Category: Culture

Over at the Ligonier website an article was recently posted by Dr. R. C. Sproul. It is a very good article but it has the deficiency of not saying enough, or of not looking at the issue that is being pursued in a well rounded fashion. It is not the case, that in this instance, I disagree with Dr. Sproul, rather it is the case that I think what is said could be said in a richer way. In order to see the issues that Dr. Sproul takes on in a way consistent with what he has to say yet hopefully offering an added layer I have decided to engage this article. I don’t know if I will say anything here that I haven’t said before but the hope is that by laying my interaction next to Sproul’s article people will have the ability to see more of the whole picture as it touches the culture with which we currently live.

Sproul’s comments are blocked. My response follows the blocked quotes. Sproul’s first paragraph to this article was introductory and has been deleted because there wasn’t anything with which to interact.

In our day, where pluralism reigns in the culture, there is as much satirical hostility to the idea of one God as there was in Nietzsche’s satire. But today, that repugnance to monotheism is not a laughing matter. In the culture of pluralism, the chief virtue is toleration, which is the notion that all religious views are to be tolerated, all political views are to be tolerated. The only thing that cannot be tolerated is a claim to exclusivity.

There is truth here but there is also another way to argue this. First, I would add that pluralism is a myth concocted by our culture in order to shield itself from the reality that it remains homogeneous and in order to force dissenting people into this homogeneous culture. The non-pluralistic nature of our culture is seen in the cultural homogeneity found in the fact that the overwhelming majority of our culture believes in pluralism. Further, it must be clearly articulated today that pluralism advances its own claim of exclusivity. The adherents of pluralism come forth and decry people of monotheistic faiths and who have the one conviction that there is only one way, but what many people fail to see is that the adherents of pluralism are in effect saying this because their one conviction is that there are many ways.

Look at what I have put into bold relief. Both those who are non-pluralists and those who are putatively pluralist both have a single one conviction that is guiding them. Where their difference lies is in what that one conviction is. On this basis they are no more pluralistic then the Jew, the Muslim, or the Biblical Christian. This homogeneous approach reveals itself as the adherents of what we call ‘pluralism’ practice the exclusivity of social ostracizing against those who don’t share their one conviction that there are many ways. What is richly ironic here is that the exclusivism of the putative pluralist gets called “inclusivism” while the the exclusivism of anybody who disagree with their version of exclusivism (Christians or Muslims or Jews) gets labeled as ‘exclusive.’

What I have said here is of monumental importance. It is monumentally important because to many Christians are being buffaloed into thinking that pluralism really is pluralistic. It’s most definitely not! Until the West awakens to the smoke and mirrors that pluralism is using in order to hide itself from it’s homogeneous and mono-cultural and mono-theistic character the West will continue to slip into Statist totalitarianism because what putatively pluralistic culture needs in order to continue is a God who can police all the gods it has tolerated in the culture. That one god is the State.

Said simply, pluralism creates a homogeneous culture (mono-culture) based on the mono-theism of humanism. Pluralism is a myth created by those who desire to advance their own pursuit of the mono-culture they desire to build.

There is a built-in, inherent antipathy towards all claims of exclusivity. To say that there is one God is repulsive to the pluralists. To say that one God has not revealed Himself by a plurality of avatars in history is also repugnant. A single God with an only begotten Son is a deity who adds insult to injury by claiming an exclusive Son. There cannot be only one Mediator between man and God. There must be many according to pluralists today. It is equally a truism among pluralists that if there is one way to God, there must be many ways to God, and certainly it cannot be accepted that there is only one way. The exclusive claims of Christianity in terms of God, in terms of Christ, in terms of salvation, cannot live in peaceful coexistence with pluralists.

But the question here that must be asked is … WHY? Why is there a built in antipathy towards all claims of exclusivity? The answer is found in the fact that by redefining exclusivity so that it doesn’t include the exclusivity found in putative pluralism what can be accomplished is the strangling of the God or gods that compete(s) with the god of putative pluralism. Also the reason that the exclusive claims of Christianity in terms of God, in terms of Christ, in terms of salvation, cannot live in peaceful coexistence with pluralists is because they are not pluralistic. They desire to advance their one conviction that there are many ways to God and so they desire to put to death those who have the one conviction that there is only one way.

Pluralism is a myth!

Beyond the question of the existence of God and of His Son, and of a singular way of salvation, there is also a rejection of any claim to having or possessing an exclusive source of divine revelation.

This just isn’t true.

What is true is that the putative pluralist will insist that they reject any claim to having or possessing an exclusive source of divine revelation and the reason they insist on rejecting that is because that ‘rejection’ hides from people the location of their exclusive source of divine revelation. What is being hid is that the putative pluralist has a exclusive source of divine revelation and that exclusive source is their own autonomous reason. Remember when we talk about putative pluralists (really homogeneous mono-culturalists) what we are talking about is humanism. In humanism man is the god who is not dead (and who kills god because he desires his place) and the revelation he receives in his religion is his own autonomous reason.

So, while we would agree with Dr. Sproul that the putative pluralist says ‘he rejects any claim to having or possessing an exclusive source of divine revelation’ we would insist that he makes this claim in order to make his belief system and his evangelism efforts look broad and reasonable.

At the time of the Reformation, the so-called solas of the Reformation were asserted. It was said that justification is by faith alone (sola fide), that it is through Christ alone (solus Christus), that it is through grace alone (sola gratia), and that it is for God’s glory alone (soli Deo gloria). But perhaps most repugnant to the modern pluralist is the exclusive claim of sola Scriptura. The idea of sola Scriptura is that there is only one written source of divine revelation, which can never be placed on a parallel status with confessional statements, creeds, or the traditions of the church. Scripture alone has the authority to bind the conscience precisely because only Scripture is the written revelation of almighty God. The implications of sola Scriptura for pluralism are many. Not the least of them is this: It carries a fundamental denial of the revelatory character of all other religious books. An advocate of sola Scriptura does not believe that God’s revealed Word is found in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon, the Bible and in the Koran, the Bible and in the Upanishads, the Bible and in the Bhagavad Gita; rather, the Christian faith stands on the singular and exclusive claim that the Bible and the Bible alone is God’s written word.

The most important implication of sola Scriptura for pluralism is that it denies not only the legitimacy of all the Holy books that Sproul mentions but it also denies the legitimacy of autonomous reason which is the Holy book of the putative pluralist, who is in reality every bit the homogeneous mono-theistic, mono-cultural creature as the most rabid Muslim, Jew, or Christian.

The motto of the United States is e pluribus unum. However, since the rise of the ideology of pluralism, the real Unum of that motto has been ripped from its foundation. What drives pluralism is the philosophical antecedent of relativism. All truth is relative; therefore, no one idea or source can be seen as having any kind of supremacy. Built into our law system is the idea of the equal toleration under the law of all religions. It is a short step in people’s thinking from equal toleration under the law to equal validity. The principle that all religions should be treated equally under the law and have equal rights does not carry with it the necessary inference that therefore all religions are valid. Even a cursory, comparative examination of the world’s religions reveals points of radical contradiction among them, and unless one is prepared to affirm the equal truth of contradictories, one must not be able to embrace this fallacious assumption.

Dr. Sproul’s first sentence above is true in a sense. But it is also not true in a sense. It is true in the sense that the Unum that has been ripped from the foundation is the Unum that we started with when this country was founded. It is not true in the sense that no Unum exists. This country is still devoted to taking the many and making them one, but the ‘one’ they desire to make them all into is the one of humanism. That all truth is relative is the absolute one idea or one source that must have supremacy.

Next Dr. Sproul tries to create a distinction that I am not sure works. He say’s that “the principle that all religions should be treated equally under the law and have equal rights does not carry with it the necessary inference that therefore all religions are valid.” What I am struggling with here is trying to understand how if each law system descend from a particular religion those particular law systems could ever find valid a religion, that by its very existence, creates a law system to contend against the law system that is finding it valid.

Second, it is difficult to understand how a law system would tolerate a religion that isn’t valid. It seems to me that the very toleration of religions in the body politic by the law system does indeed suggest that the religions in question are valid. I would say that it is a fallacious assumption on one hand to say that a law system could tolerate a religion without at the same time giving it validity.

Sadly, with a philosophy of relativism and a philosophy of pluralism, the science of logic doesn’t matter. Logic is escorted to the door and is firmly booted out of the house onto the street. There is no room for logic in any system of pluralism and relativism. Indeed, it’s a misnomer to call either a system, because it is the idea of a consistent, coherent view of truth that is unacceptable to the pluralist. The fact that people reject exclusive claims to truth does not invalidate those claims. It is the Christian’s duty to hold firm to the uniqueness of God and of His Christ and not compromise with the advocates of pluralism.

I would disagree with Dr. Sproul here. While it certainly is the case that true logic (is there any other kind?) is shown the door, the putative pluralist still appeals to (illogical) logic. I would disagree that putative pluralism is not a system. Certainly it is a contradictory and inconsistent system, just as all other false beliefs, but it is still system. And for our purposes it is a system if only because we are actually trying to build a culture on this ‘system.’

Finally, I hope Dr. Sproul realizes the implications in his last sentence. The implications of that statement are vast and pronoun.

In the end it is not so much that I disagree with Dr. Sproul’s analysis but rather I think we need to see all of this from more then one dimension.

The link below, from a local Florida newspaper describes an arrest, prosecution, and judgment against a young man involved in bestiality.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-529bestiality,0,6273499.story

Now I link this for one reason and that reason is the intuitive revulsion and disgust that this story works in most people who read it. People read this kind of thing and they think, “That is clearly beyond the pale. That person is sick. How utterly gross.”

And that is the response they should have!

Now keep in mind that same intuitive revulsion and disgust used to be the response of the average American 50 short years ago when reading a similar story about some guy involved in homosexuality. Now however, as we know, homosexuality is ‘just another lifestyle that is as normal as anything else.’ As it stands currently it is the person who responds to homosexuality the way that we respond to the bestiality as recorded in the link above who are seen as the abnormal ones.

What changed?

And what makes us think that in another 50 years or less (I think less) people who are coitally attached to their pet of choice will be seen a being perfectly normal while those who are repulsed by such behavior will be seen as the ones with a problem?

Homosexuality remains every bit as disgusting as some guy doing his doggie, and I don’t care how many courts in America say it is a perfectly acceptable form for familial organization or how much the media (see Anna Quindlend’s recent piece that ran in Newsweek) and educational establishments continue to brainwash us on its legitimacy.

Certainly we must be concerned for the soul of homosexuals, just as we must be concerned for the souls of those who like farm animals, but the way for showing concern for their souls is by continuing to reveal the pig behind the lipstick (that lifestyle can be dressed up all one likes but it remains highly destructive and more importantly violates God’s Law) and by holding out to them both the wrath and love of God — wrath against those who refuse to repent and love for those who will repent and flee to Jesus.

Well, my mind is exploding with observations about our recent trip to the West Coast. The first one I will offer is about Airports.

I have said before on this blog that Americans are like stupid dairy cattle being milked by farmer Joe Government. The Federal Reserve is a system designed to milk average Americans of their wealth.

With the advent of TSA procedures in America airports we now even look like cattle waiting to be milked. When I was a boy working on my Grandfather’s dairy farm the dairy cows waited in a pen outside the dairy parlor where they lined up to travel up a slight concrete incline in order to be the next cow to slip through the sliding door that was periodically opened to allow the next cow in to be milked. Once the cow got through the parlor door it dutifully went to the appropriate stall, enticed by some sweet hay, where it would be hooked up to the milking machine so it could drop its creamy load. Upon finishing it would have its teats dipped and its rump thumped so as to move out of the stall so the next cow could take its place.

I recalled all of this while I waited my turn in the TSA queue at the airports so I could take my shoes off and be felt up by people who looked a little to eager to get to the part where they frisked people down. The imagery was so stark that I was waiting for my Grandfathers voice to yell out ‘Cowboy’ to let one of his younger grandchildren know that it was time for them to open the parlor door so the next cow could be milked.

These TSA types (drawn from the cream of American civilization by the way) are nothing if not thorough. First they would look at every license with a black light. I had written a love note on my license that could only be read by a black light but they didn’t say anything. Finally you get to the point where you have the privilege of passing all your carry on luggage through the super duper X-ray machine. If there is a bag in doubt (and it seemed ours were always in doubt) they would pull it, open it and rub its contents like they expected some kind of genie to appear to grant them three wishes, all the while asking gruff questions like; “This belong to you?” “What Is This For?” “Do you really where a size 36?”

Upon arriving at California I learned that my bag was one of those randomly chosen bags that were pawed through by the TSA Stormtroopers. I satisfied myself that they went through my personal belongings with the comfort of knowing that they were decent enough to put a little note in my bag that they had violated my privacy. It’s always nice to have your belongings rifled through by decent chaps. I had unsanctified thoughts that next time I might leave them something to find like a hypodermic needle or an exposed razor.

Another thing I observed as I traveled was the deep reading that Americans do. Magazines such as ‘US,’ ‘People,’ ‘Ladies Home Journal,’ and other tomes must make their profit margin by people deciding to get caught up in their reading while they travel. And what good is reading if you can’t do it with every one of your tattoos and piercings exposed? If you can’t catch somebodies attention by your reading fodder they will certainly be interested in you when they see that stud sticking out of your cheek or the chains connecting your cheek to your earlobe. (It must be a pain to get all that hardware through TSA security.) Let us not even begin to talk about travel attire.

When I wasn’t mooing I found myself humming Larry Norman’s “I’m only visiting this Planet.”

Last week I finished John Witte, Jr.’s book ‘The Reformation Of Rights; Law, Religion, and Human Rights In Early Modern Calvinism.’ In my estimation Witte crafted his book so that the first half presented Calvinists who emphasized the need for a Calvinistic social order and structure, still admitting the need for freedom and liberties within that order while the last half of the book presented Calvinists who emphasized the need for a Calvinistic social order and structure to allow for expansive freedom and liberties within that Calvinistic social order.

This follows the idea of form and freedom of which Dr. Francis Schaeffer often referenced. Dr. Schaeffer argued that the countries that embraced the Reformation excelled because they found the proper relation between form and freedom. Expansive liberties can only survive among a religiously homogeneous people who can live within a set social order form precisely because they are religiously homogeneous. The danger, over time, of providing increasingly expansive liberties, is that the homogeneity of the people begins to break down thus causing threat to the very social order that generously provides the expansive liberties. To the contrary if any social order does not provide genuine liberties then that social order can only survive by dint of brute force and will constantly be in danger of being overthrown. Witte’s book testifies that the genius of successful Reformed social orders is found in creating a delicate balance between form and freedom.

The issue of expansive liberties applies especially to minority religious groups that exist among a majority expression. Questions arise as to how much freedom can be extended to them without overthrowing the social order. Ancient social orders such as imperialistic Rome solved this problem by allowing all religions as long as all of the religions worshiped Caesar. As such the religious homogeneity that provided the social order glue was Emperor worship with the the other religious expressions being submissive after thoughts to the true religio licita. All other religious expressions had to serve the lawful religion. The refusal of Christians to confess ‘Caesar is Lord,’ confessing instead that ‘Jesus is Lord,’ accounts for why the Christians were arrested for treason and sedition. Imperial Rome understood that Christianity, in attacking the lawful religion of the social order, was attacking the social order that was based on the religious homogeneity of the people.

Witte’s work reminds us that Reformed tradition through thinkers like Calvin, Beza, and Althusius, provided for a distinctly Reformed social order, while later Reformed writers like Milton and other English puritans with unfamiliar names like Overton, Lilburne, and Walwyn emphasized the necessity for expansive liberties.

“For by natural birth, all men are equally alike born to like property, liberty, and freedom, as as we are delivered of God by the hand of nature into this world, everyone with a natural, innate freedom and property (as it were writ in the table of every man’s heart, never to be obliterated) even so we are to live, everyone equally and alike to enjoy his birthright and privilege; even all where God by nature hath made him free.

[E]very man by nature [is also] a King, Priest, and Prophet in his own natural cirucit and compass, whereof no second [person] may partake, but by deputation, commission, and free consent from him whose right and freedom it is.”

The interesting thing to note though is that the men mentioned above were originally pushing for those expansive liberties against a prevailing social order that was not Reformed (King Charles’ High Anglicanism) though Milton continued to push for them in the new Cromwellian order. Further it is interesting to note that almost a century prior the very kind of expansive liberties that the Puritans pushed for during the oppression of King Charles and Arch-Bishop Laud their Calvinist forefathers had rejected in Geneva when they were pushed by the Genevan man of letter Jean Morley. Some might conclude that what was previously considered out of bounds in a Reformed social order a century leader was considered standard Reformed fare when pursued in defiance of an oppressive order that was anti-Reformed. Is this a case where Reformed views had changed or is it case that different circumstances call for different responses?

So great was the emphasis by Milton on rights and liberties that Witte notes that the Puritan era English Parliament would eventually group Milton and the ana-baptist Roger Williams together as radicals who deserved censorship. With this admission Witte calls into question John Milton’s Calvinistic credentials.

In a future post I will seek to highlight and summarize Milton’s appeal for far reaching expansive individual and personal liberties. Some would see in these appeals a template for future liberties that would be granted by future Democratic and Republican governments so coming to fruition in the West.

“A people cannot be debased in a single generation; and the Spaniards under Charles V and Phillip II proved the truth of the remark, that no nation is ever so formidable to its neighbors for a time, as a nation which, after being trained in self government, passes suddenly under a despotic ruler. The energy of democratic institutions survives for a few generations, and to it are super-added the decision and certainty which are the attributes of government when all its powers are directed by a single mind. It is true that this preternatural vigor is short-lived national corruption and debasement gradually follow the loss of the national liberties; but there is an interval before their workings are felt, and in that interval the most ambitious schemes of foreign conquest are often successfully undertaken.”

Edward Shepherd Creasy
Fifteen Decisive Battles Of The Western World — pg. 206

These United States are living at the tail end of Creasy’s interval.