Category: Windows Into Worldviews

One effect of worldviews is that they shape everything from A – Z. Some of matters they shape are quite obvious. Other matters they shape are not quite so obvious.

One example of the “not quite so obvious,” is seen in how the naming of Battle sites was affected by Worldview clash between North and South in the “War Against the Constitution.” In that war, it is a more obvious worldview matter to see the vast differences between the two Battle Hymns. The Southern Battle Hymn (Dixie) spoke volumes about the Southern love of place and family, whereas the Northern Battle hymn was clearly ideological. However, even the name of the Battle sites reveal worldview realities.

As most people know the Battlefield sites were named differently by each opposing side in the contest. Most of the names that have stuck 150 years later are the names of the Battle as given by the Victors of the war. Even in minutia such as Battle site naming, it is the Victor who gets to write the history. It is important to realize though, that the different names for the Battle sites give insight into the respective worldviews of the contestants. The worldview that fired the Northern cause was some variant of Transcendentalism – Romanticism. In that worldview nature plays a central role in the understanding of reality. As such we should not be surprised to find the Northern naming of the Battlefields corresponding to some aspect of nature that identified the spot where the Battle took place. Northerners gave their Battle sites names like “Bull Run” (the name of a small stream in the area), “Ball’s Bluff, “Pittsburg Landing,” “Stone River,” “Chickahominy” (another little liver), “Pea Ridge,” and “Antietam” (a tributary of the Potomac). The Southerners on the other hand, following their agrarian worldview that prioritized a sense of place named those same Battles after places associated with the area. For the South, Bull Run was Manassas which was a railroad train Station nearby. “Ball’s Bluff” to the Yankees was “Leesburg” for the Confederates. Grant’s “Pittsburg Landing,” was Albert Sidney Johnston’s “Shiloh,” (named after a Church in the area). Rosecrans had his “Stone River,” while for Bragg and his men it was “Murfreesboro.” McCellan locked horns with Lee and named the battle “Chickahominy” (a little river), but for Lee that same battle was named after an area tavern, “Cold Harbor,” or alternately “Gaines Mill.” The Federals speak of the battle of Pea Ridge, of the Ozark range of mountains, but the Confederates call it after Elk Horn, a country inn. Antietam for the North was named after the area village “Sharpsburg” for the South. The North gave us “The Battle of Malvern’s Hill,” while the South named it “the Battle of Poindexter’s Farm.”

Confederate General D. H. Hill, after the war, suggested that the difference in the names reflected that the North named the Battles after the “handiwork of God”; while the South named the Battles after the “handiwork of man.” But I think this is a case where Hill’s worldview (Christian) is causing him to read the Yankee mindset through his grid. Given that the Yankee Armies were fired by the nature exalting worldview of Transcendentalism – Romanticism, it is only natural that their people, following their journalists, would name the places of Battle after nature. In the same way, the bards and poets of the South who wrote on the Battles, because of their Agrarian and Christian Worldview, named those Battles consistent with the Christian and Agrarian idea and sense of place. For the Northern elite nature defined reality. For the Southern Wise-men, reality was identified by its relation to a sense of place.

All of this is then seen to be consistent with the Battle Hymns of each of the contestants. “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” is ideological and is consistent with other aspects of Romanticism – Transcendentalism (see – https://ironink.org/2012/04/transcendentalism-the-battle-hymn-of-the-republic/). Likewise the naming of the Battlefields after nature reveals the nature worshiping character of Romanticism – Transcendentalism. In the same way the Southern Battle Hymn “Dixie” zeroes in on the idea of place which is then followed by the South naming their Battlefields in conjunction with “place.” And of course the idea of “place” is central in Christian thinking.

Worldviews get into everything. Even something as seemingly benign as the name of Battlefields.

“For the very reason that the basic driving force of socialist ideology is subconscious and emotional, reason and rational discussion of the facts have always played only a subordinate role in it. the socialist doctrines are reconciled with contradictions with an ease reminiscent of ‘prelogical’ primitive thinking, which functions outside any framework of consistency, as described by Levy-Bruhl. They are equally unconcerned with the fact that socialist conclusions are radically at odds with experience. Most astonishing of all is that these contradictions do not diminish the impact of the doctrine in the least.

Marxism reflects all these traits to a remarkable degree. Well known thinkers have pointed out numerous fundamental
contradictions, each of which would have been sufficient to demonstrate the groundlessness of a theory that lays claim to be scientific. For example, Berdiaev demonstrated that the concept of dialectical materialism is contradictory, since it attributes to matter a logical category — dialectics. Stammler showed that the idea of of historical determinism postulated by Marxism contradicts its own appeal to influence history, since it is equivalent to taking a conscious decision to turn with the earth around the sun. (Sergius Bulgakov paraphrased this as follows: ‘Marxism predicts the onset of socialism just as astronomy predicts the beginning of the lunar eclipse, and to bring about the eclipse it organizes a political party.’) The very heart of Marxist doctrine — the labor theory of value — was demolished by the work of the Austrian school (in particular by Bohm-Bawerk) and has been abandoned by political economy. Yet even without this heart, Marxism proved to be capable of survival.”

Igor Shafarevich
Socialist Phenomenon

So, in Marxism we have a philosophy that has been shown to be inherently contradictory in several of its key claims ( Dialectical Materialism, Labor theory of value) and just flat out wrong about several of its observations (Historical determinism, Capitalism always precedes and yields Socialism). Second, we see that Marxism is a theory wherein the theory is reversed engineered only after the desired conclusions are embraced. Further, we have the clear death delivering record of Marxism in the works of men like Robert Conquest, R. J. Rummel, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn and yet despite all this the death loving, self-destructing, man enslaving, Satan glorifying, doctrine of Marxism lives on and is even at this moment being pursued in this country.

What else can this drive to death be characterized as, except as the social order of Hell as inspired by Lucifer himself?

And yet despite this clear testimony that Marxism is anti-Christ to its core we have a whole school of thought (R2K) that has arisen and is telling the Church that the Church has no authority to speak to anti-Christ Marxist social theory from the Pulpit.

Introduction

The great 20th Century Reformed Theologian B. B. Warfield, in speaking about the differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism could say,

Lutheranism, the product of a poignant sense of sin, born from the throes of a guilt-burdened soul which can not be stilled until it finds peace in God’s decree of justification, is apt to rest in this peace; while Calvinism, the product of an overwhelming vision of God, born from the reflection in the heart of man of the majesty of a God who will not give His glory to another, can not pause until it places the scheme of salvation itself in relation to a complete world-view, in which it becomes subsidiary to the glory of the Lord God Almighty. Calvinism asks with Lutheranism, indeed, that most poignant of all questions, What shall I do to be saved? and answers it as Lutheranism answers it. But the great question which presses upon it is, How shall God be glorified? — B. B. Warfield

Recently, Reformed Pastor and Theologian Robert Letham could echo Warfield’s words from about 100 years ago,

… for Reformed theology, everything took place to advance the glory of God. Thus the chief purpose of theology and of the whole of life was not the rescue of humanity but the glory of God. The focus was theocentric rather than soteriological….

Following from this was an attempt by Reformed theology to grasp the unity of creation and redemption. The whole of life was seen in the embrace of God’s revelatory purpose. With the covenant at its heart, the whole of life was to display God’s glory. Naturally, that included at its heart the restoration of sinners to fellowship w/ God. It also entailed, however the reconstitution of both civil and ecclesiastical affairs.

Robert Letham
The Work of Christ — pg. 189-190

Both of these quotes give some context for why the great Dutch Theologian Abraham Kuyper could say,

“Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!'”

We open with this background in order to set the table for the observation that run of the mill vanilla Calvinism, in its preaching and teaching, has always been concerned with applying Biblical Christianity to all of life, precisely because, as Warfield stated, Calvinism has always been concerned with putting salvation in the context of a complete worldview, and as Letham noted Calvinism has always advanced the reconstitution of both civil and ecclesiastical affairs so they display God’s glory. Calvinism doesn’t dismiss the work of God declaring sinners right but historic Calvinism sees that only as the beginning work of God’s larger work of shaping the world to reflect His Glory — a glory which can never be increased.

So, on this Lord’s Day before the commemoration of our Nation’s Birthday we want to pause to consider the truths set forth in the Scripture readings this morning.

By the blessing of the upright a city is exalted,
but by the mouth of the wicked it is overthrown. Prov. 11:11

Righteousness exalts a nation,
but sin is a reproach to any people. Prov. 14:34

It is an abomination to kings to do evil,
for the throne is established by righteousness. Prov. 16:12

For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof;
but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged Prov. 28:2

All of these Proverbs indicate that God has a word to speak about the ordering of Civil affairs. In all these passages there is a connection established between righteousness and the health of the commonwealth. Naturally, the inspired writer of the Proverbs understood that the Righteousness that was so instrumental to the health of the commonwealth could only be defined by assuming God’s law word as the Standard. Similarly, wickedness, sin, abomination and transgression as matters that contribute to the disintegration of the commonwealth could all only be defined as against the Standard of God’s law word. In these Proverbs God is teaching us that the health or the illness of a commonwealth is in direct relation to their esteeming or disregarding of God’s standard.

That this Nation was established with that understanding, to some degree, some of our Founding Fathers understood. Benjamin Franklin, who was hardly a Christian in any orthodox sense could still say,

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.

Franklin had earlier suggested during the Constitutional Convention,

“In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: …

I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service-“

Patrick Henry could say,

“Righteousness alone can exalt America as a nation. Whoever thou art, remember this; and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others.”

First Chief Justice John Jay could say,

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Presbyterian Minister and signer of the Declaration of Independence John Witherspoon could write,

[H]e is the best friend to American liberty who is the most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.

I really could go on all morning citing references like this. I only wanted to give you a Whitman’s sampler of quotes that indicated that though all our Founders were not personally Christians, there was a Christian ethos and worldview that informed many many of the Founders.

Though according to some Civil leadership today … “we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values,” it was the case at one time that we freely spoke of ourselves as a Christian nation.

And this Christianity that at one time informed the American Commonwealth was the kind of Christianity that you and we embrace. It was distinctly Calvinist.

George Bancroft — Historian
History of the United States of America — Vol. 1 — pg. 464

“The fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for liberty; and, in the moral warfare for freedom, his creed was his most faithful counselor and his never failing support. The Puritans … planted … the undying principles of democratic liberty.”

“He that will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty”

James H. Huston
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic — p. 42

“On the eve of the Revolution, John Adams asserted that the pulpits of heavily Presbyterian Philadelphia thundered and lightninged every Sunday against the foreign tyranny, while Jefferson described a Virginia in which ‘pulpit oratory ran like a shock of electricity through the whole colony.”

World reknowned German Historian Leopold Van Ranke could write,

“John Calvin was virtually the founder of America.”

So, in the time remaining I only want to establish a couple of influences on the origin of this nation that were Calvinistic.

I.) A High Regard For God’s Laws

NEW JERSEY SEAL, 1665: “Righteousness exalteth a nation.” – Prov. 14:34

PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNMENT, 1682: ” . . . Make and establish such laws as shall best preserve true Christian and civil liberty, in all opposition to all unchristian . . . practices.”[30]

PENNSYLVANIA’S FIRST LEGISLATIVE ACT, 1682: “Whereas the glory of Almighty God and the good of Mankind, is the reason and end of government, and therefore, government in itself is a venerable Ordinance of God, therefore, it is the purpose of civil government to establish such laws as shall best preserve true Christian and Civil Liberty, in opposition to all Unchristian, Licentious, and unjust practices, (Whereby God may have his due, and Caesar his due, and the people their due), from tyranny and oppression . . . .”[31]

The main distinction of Puritan jurisprudence is its reliance upon the Bible as the source of its laws and principles of adjudication. This is not to say that it did not borrow liberally from the civil and common laws of England. However, even when it borrowed, the imported elements still had to pass Scriptural scrutiny in order to assure they were not contrary to Biblical principles. As heirs of the Protestant Reformation, the Puritans were, in a theological sense, the original proponents of “original intent.” They believed that, since God had spoken authoritatively in Scripture, revealing His will for humanity, Scripture should be the ultimate standard by which all human tradition, knowledge and laws should be judged. Any laws or legal traditions contrary to Scripture were therefore to be repudiated as the products of sinful man and not God. For this reason “[t}hey felt perfectly justified in putting God’s law above all other law.”

Now, this high view of God’s law was not as high by the time we get to the separation from England, but that there remained a high regard for God’s law is seen by the willingness of much of the citizenry to obey God rather than man.

Because of this high regard for God’s laws there was a sense that man’s wicked law was not to be observed when it ran contrary to God’s clearly established law, when it did so, and man was forced to choose between the Magistrate’s law and God’s law the Christian man had no choice.

That this mindset was also Calvinistic in its mindset can be seen by quotes from Christopher Goodman, and John Knox,

‎”When Kings or rulers become blasphemers of God, oppressors and murderers of their subjects, they ought no more to be accounted Kings or lawful magistrates, but as private men to be examined, accused, condemned, and punished by the law of God…. When magistrates cease to do their duty, the people are as it were, without magistrates … If Princes do right and keep promise with you, then do you owe all humble obedience. If not ye are discharged from and your study ought to be in this case how ye may depose and punish according to law such rebels against God and oppressors of their country.”

Christopher Goodman
Puritan / Co-pastor with John Knox in Geneva

How Superior Powers ought to be obeyed of their subjects; and wherein they may lawfully by God’s word be disobeyed and resisted.

“Obedience to God’s Laws by disobeying man’s wicked laws is commendable, but to disobey God for any duty to man is all together damnable.”

John Knox

Later Jefferson, though a Deist himself, could condense that Knoxian mindset into a phrase he originally championed to be put into the seal of these united States,

“Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

On the eve of the separation from England, Presybterians, still echoing, Calvin’s disciples Beza, and Rutherford, were arguing that to confiscate one’s money or property w/o consent was “unjust and contrary to reason and the law of God, and the Gospel of Christ; it is contrary to the Magna Carta … and the Constitution of England; and to complain and even to resist such lawless power is just and reasonable and no rebellion.”

This connection to esteeming God’s law with resistance brings us to our next point,

II.) A Conviction That Government Should Be Limited

This conviction came from the Calvinist conviction, following Scripture that man as a sinner was fallen and therefore any power that man has should always be limited and checked. The idea of limited Government is a idea that grows out of the soil of a proper Christian doctrine of man.

“The heart is deceitfully wicked above all things …”

The earliest American Puritan philosophy, as derived from Calvin’s theology may be summarized,

* Man as a sinner is unable, even with good intellectual abilities, to discover or create perfect structures of the state.

This mindset is seen in James Madison’s quip that, “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.”

And yet Madison could have been channeling Calvin with that statement. Calvin had written 2 centuries prior,

“If we were all like angels, blameless and freely able to exercise perfect self control, we would not need rules or regulations.”

One sees and hears the Calvinistic anthropology bearing influence on Madison.

* Because of this, a source of information was needed: divine revelation from a superior mind

* God, not man, was the ultimate sovereign, and all governments were accountable and subordinate to God

* As an expression of both law and grace, God revealed certain patterns and principles for governments, whether the governmental spheres were family, church, or civil. Calvinists believe Scriptures defined the charters as well as the limitations of civil governments.

* Civil rulers, thus, were to conform to God’s plans for government; they were not autonomous or at liberty to ignore his moral strictures. Their powers were neither absolute nor based solely on popular will.

* Because of human depravity, citizens needed restraint and Utopian solutions were impossible.

For the Calvinist then there is no form of government more fundamentally anti-Christian than a government that recognizes, in principle, no limit to what it can require. For the Calvinist because absolute claims are the prerogative of Deity all subordinate authority must be limited and checked.

Calvinists believed that if the decisions of the English Parliament were allowed to stand, there would be no longer any limiting principle upon Parliament whatever. Our Calvinist forebears who had drank deeply from the political theology of Calvin and his successors understood it was time for the ruling class to discover that there is still a limiting principle outside the Parliament, enforced by those who believe that the only real limiting principle is at the right hand of the Father.

They understood that Jesus is Lord — not Caesar, and not the Supreme Court, Not Congress, and not the President.

Er … I mean not the English Parliament.

Do we any longer understand that. Are we any longer Calvinists?