Evidence That Nietzsche Was Right About God

“As everybody also knows, much about the current scene would seem to clinch the point (that God is dead), at least in Western Europe. Elderly altar servers in childless churches attended by mere handfuls of pensioners; tourist throngs in Notre Dame and other cathedrals circling ever-emptier pews roped off for worshipers; former abbeys and convents and monasteries remade into luxury hotels and sybaritic spas; empty churches here and there shuttered for decades and then re-made into discos — even into a mosque or two. Hardly a day passes without details like these issuing from the Continent’s post-Christian front. If God were to be dead in the Nietzschean sense, one suspects that the wake would look a lot like this.”

Mary Eberstadt
How the West Really Lost God: A New Look At Secularization — p. 2

The Inevitability Of Monism With A God Who Is Not Trinitarian

The denial by Jews and Muslims of God’s Trinitarian nature leaves them with a Transcendent yet impersonal God. They retain a “outsided-ness” in their theology but that” outsided-ness” is a Transcendent abstraction that cannot come in contact with humanity and as such all man has left is a humanistic monism and so man must live with a functional outsidelessness.

If they try to cure this lack of existential outsidelessness that occurs with their Transcendent yet impersonal God by making God dependent upon the creature for His actualization unto a personal being then God ceases to be God as he is dependent upon man for His reality.

Rabbinic scholar Abraham Heschel (1907-1972) rightly critiqued Islam for seeing God as ‘unqualified Omnipotence,’ who can never be the ‘Father of mankind,’ and thus is radically impersonal. (See Heschel, ‘The Prophets,’ [New York: Harper, 1962,] pg. 292, 311.) Yet post-biblical Judaism cannot escape Herschel’s critique entirely. The medieval rabbi Maimonides, for example, also confessed an “absolutely transcendent God who is independent of humanity.” (See Reuven Kimelmen, “The Theology of Abraham Heschel,” First Things (Dec. 2009). On the other hand, Kimelmen notes that Heschel commits the opposite error to that of Maimonides (and Islam), namely that of making God dependent on man in a covenantal relationship that both God and man need in order to be who they are. Heschel adopts the rabbinical concept that it is a human witness that in some sense makes God real (Kimelmen, “The Theology of Abraham Heschel”). Once more, God is dependent upon humanity. This is the classic dilemma of a monotheism without the Trinity. Because Heschel does not believe God to be Triune, God depends on man to be personal and therefore cannot be “Wholly Other,” in relation to Creation.

So, it seems, if you are a strict Monotheist you can have a Transcendent God that must be impersonal because He can not have contact with man or you can have a Transcendent God who is only personal because of His dependence upon man. The problem here though is that a God who is dependent upon man in any shape, manner, or form, for His being is neither truly transcendent nor truly God.

It should be said here that this is not only the problem of the Muslim and the Jew, it is also the problem of the neo-orthodox who have so emphasized God’s Transcendence that it is only by a completely subjective encounter with God whereby God can find a subjective status of the personal.

Parts of this Inspired, Parts Paraphrased, and Parts Quoted from
Peter Jones — The Other Worldview — pg. 199-200 (footnote — 27)

We Must Fight the Cultural Marxists

The loss of cultural confidence was precisely what the Frankfurt School and its descendants sought and still seek to engender. It is their only path to victory, which is why — even as they have seized the high ground of the academy and the media — they continue to roll over and expose their bellies like whipped curs whenever they are directly confronted, as Donald Trump is demonstrating. Pleas for “tolerance,” a weakness masquerading as a virtue, still serve the Amen corner of Academia, Corporate America, and Hollywood and their Washington Establishment well. It is long past time to give them a taste of their own “repressive tolerance,” a’la Marcuse, to mark the boundary clearly between dissent and sedition, between advocacy and treason. By consistently claiming that some solutions are “off limits” to “civilized people” the “inside the DC Beltway” undermine the very principles of civilization they pretend to advocate — the first of which is the right to civilizational defense and personal self defense. Those who are howling about Trump’s statements regarding Muslims are a suicide cult enticing the rest of us to join them.
But the moral high ground is not yet theirs, as much as they would wish it so. Constantly forced into a strategy of subterfuge, dissimulation, misdirection, and open deception — I have dubbed it “American taqiyya,” a counterpart to the Muslim concept of religiously acceptable dissimulation — there is no lie the Left will not tell in the furtherance of its sociopolitical goals. To maintain the martial metaphor, they are essentially double agents, operating behind the lines of Western Civilization. That they are not called out and dealt with aggressively in the court of public opinion and, when necessary, in courts of law, is one of the shames of our age. The only weapon they have is words — but we can hear the music behind them.
Inspired by Michael Walsh
The Devil’s Pleasure Palace — pg. 111-112

In Praise of Hatred

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”  Luke 14:26

Perhaps no emphasis in the 21st century church has been more pronounced the the necessity to “love,” to “be loving,” and to not be guilty of “lacking love.” Such teaching has been around for a very long time in the Church in the West and it has resulted in the enervation of the Church.

This is due, of course, to the fact that the word “love” has also been drained of its meaning.  When love becomes a universal instinct so that all men everywhere must be “loved” no matter what then “love” is a word that has no meaning.

In order for the word “love”to have any meaning it must have borders of definition where it ends and another disposition begins. In order for “love” to have meaning it must hate. Love, in order to be love, must hate.

The Lord Christ supports this,

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both…”

You see here that love cannot co-exist without hate. This tells us that the idea that “we should never” hate is non-Biblical and anti-Christ in its roots. Love without hate is an absurdity. A man will only love as deeply as he also hates.  From this we must say that hate, properly oriented, is an absolute virtue. Hate, properly oriented, is the natural outgoing of love and this is so much the truth that without hate love cannot exist.

“We do urge hate; if you love something, that love requires you to hate anything which threatens it.”

Matthew Hale.

Here we see that positive “hate” is a positive good because it is the recoiling action of proper love. Even for those people who insist that they must only love and that to hate anything would be ignoble and sinful we find a residual hatred of all those who disagree with them that love must be ubiquitous. The “love-everybody-ers” end up hating those who actively employ properly directed “hate.”

That our culture has fallen into this “war against hate” nonsense can be seen by our preoccupation with hate crimes. Increasingly, the penalty for a crime is far graver if it can be proved that someone committed their crime because of a particular hatred. Never-mind that all crime presupposes hate at some base level. Never-mind that what is required with this kind of legislation is the ability to prove, and then try to disprove, a presence of a state of mind. This whole body of law turns already disreputable lawyers into the category of the even more disreputable shrink.

As Christians we must come to the point where we pray that the Triune God would not only give us proper love but also proper hate. Our prayer is that we would hate that which is evil. Our prayer is that we would hate what God hates. Our prayers should be that we hate injustice and Marxist concepts of social justice dressed up as God pleasing and defined justice.  Our prayer is that we would demonstrate the strength of our love by the passion of our hate.

The capacity to Biblically hate aids the ability to see through the smoke and mirrors that heresies in the church and falsity in the culture serve up. If we genuinely hate that which is evil this will translate into the ability to sniff it out and define it even when it is covered up in the Church and broader culture. Bovine bunkum smells like bovine bunkum  no matter how it is doused with expensive perfume and hatred for the smell of bovine bunkum can give us the ability to identify bullshit in a sea of Estee Lauder.

Hatred of falsity will give us the ability to detect and resist it. A Biblical hate thus gives us spidey senses that tingle when what and who we love are threatened. Hatred is an important element in family love. When we love our family we will hate that or who threatens or attacks our family. Hate, as the corresponding proper reflection of love, has built Christian Western Civilization.  Without a properly defined hate we would be a weak, vacillating, and forever defeated people. This, in part, explains why so many of the enemies of Biblical Christianity keep pushing such a false narrative of hate that men who have their wives raped and murdered can’t even find it within themselves to be publicly outraged with the beast criminals who are caught. This, in part, explains why men have lost the capacity to be exercised and disheveled when the character and honor of the Lord Christ is pilloried and castigated. Men have been repeatedly and forever told that hatred isn’t proper and because they have believed that the ability to defend with passion what we love has been forfeited.

Without a solid emboldening embrace of biblical hate we are twilight men, men without chests, mere half-lings. Without well know hatreds, if we have any identity at all it is the identity of the limpid and the wallflower. Show me a man who is not epistemologically self conscious in his hatreds and I will introduce to you a dishwater man.

It serves the interests of the elites of our cog culture to distract us from the ability to properly hate. If we can be formed into a people who, at best, “love everybody and everything,” or at worst,  are blase about everybody and everything, the consequence is an easily controlled population. Cattle are best corralled when they are passionless.

The ironic thing in all this is that those who laud this pietistic false love while eschewing a biblical hatred end up not getting love in the least but instead a vitamin deleted and fatigued niceness that is full of paper thin sentimental feelings. This kind of required ubiquitous love for everything and anything means that we love the stranger and alien with the same regard as we love our own children. Thus we give our children the same status as orphans.  This kind of required ubiquitous love for everything and anything means that we love the illegal immigrant the same way we love our fellow citizen. Love must admit of distinctions and degrees, that eventually move into hate or love can not be love.

The ancient Latin poet Decimus Magnus Ausonius (A.D. 310-395) wrote, “Truth is the mother of all hatred.” If we are passionate for the truth we will be full of rightly oriented hatreds. 

More then all this we should have it as our own goal to be hated, or at the very least we should rejoice for being hated for all the right reasons. Our Lord Christ said,

“Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.” Luke 6:22-23

Ask the Pastor — What of John Donne’s Divine Ravishing?

Dear Pastor,

I wonder what you think of John Donne’s Holy Sonnet 14, “Batter My Heart.” ? It ends with a rape of the soul. But he links it to chastity. The paradox is present.

Jayson Grieser
Donne’s couplet in question,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.
I think one has to understand the points of perspective in order to dissolve the paradox. We, as humans, will always be ravished either by God or by the devil. As such, it is never a matter of being “ravished” or “not being ravished,” it is always only a matter of “ravished by whom.”

I think what Donne is getting at is akin to Luther’s prose in his, “On the Bondage of the Will,”

“Man is like a horse. Does God leap into the saddle? The horse is obedient and accommodates itself to every movement of the rider and goes whither he wills it. Does God throw down the reins? Then Satan leaps upon the back of the animal, which bends, goes and submits to the spurs and caprices of its new rider.”
So, man is always a ravished being, just as man is always a rode being. If we are ravished by the devil it is a ravishing unto corruption. If we are ravished by God it is a ravishing unto chasteness and purity. Man, having no free will, will thus only be a ravished being. Either we will be ravished unto purity by God or we will be ravished unto impurity by the Dragon.
Donne uses the “ravished” language but in my estimation he is using the language from Lucifer’s perspective when he uses that language. If he were to speak from God’s perspective he would have written instead something like,
Except you possess me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you keep me.
But that doesn’t make for as good poetry. I hope that helps.
Thank you for stopping by Jayson and thanks for a thoughtful question.