Martin & McAtee On The Death Of The West

“Beginning and ending with man, there is pessimism. Why? Because man is fallen. He is in rebellion against God, refusing to bow to God and purporting to even be God. Thus, beginning and ending with man, there can only be a compounding of evil, and matters can only wax ever worse…. The bad new, however, gets worse. As a consequence of having abandoned the supernatural and, if only inadvertently, absolutizing this age, what we will witness is death on a whole sale basis as a way of so called, “life.” That is what we have witnessed during the past century. We are so immunized against death that we have come to accept it without comment though millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of people have been put to death in the name of applied social science.

That leads us, ultimately, to pessimism and despair. Ah, but the Biblical Christian is highly and eternally optimistic, in the best sense of that term. Why? Because the Biblical Christian has good news.”

Dr. Glenn R. Martin
Professor of History / Political Science
Prevailing Worldviews

Observations

1.) The failures of the 20th -21st centuries are theological failures. The deaths of the million Christian Armenians at the hand of the Muslim Turks, the death of hundreds of millions of Christians by the Communist Russians, the deaths of millions of Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies by the National Socialist Germans, the deaths of hundreds of millions of Chinese under Communist Mao, the almost complete destruction of the Khmer people by the Communist in Cambodia, the untold slaughter of Cubans by Castro Communism, and the tens of millions of deaths at the hands of American Humanists in abortuaries throughout this country have all been torture, murder and death pursued because of faulty theology.

Bad theology kills people.

2.) Sound theology requires our first and last consideration to be the God of the Bible. Should we ever start with man as our first consideration then man becomes our ultimate principle and eventually man, over the course of time, will become absolutized, and so will begin to put other men to death in the name of applied social science and with the best of intentions. If you want to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs.

3.) Scripture says, speaking of Wisdom (and the Lord Christ is Wisdom incarnate), “All those who hate me love death.” As Dr. Martin notes, the West has embraced death as seen in,

a.) Our dwindling birthrates — to the point we no longer are at replacement levels
b.) Our habits of abortion and euthanasia,
c.) Our immigration rates, which are working to replace us as a definitive people

Now as if this were not bad enough, the West is doing this dance with death, and as Martin notes, is calling it the very essence of life.

Isaiah 5:20 — “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”

When we strike out at God (and that is what the West has been doing since the French Philosophes) the result is that we kill ourselves.

4.) The “absolutizing of this age” that Martin speaks of is key. What has happened is that this age is being driven by worldview assumptions that are not Biblical. Yet, what the Church has done, by absolutizing this age, is that it has reintepreted Biblical Christianity through the grid of this present age with the result that the tenets of Cultural Marxism (the Theology informing this age) are now identified as the tenets of Biblical Christianity. That is how “absolutizing this age” happens. The result of this is that now Christian ministers, usually quite unaware of what they are doing, are committed to “helping” their people fit into this present absolutized age when what they should be doing is aiding their people in seeing that this present absolutized age stands in defiance to and rebellion against the God of the Bible and His Biblical Christianity.

5.) Martin’s beef against “applied social science,” refers to how the West has been conquered by various strands of the humanist Social Sciences like “neo-orthodox theology,” “Boasian Cultural Anthropology,” “Marxist Economics,” “Freudian – Rogerian – Skinnerian, etc. Psychology,” “Spencerian – Durkheimian – Webberian, etc.” Sociology, the “Legal Positivism” of men like Christopher Columbus Langdell and Oliver Wendell Holmes, the “Educational Theory” of men like Dewey, Rugg, and others, The theories of Kinsey on human sexuality, and The Logical Positivism of the Vienna circle passing as Philosophy. More of the applied social sciences could be listed but you get the gist.

Martin’s problem with the applied social sciences, as exampled above, was that they all were products of differing humanist theologies that were at war with Biblical Christian theology. Martin understood that the humanist applied social sciences were killing us as a people precisely because the applied social sciences, though passing themselves as being the very definition of enlightenment, were in fact, but the dust of death. Martin understood and taught that these social sciences desperately needed reinterpreted through a Biblical grid and his reward for his brilliance was often the back of the hand from his colleagues.

6.) We should on the optimistic note that Martin ended on. The Biblical Christian can remain optimistic because he knows that God is Sovereign and he has good news for those who desire to be delivered from the humanist applied social science house of death. The Biblical Christian, armed with God’s truth, can stand against the humanist social sciences that are killing us, as a people, and can say “this is the way of the abundant life, walk ye in it.” The Biblical Christian, armed with God’s truth, can say to those weary of the culture of death as built by the practitioners of the applied social sciences, “Taste and see that the Lord is good.”

J. Gresham Machen On The Need For Christian Artists, Christian Musicians, Christian Novelists, etc.

“For Christians to influence the world with the truth of God’s Word requires the recovery of the great Reformation doctrine of vocation. Christians are called to God’s service not only in church professions but also in every secular calling. The task of restoring truth to the culture depends largely on our laypeople. To bring back truth, on a practical level, the church must encourage Christians to be not merely consumers of culture but makers of culture. The church needs to cultivate Christian artists, musicians, novelists, filmmakers, journalists, attorneys, teachers, scientists, business executives, and the like, teaching its laypeople the sense in which every secular vocation-including, above all, the callings of husband, wife, and parent–is a sphere of Christian ministry, a way of serving God and neighbor that is grounded in God’s truth. Christian laypeople must be encouraged to be leaders in their fields, rather than eager-to-please followers, working from the assumptions of their biblical worldview, not the vapid clichés of pop culture.”

― J. Gresham Machen
Christianity & Liberalism

J. Gresham Machen On Christianity & Cultural Transformation

“The “other-worldliness” of Christianity involves no withdrawal from the battle of this world; our Lord Himself, with His stupendous mission, lived in the midst of life’s throng and press. Plainly, then, the Christian man may not simplify his problem by withdrawing from the business of the world, but must learn to apply the principles of Jesus even to the complex problems of modern industrial life…. At this point Christian teaching is in full accord with the modern liberal Church; the evangelical Christian is not true to his profession if he leaves his Christianity behind him on Monday morning. On the contrary, the whole of life, including business and all of social relations, must be made obedient to the law of love. The Christian man certainly should display no lack of interest in “applied Christianity.”

Only—and here emerges the enormous difference of opinion—the Christian man believes that there can be no applied Christianity unless there be “a Christianity to apply.”

That is where the Christian man differs from the modern liberal. The liberal believes that applied Christianity is all there is of Christianity, Christianity being merely a way of life; the Christian man believes that applied Christianity is the result of an initial act of God. Thus there is an enormous difference between the modern liberal and the Christian man with reference to human institutions like the community and the state, and with reference to human efforts at applying the Golden Rule in industrial relationships. The modern liberal is optimistic with reference to these institutions; the Christian man is pessimistic unless the institutions be manned by Christian men. The modern liberal believes that human nature as at present constituted can be molded by the principles of Jesus; the Christian man believes that evil can only be held in check and not destroyed by human institutions, and that there must be a transformation of the human materials before any new building can be produced. This difference is not a mere difference in theory, but makes itself felt everywhere in the practical realm….

Thus Christianity differs from liberalism in the way in which the transformation of society is conceived. But according to Christian belief, as well as according to liberalism, there is really to be a transformation of society; it is not true that the Christian evangelist is interested in the salvation of individuals without being interested in the salvation of the race.

Machen
Christianity and Liberalism

Further Observations On RJR & Libertarianism

I don’t have a problem with RJR quoting the Libertarians or even with him making common cause with them as co-belligerents on certain issues. I acknowledge that RJR often was in bed with the Libertarians. I will even say that I can see RJR supporting a Ron Paul candidacy for President. (Does anyone know if RJR said anything regarding the Paul Libertarian Presidential Candidacy in 1988?)

However, what I object to, as coming from American Vision, is that they want to thump that Libertarian side of RJR completely and then turn around and disavow all the Kinist quotes from RJR as if that side of RJR never existed. The Kinist side of RJR is the balance and tension that is needed for all his Libertarian statements. It is true that RJR was a Libertarian as that concept finds meaning in the context of God’s Law word, but it is equally true that RJR was a Kinist as that concept finds meaning in the context of God’s law word. The fact that RJR would have embraced both Libertarian strains and Kinist strains fits perfectly with his understanding of, “The One and The Many,” and the fact that organizations invoking the name of RJR finds problems with either of these necessary strains is telling. Is it possible to be loyal to RJR and recognize his Libertarian strains while denouncing those who also recognize his Kinist strains or would such lopsidedness communicate that such a organization is leaning to far in a non God’s law word conditioned Libertarianism?

But AV doesn’t want the kinist RJR. They only want the Libertarian RJR. Meanwhile the Daniel Richies, Stephen Hallbrooks, and John Loftons don’t want either the Libertarian nor the Kinist RJR. The Theonomy of those people is highly suspect.

Rush was no Libertarian in the Rothbard or Rand sense of the word but He was smart enough to use them to advance His agenda, which had a libertarian side as that Libertarianism was conditioned by a Christian Theonomic Reconstructionist worldview.

I think what we might be seeing now is the unraveling of the coalition that RJR built. RJR was able to bring together a coalitiion of Libertarians, Kinists, soft covenanters, agrarians, and southern sympathizers but it seems that coalition is becoming undone.

Caleb’s Baptist — Question 2a

Caleb,

The Second question and answer of the first Lord’s day gives us the structural outline of the Catechism. The Catechism is divided according to the three part answer of question #2. Part #1 of the Catechism deals with how great our sins and miseries are. Part #2 of the Catechism (the longest part) deals with how we are delivered from all our sins and miseries. Part #3 of the Catechism deals with our response of gratitude to God for our deliverance. The Catechism is then sub-divided into 52 Lord’s Days. One unit for each week of the year. This structuring was often used in order to teach a congregation one Lord’s Day unit per week thus covering the Catechism in one year.

There is a certain logic to be found in this subdivision. A man will not see the need for salvation until he first sees his sin. Once man sees his sin, salvation is what he will pine for and once he begins to comprehend how great a salvation he has been freely given the natural response is to show gratitude to the one who has done all the saving.

Keep in mind that the Catechism was intended to be a kind of basic Christianity. It was hoped that all God’s people would be familiar with the basic truths brought out in the Catechism. Many people want to jump to graduate school Christianity without getting the basics down that are found in the Catechism. This is a dangerous road to take, if only because the basics are instrumental when seeking to understand matters loftier. If we don’t have the basics under our belt loftier matters might possibly throw us for a loop.

The second question asks,

How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily?

First note how practical the Catechism is. It desires for people to live happily. It believes it is giving a way for people to die happily. The truths in the catechism are expected to have an impact in the way that we think, the way that we live, and the way that we die.

Second, not the premise of the second question. The premise is that Christianity is primarily the life of the mind. Question #2 asks, how many things are necessary for thee to know. With this question the Catechism tells us that unless we rationally understand certain truths we will not be able to enjoy the comfort that Christianity affords. Christianity is a life long pursuit of thinking God’s thoughts after Him. This is not a insignificant point as many versions of Christianity today denigrate the life of the mind in favor of emotion, or encounter or experience. Now, it may be the case that Christianity should well include emotion, encounter, and experience but these are the consequence of knowing God, not the basis of knowing God. I harp on this because much if not most of Christianity is based on the search for a meaningful experience with God, or a encounter with God, or some emotional high from God. The Catechism is not primarily concerned with these matters. The Catechism, following Scripture is concerned with you knowing God, and your undoubted Catholic Christian faith.

Jeremiah 9:23 Thus says the LORD, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; 24 but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,” declares the LORD.

John 17:3 (Jesus speaking) This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

The shift from the insistence on “Knowing God,” to a insistence on “Experiencing God” can be seen in the Christian publishing world. In 1973 a book was published entitled “Knowing God.” It was considered a instant classic. Another book title from that era that was also was quite good was “Knowledge of the Holy.” However another publishing wave hit in 1990 and a book entitled, “Experiencing God,” became all the rage. The two titles of those two books tell a loud story about how the Church and Christians think about God. You should also know that theology of encounter with God is also a big emphasis in certain quarters. I tell you these things so that you might understand different flavors of Christianity as you come across them. Biblical Christianity wants you to know God. Now certainly proper emotions will follow (the emotion of misery when sin is known, the emotion of relief upon knowing that we’ve bee rescued, the emotion of gratitude as a knowing response to our rescue, the emotion of joy knowing that we are safe in Christ, the emotion of love in knowing that God loves us, etc.) but emotions, experience, or encounter are only the residue of knowing God and your undoubted Catholic Christian faith.

Tomorrow we will look at the answer to question #2.