an ignoble occupation in Israel), he was despised and mocked by his brothers. It’s not an honourable estate when one is disregarded by one’s own brethren, who themselves are no accounts. David alludes to these realities in the “climax” of his kingdom, when the Lord declared He would make an eternal covenant with him. In response David says to the Lord: “Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house, that Thou has brought me this far?” (II Samuel 7:18)

God’s Kingdom breaks down the haughty and the proud, and lifts up the humble and the no-accounts. This central theme is picked up in another song, which also is sung by a woman, at the portal of the coming of He would would be called, Son of David. The Kingdom of God is announced by these words:

My soul exalts the Lord,
And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; . . . .
He has done mighty deeds with His arm;
He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble.
Luke 1: 46—55

An abiding characteristic of the Kingdom is that the Lord overturns those who are proud and arrogant, and raises up the humbled and the lowly. It is fitting that the songs of these two poor and humbled women reveal how His Kingdom will come.

The King Himself epitomized these realities. He was dirt poor, despised, slandered, hated, and rejected. But the Lord raised Him up and exalted Him, giving Him a Name which is above every name. Furthermore, the King Himself hammered these truths home constantly. He proclaimed that it was the poor in spirit and those who mourn who would be blessed. He was not interested in those who thought themselves well and healthy; He had come for those who knew themselves to be sick and in need of a physician.

He contrasted absolutely His Kingdom with the kingdoms of this world. The Gentiles, He said, lift themselves up against others. A defining characteristic of “gentileness” was an arrogant lording it over one another, of little Napoleons seeking glory, fame, and honour, oppressing people of every hand to convince themselves that they had been successful in their quest. Our King warns of those who “have their reward in this life” for the Kingdom has passed them by. He insisted that the greatest among us would be those who are the servants of all. He peremptorily rejected the disciples arrogant debates as to who would be the greater in the Kingdom. He rebuked them sharply, and would have none of it. It was Gentile talk. He put a child in their midst as the exemplar of the Kingdom. If you would be in the Kingdom, He said, you would have to be like this little child.

Now, of course, this has been perverted by the City of Unbelief, amongst whom the Marxists have attempted to claim that righteousness has to do with economic and social class. The poor are intrinsically good; the rich are evil, they say. Now, like all Satan’s assertions this is a half-truth. In the cities of Unbelief—in “Gentileland”—one could only become great by oppression, exploitation and evil deeds. As their own wise men say, you can only make an omelette by breaking a few eggs.

It is also true that the poor and the needy are often hungry for the Gospel—for they know their neediness; their life of suffering has made them long for the Gospel. Just as there are few atheists in the fox-holes at the front line, so there are few amongst the poor and wretched of the earth who will not listen eagerly to the invitation to come to Christ and be saved. But in these cases, the poverty and lowliness has become a means of grace. It has not made the poor righteous. It has only highlighted their own sense of unworthiness and need.

Above all, it pleases the Lord to lift up the nothings-of-this-world for the greater glory of His own Name. It increases His fame and renown. It leads His people to exult in Him and declare that He has done all things well.

But as the Kingdom comes and takes greater and greater hold over “Gentileland” a strange thing happens: according to our text, the kings of the earth will no longer be avatars of arrogance and pride. Rather, they will be true sons of the Kingdom itself. They will be clothed with humility before God.

All the kings of the earth will give thanks to Thee, O Lord,
When they have heard the words of Thy mouth.
And they will sing of the ways of the Lord.
For great is the glory of the Lord.
Psalm 138: 4—5

The kings of the earth, having been themselves raised up and become great through the greatness of their service and servanthood, will themselves glorify God Who has regarded the lowly. In such things the glory of the Kingdom resides. Even so, maranatha. Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

>Pride and The Inevitable Falls

>Goodhart’s Law

The pride of humanism is a fearsome thing to behold. Autonomous man—free, secular, materialistic humanity—believes itself powerful enough to shape all things. However, the proverb is damning: pride goeth before a fall. When men overreach themselves, bad unintended consequences follow.

It is a necessary part of wisdom to know one’s limitations and to have a realistic assessment of one’s limited abilities. The same is true of collective humanity: the more wise a society is, the more it is aware of its limited ability to shape and transform reality.

Recently we came across Goodhart’s Law. Professor Charles Goodhart was Chief Advisor to the Bank of England. He is credited with stating what has become known as Goodhart’s Law, which arose in the context of central banking and the regulation of the monetary system. Since the arcane activities of central banks are once again creating world headlines, it may be useful to rehearse Goodhart’s Law.

It can be found in several versions. One version states: “As soon as the government attempts to regulate any particular set of financial assets, these become unreliable as indicators of economic trends.” How often we have seen this law at work! What the Law states is that when a government or central bank tries to set monetary or economic policy by referring to various economic or market indicators, by that very action the indicators weaken and lose their worth.

Remember the Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) run for several years by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand? It sought to combine together the rate of interest, plus currency to measure the “true” value of monetary conditions in New Zealand. Then the Reserve Bank used that indicator to set monetary policy for several years. Of course, as soon as the market twigged to this, it anticipated how the Reserve Bank would be setting interest rates and monetary policy and acted accordingly. This so distorted market interest rates and the exchange rate that the MCI became worthless and was later abandoned.

Another example is playing out right now. The Reserve Bank likes to control monetary policy by influencing very short term interest rates. The market, anticipating this, has increasingly favoured longer term, fixed borrowings. This has substantially snookered the Reserve Bank, so that manipulation of the short term interest rates are now far less influential and effective than ten years ago. Short term interest rates have become unreliable guides as to present and future economic conditions. The Reserve Bank is increasingly in the dark. Goodhart’s Law is at work.

Professor Goodhart restated his law in a more generic form later in life. The restatement reads: “Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes.” All central bankers and governments should read this and shudder. Goodhart’s Law is effectively stating that the ability of governments and regulators to regulate economic affairs is very limited—and even if successful, it will only be for the short term.

It is instructive that Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has recently called for a complete rethink of how the Fed measures credit and monetary and economic conditions. The indicators that guided Fed policy have completely broken down over the past eight years—resulting in the credit crisis and recession. What Bernanke is acknowledging is that Goodhart’s Law is alive and well. So the Fed and other monetary authorities will go through the exercise of developing different models by which monetary policy will be set. They will claim, once deployed, that their new models are more sophisticated and address the limitations and weaknesses of the past.

But they will not escape Goodhart’s Law. Within a very short time, the markets will have worked out the measures and models of the Fed, and will be anticipating its actions and adjusting their behaviour accordingly—and the models will eventually break down, leading to yet another financial, monetary, and economic crisis.

Goodhart’s Law has gone through another iteration. Professor Marilyn Strathern has restated it more generically as: “When a measure becomes a target it ceases to be a good measure.” Well said. No-one is going on to state the obvious corollary of Goodhart’s Law, however, which is: central banks and monetary authorities as we understand them are doomed to repeated failure.

As someone pointed out, Goodhart’s Law is a “sociological analogue” of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. Measuring a system—particularly measuring it precisely and finitely—disturbs the system such that the measurement becomes inexact and distorted.

It is the part of wisdom to recognize and acknowledge this phenomenon—and to cease offering the utopian dream of being able to regulate and tweak to nirvana. Modern western society would take a huge step forward if it were able to accept its limitations with gladness, and eschew opposite views with disdain.

But while the humanist world view retains its thralldom over modern man this will not happen. Hubris and wisdom are not compatible.

>Let the Humble Inherit

>Humility: Our Vanquished Virtue

There is an excellent piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, by Miranda Devine on the declension of humility in our modern culture. We have reproduced the article in full below. As you read it, keep a question at the back of your mind: of the political leaders currently running for office in the NZ election, which demonstrate more humility, and which ooze hubris from every pore?

At the Emmy Awards this week, the comedian Tina Fey made what could be seen as the defining comment of the age.

“I thank my parents for somehow raising me to have confidence that is disproportionate with my looks and abilities,” said Fey, 38, the Sarah Palin mimic of Saturday Night Live fame. “Well done. This is what all parents should do.”

Quite the contrary. The world is already too full of people with too much confidence, who somehow lack the insight to realise it. It would be cruel to say they spend their lives making fools of themselves, but it would be accurate. The pity is that the number of people who can recognise the foolishness is dwindling. No, parents should not be teaching their children to have confidence disproportionate to their looks and abilities. They should be teaching their children the opposite virtue – humility.

Humility is the ability to have an accurate opinion of yourself, to see your own inadequacy with clear eyes.

Even the new federal Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, an alpha male down to his jocks, recognised the value of at least paying lip service to humility when he described his elevation to the Liberal leadership last week as “a great honour, privilege, humbling”. He wasn’t saying he was a humble man – a claim no one would believe of the cocksure former merchant banker – but that he was “humbled” by the moment.

Everyone should have some capacity to feel humbled by something at some point, to be conscious, even fleetingly, of the fact you are not the centre of the universe, all-powerful, all-knowing. But some people never do, even when confronted by the full majesty of their ignorance or human limitations.

Turnbull, 53, a man tempted by pride more than most, you would imagine, said later at his first press conference as leader, “I believe that no individual has the sum total of human knowledge”, which is another small lesson in humility learned.

Some people, such as the German philosopher Nietzsche, see humility as a weakness. But the ancient Greeks knew it to be an essential quality of heroes, a product of courage and self-knowledge. Humility is the antidote to pride, which the author C. S. Lewis once damned as the “greatest sin”, the vice that leads to every other vice.

“There is no fault which makes a man more unpopular, and no fault which we are more unconscious of in ourselves,” he wrote last century.

Lewis also wrote that, unlike other vices, pride was intrinsically competitive, getting “no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man”. He described it as a “spiritual cancer: it eats up the very possibility of love or contentment or even common sense”.Humility has been the mainstay of Christian societies, and central to the Protestant ethic of the American Midwest of the last century, which fuelled the greatest period of prosperity the world has ever seen. Humility was the core value of people who built great wealth and created the moral capital for generations to come.

As Tom Wolfe wrote in his short story Two Young Men Went West, Intel’s co-founder, Bob Noyce, the father of Silicon Valley, headed west from his small Presbyterian town in Iowa, in the 1960s, with the values of his forebears “sown into the lining of his coat”. Noyce was not religious but he brought with him all the old habits that would make him a success: honesty, hard work, prudence, self-discipline, lack of ostentation and, of course, humility.

The stern virtues are now laughably anachronistic. Pride, self-confidence and an exaggerated sense of self-importance are the qualities most prized in our narcissistic times. They are the hallmarks of winners, while humility is the vanished virtue.

A lack of humility is not a necessary precondition for our leaders, but it is often a collateral quality. The self-belief necessary to push yourself to the top, trampling over the ambitions of other deserving people, too easily morphs into the delusion that you got to the top not because you got some lucky breaks, but because of your intrinsically superior qualities.

While strong leaders often exhibit little humility, it is the only inoculation against the ancient Greek sin of hubris – excessive pride leading to humiliation and tragedy. The former NSW treasurer Michael Costa may have had hubris in mind this week when he said, after quitting Parliament: “I’ve always said politics was a modern Greek tragedy, it always ends in failure … and I can say my career has fulfilled that adage.”

Strong, decisive types who make the best leaders often have very little inclination for the introspection needed for humility. They have no self-doubt because they never take the time to inspect the self for flaws. They are always “going forward”, pushing ahead, getting things done, looking on to the future, not a past that might discomfit them.

In fact, the phrase “going forward” was the latest big cliche in the business world. Now it serves as a motto for the collapse of the financial markets, so full of Masters of the Universe always “going forward”.

Of course, we need people of unreasonable self-belief to take risks and attempt to conquer unconquerable problems. But a society composed of too many over-confident types is doomed.