I’ve stumbled across something that I’m sure that many many other people have seen before. I’ve always been kind of slow on the uptake. That something that I’ve stumbled across is a commonality that exists between and among disciplines that have been thought to have been quite varied. What I’ve discovered is that disciplines like Keynesianism (economics), Deconstructionism (literary theory), Marxism (political theory), Legal Positivism (legal theory), Nihilism and existentialism (philosophy), historicism (historiography theory) neo-orthodoxy (theological theory) and Code Pink (sexual theory) all derive from a common theological assumption and that assumption is that “God, or the objective, is Dead.” Of course this makes perfect sense because it serves, once again, to reveal that theology (in this case the theology of anti-theology) is the fount out of which springs an integrated fount of academic disciplines.
Humanism is the positive side of the negative I am getting at. In other words, all the disciplines I’ve mentioned are, positiviely speaking the embrace of Humanism. However, when view negatively they all share the common thread of insisting that any notion of an objective, including an objective God is dead. Let us consider this to see if we can see the clear “death of the objective” strand that links all of these disciplines together.
In economics, Keynesianism desires the death of any objective standard for money and desires only that a subjective governmental standard be used in order to set the value of money. This is done so that money by fiat can be pursued. This explains why Keynesians hate the idea of a gold or silver standard. Keynesians despise the notion of the objective and so in order to set the government or the money interest up as god they seek to forever get rid of the objectively objective. In economics you have the death of the objectively objective.
In literary theory, Deconstructionism posits the death of the objective author. With the death of the objective the Deconstructionists end up positing the subjective reader as the sovereign. In Deconstructionism it is the subjective reader who determines the meaning of the text. When Deconstructionism is given its head all of life becomes a author-less text and the sovereign subjective interpreter shapes and creates their own meaning out of whatever text they encounter. In literary theory you have the death of the objectively objective.
In political theory, Marxism is materialistic and so posits the death of an objective God finding its objective instead in the subjective movement of the Hegelian Absolute spirit. For the Marxist economics is the foundation and talk about religion, mind, and values are merely the superstructure that is built upon the foundation in order to justify the foundation in a ex post facto manner. For the Marxist there is no external objective reality to which subjective reality must answer to. For the Marxist the subjective is all there is and the best that can happen is that the subjective can be enlarged (blown up like a balloon) to become the objective. This is done by making the State the subjective objective by which all the rest of the subjective is measured. In political theory you have the death of the objectively objective.
In legal theory, Legal positivism denies transcendent meaning insisting that meaning can only be that which can be proven subjectively. (All statements must be verifiable except for the statement that all statements must be verifiable.) Legal positivism assumes the death of the objective and then insists that anybody who disagrees with their ontology must prove the objectively objective by means of their subjective standard as it exist in their subjectively objective worldview. An impossibility from the word go. The result of legal positivism is that God and the objectively objective are ruled out of bounds clearing the field for their legal theory. In legal theory you have the death of the objectively objective.
In philosophy, the existence of both Nihilism and Existentialism (the informing streams of post-modern consciousnesses) is posited upon the truth that there is no objectively objective truth. Nihilism denies their is any meaning except for the meaning that there is no meaning. Existentialism declares that existence precedes essence so that existence has no concern about objectively objective essence or meaning since subjective existence determines meaning. In both of these philosophies all that exists is the sovereign subjective individual using his will to power to turn his subjective will into the objective standard by which all things will be measured. In philosophy you have the death of the objectively objective.
In educational theory, the standard for meaning comes from within each child. Whether one is talking Freud, Dewey, or Rogers, educational theory has lost the objectively objective and the results are programs such as value neutral education where the sovereign subjective student is encouraged to discover his own values. Now, clearly value neutral education is not neutral but since the sovereign subjective student is putatively discovering and navigating his own value system what we we see once again is the clear demonstration of the death of the objective objective. God is dead. The objective is dead. All that is left is the subjective enlarging his or her subjectivity in order to turn the subjective into the a subjective objective. In educational theory you have the death of the objectively objective.
In historiography theory, historicism insists that there is no God or objective by which the meaning of History can be determined or known. As such the only thing that is left is for subjective History itself to become the objective by which it is itself measured. In Historicism God is dead and man becomes the infallible interpreter of all reality. Naturally the problem here is that historiography is only as good as the objective standard of the historian who is, by his subjective will, forcing history to do his bidding. If the historian who is doing the history is Humanist or Muslim, or Hindu, then his produced historiography will be respectively Humanist, Muslim or Hindu. The idea of the objectively objective is lost and historiography becomes awash in a sea of subjectivism. In historiography you have the death of the objectively objective.
In sexual theory such as militant homosexuality and Feminism, and all other sexual perversions what you have once again is the positing of the death of God and the death of the objectively objective clearing the field for the pervert interest to insist that perversions aren’t really perversions since w/o a God there can be no such thing as perversion. Without God or the objectively objective and with the introduction of polytheistic pagan gods who are but “man said loudly” what happens is that perversion is subjectively re-defined and sexual polymorphy becomes the norm. In sexual theory you have the death of the objectively objective and the death of God.
In theological theory, Neo-orthodoxy posits the Transcendence of God (His objectiveness if you please) but in neo-orthodoxy God becomes so objective that He has no contact with the subjective. As such, God dies of incurable hyper-transcendencism, and the subjective once again becomes objective. Since God is beyond the creature the subjective creature is left to take his subjective intuitions and enlarge them so that the subjective once again becomes objective. I once had a conversation with a Dean of a theological Seminary (this conversation is on Iron Ink somewhere) who was neo-orthodox (though he refused to admit it for fear of his job I think) and who freely admitted that it was impossible to access the objective. If one can not access the objective then God is dead. In theological theory you have the death of the objectively objective.
Now, where R2Kt comes in is that it insists that the Spirit of God is constricted to the Church and that the Church can not and should not and must not insist that a living God, as the objectively objective reality that gives meaning to everything is not dead and as such He comes in conflict against the Spirit of Chaos that manifests itself in Keynesianism, Deconstructionism, Marxism, Legal Positivism, Historicism, Nihilism, Existentialism, Perverted Sexual Theory, Freudianism, and all other pseudo realities that exist upon the premise that God is dead. R2Kt insists that the Church must not speak of the implications of a living God to a culture that is animated by philosophies, theologies, and theories that incarnate the death of God and the objectively objective. R2Kt insists that implications of the living God are to be felt only in the Church and that the Church as the Church can not speak with the voice of the living God against those who would create a culture where because God is dead, God is mute.
Keynesianism, Deconstructionism, Marxism, Legal Positivism, Historicism, Nihilism, Existentialism, Perverted Sexual Theory, Freudianism, all love R2Kt to pieces, first, because a Church infected w/ the R2Kt virus has no place from which to stand to resist the God is dead movement as it makes cultural inroads. Second, the God is dead movement loves the R2Kt virus because it teaches nothing to God’s people that will serve as a prophylactic against the impact of the God is dead movement upon the culture. Because of this the R2Kt churches will churn out people who will be saints on one hand in the church but who very likely will imbibe deeply from the God is dead movement culture they are immersed in. They will have no ability to ward of the God is dead cultural movement because they will have never been taught to see the implications of the death of the objectively objective.
No prophylactic indeed. In my former church, an R2k church, I began what I thought would be a rousing Christian worldview discussion with a brother who loved cinema. I brought up the film “The Watchmen,” which was in theatres at the time. He has a film degree from USC (I think) and works in Hollywood. He loved the film, and I was totally unable to persuade him from Scriptures that when the Bible teaches us to not let our eyes look on any vile thing (such as Dr. Manhattan’s full frontal male nudity), and to not love violence, and to hate what God hates, that includes feature films. He just wouldn’t concede–that despite the fact that we are regularly taught at that church by Ken Samples, who writes books on Christian worldview. He saw the movie from a Deconstructionist view, I think, and quite enjoyed it. But if they’d shown “The Watchmen” right after the potluck in lieu of the Sunday afternoon service, I bet he wouldn’t have enjoyed it.
Michael,
I’m not a Randian, so it doesn’t fit in at all.
Libertarian thinking can only work in a homogenous culture. When Libertarian thinking is introduced to such a degree that it becomes Libertarianism into a genuinely heterogeneous pluralistic culture then only anarchy can result.
There was a good book by John Robbins critiquing Randianism. You might want to pick it up.