Ungleichschaltung

During the Civil War, British Presbyterian biblical scholars told their southern American colleagues who supported slavery that they were reading the Scriptural texts through cultural blinders. They wanted to find evidence for their views in the Bible and voila — they found it. If no Christian reading the Bible — across diverse cultures and times — ever previously discovered support for same-sex relationships in the Bible until today, it is hard not to wonder if many now have new cultural spectacles on, having a strong predisposition to find in these texts evidence for the views they already hold.

What are those cultural spectacles? The reason that homosexual relationships make so much more sense to people today than in previous times is because they have absorbed late modern western culture’s narratives about the human life. Our society presses its members to believe “you have to be yourself,” that sexual desires are crucial to personal identity, that any curbing of strong sexual desires leads to psychological damage, and that individuals should be free to live as they alone see fit.

– Tim Keller, The Bible and same sex relationships: A review article

Hunt’s comments are as silly as they are outdated; his Nobel Prize clearly wasn’t awarded for political correctness. But this is precisely the point. Hunt is a scientist; his talents lie in biochemistry, particularly in cells and proteins, and not diplomacy. Due to the public humiliation of this 72-year-old man, British academia has now lost a talented scientist. The members of Hunt’s lab will no longer have access to his experience and knowledge. The work he had been pursuing will presumably now be abandoned….  

Hunt’s resignation reminds us that, in today’s universities, expressing the supposedly correct view on a matter is far more important than any contribution to knowledge an idiosyncratic individual might make. Academics and students alike are kept in line with speech codes, anti-harassment policies and safe-space initiatives. The pressure to conform to an approved way of behaving and speaking impacts on everyone, from students to world-renowned scientists. Everyone – male and female – is intellectually poorer as a result.

Machen‘s “Mountains and Why We Love Them”

I know that there are people who tell us contemptuously that always there are croakers who look always to the past, croakers who think that the good old times are the best. But I for my part refuse to acquiesce in this relativism which refuses to take stock of the times in which we are living. It does seem to me that there can never be any true advance, and above all there can never be any true prayer, unless a man does pause occasionally, as on some mountain vantage ground, to try, at least, to evaluate the age in which he is living. And when I do that, I cannot for the life of me see how any man with even the slightest knowledge of history can help recognizing the fact that we are living in a time of sad decadence—a decadence only thinly disguised by the material achievements of our age, which already are beginning to pall on us like a new toy. When Mussolini makes war deliberately and openly upon democracy and freedom, and is much admired for doing so even in countries like ours; when an ignorant ruffian is dictator of Germany, until recently the most highly educated country in the world—when we contemplate these things I do not see how we can possibly help seeing that something is radically wrong. Just read the latest utterances of our own General Johnson, his cheap and vulgar abuse of a recent appointee of our President, the cheap tirades in which he develops his view that economics are bunk—and then compare that kind of thing with the state papers of a Jefferson or a Washington—and you will inevitably come to the conclusion that we are living in a time when decadence has set in on a gigantic scale.

What will be the end of that European civilization, of which I had a survey from my mountain vantage ground—of that European civilization and its daughter in America? What does the future hold in store? Will Luther prove to have lived in vain? Will all the dreams of liberty issue into some vast industrial machine? Will even nature be reduced to standard, as in our country the sweetness of the woods and hills is being destroyed, as I have seen them destroyed in Maine, by the uniformities and artificialities and officialdom of our national parks? Will the so-called “Child Labor Amendment” and other similar measures be adopted, to the destruction of all the decencies and privacies of the home? Will some dreadful second law of thermodynamics apply in the spiritual as in the material realm? Will all things in church and state be reduced to one dead level, coming at last to an equilibrium in which all liberty and all high aspirations will be gone? Will that be the end of all humanity’s hopes? I can see no escape from that conclusion in the signs of the times; too inexorable seems to me to be the march of events. No, I can see only one alternative. The alternative is that there is a God—a God who in His own good time will bring forward great men again to do His will, great men to resist the tyranny of experts and lead humanity out again into the realms of light and freedom, great men, above all, who will be messengers of His grace. There is, far above any earthly mountain peak of vision, a God high and lifted up who, though He is infinitely exalted, yet cares for His children among men.

– J. Gresham Machen, “Mountains and Why We Love Them”

Anyone know here who “our own General Johnson” is?

triadic:

“This withering-away of traditional sexual morality has been accompanied by a similar withering of community bonds. We are free to be independent of each other’s opinions, partly because we are independent of each other’s help. People don’t need the good will of others in their families and neighborhoods as much as they used to. The people closest to us might be ones we know only on the internet, who are connected to us by bonds no stronger than likes and dislikes, with no practical obligations. That can work fine when you’re young and beautiful, but not so well when you’re older, in pain, or in need. We fragmented into solitary households, and while that can be delightfully free, it can also be painfully lonely—inexorably so, as the years march on.

“Bob Dylan, of all people, put it forcefully in his March 2015 interview in AARP Magazine. He was talking about his new album of classic American love songs, and the interviewer asked if young listeners would find them “corny.” He said, ‘These songs are songs of great virtue. That’s what they are. People’s lives today are filled with vice and the trappings of it. … We don’t see the people that vice destroys. We just see the glamor of it.’ We see the beautiful and enviable young people partying; we don’t see the 50 or 60 or 70-year-old whom no one wants anymore.”

Why I Haven’t Spoken Out – More Thoughts - Writings - Frederica.com

Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 29

He is sold, and very cheap, for it is only for thirty pieces of silver; but he redeems the world, and that at a great price, for the price of his own blood. As a sheep he is led to the slaughter, but he is the shepherd of Israel, and now of the whole world also. As a lamb he is silent, yet he is the Word, and is proclaimed by the voice of one crying in the wilderness. He is bruised and wounded, but he heals every disease and infirmity. He is lifted up and nailed to the tree, but by the tree of life he restores us; yea, he saves even the robber crucified with him; yea, he wrapped the visible world in darkness. He is given vinegar to drink mingled with gall. Who? He who turned the water into wine, who is the destroyer of the bitter taste, who is sweetness and altogether desired. He lays down his life, but he has power to take it again; and the veil is rent, for the mysterious doors of heaven are opened; the rocks are cleft, the dead arise. He dies, but he gives life, and by his death destroys death.

– Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 29 (from “Gregory of Nazianzus on the crucifixion of the God-man” by Scott Swain, Reformation21, April 3, 2015)

From Roth’s intro to Radetzkymarsch

„Ein grausamer Wille der Geschichte hat mein altes Vaterland, die österreichisch-ungarische Monarchie, zertrümmert. Ich habe es geliebt, dieses Vaterland, das mir erlaubte, ein Patriot und ein Weltbürger zugleich zu sein, ein Österreicher und ein Deutscher unter allen österreichischen Völkern. Ich habe die Tugenden und die Vorzüge dieses Vaterlands geliebt, und ich liebe heute, da es verstorben und verloren ist, auch noch seine Fehler und Schwächen. Deren hatte es viele. Es hat sie durch seinen Tod gebüßt. Es ist fast unmittelbar aus der Operettenvorstellung in das schaurige Theater des Weltkriegs gegangen.“

“A cruel will of history has shattered my old fatherland, the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. I loved it, this fatherland, which permitted me to be a patriot and at the same time a citizen of the world, an Austrian and a German among all the Austrian peoples. I loved the virtues and excellences of this fatherland, and today even still, when it dead and lost, I love its flaws and weaknesses. Of these it had many. It has paid for them with its death. It went almost instantly from an operetta performance into the ghastly theater of the World War.”

Joseph Roth, Frankfurter Zeitung April 17, 1932, via Wikipedia. (cfb – my English translation)

God the Direct Efficient Cause of Everything?

For context, see the previous post.

As far as I know, the mainstream of Calvinism has never asserted that God is the direct efficient cause of everything. Some hyper-Calvinists may have asserted this, but I don’t think you’ll find it in any of the major confessional statements or systematic theologies. God is always understood as working both directly (as in the initial creation, or in miracles) and indirectly (through natural law and men’s actions as proximate causes and instruments). God is understood to be the ultimate cause of everything, the first mover, which I believe was also Thomas’s position. God’s working mediately through proximate causes is often called secondary causation.

Calvin

I’m quoting the older Beveridge translation, since it is in the public domain and can easily be searched and copy-n-pasted. Pardon my laziness. I encourage you to consult the McNeill/Battles edition instead if you have it.

In the Beveridge translation, the term sometimes used for second causes is ‘inferior causes’. Calvin doesn’t talk about secondary causation as much as I had hoped; he seems more at pains to refute certain views, in which second causes don’t play much of a role. Nonetheless, he clearly affirms that God works through second causes as well as apart from them.

Institutes 1.17.1 (Use to be Made of the Doctrine of Providence):

And it is to be observed, first, that the Providence of God is to be considered with reference both to the past and the future; and, secondly, that in overruling all things, it works at one time with means, at another without means, and at another against means.

Institutes 1.17.6:

The Christian, then, being most fully persuaded, that all things come to pass by the dispensation of God, and that nothing happens fortuitously, will always direct his eye to him as the principal cause of events, at the same time paying due regard to inferior causes in their own place.

Institutes 1.17.9:

At the same time, the Christian will not overlook inferior causes. For, while he regards those by whom he is benefited as ministers of the divine goodness, he will not, therefore, pass them by, as if their kindness deserved no gratitude, but feeling sincerely obliged to them, will willingly confess the obligation, and endeavour, according to his ability, to return it. In fine, in the blessings which he receives, he will revere and extol God as the principal author, but will also honour men as his ministers, and perceive, as is the truth, that by the will of God he is under obligation to those, by whose hand God has been pleased to show him kindness. … Regarding all the aids which the creatures can lend him, as hands offered him by the Lord, he will avail himself of them as the legitimate instruments of Divine Providence.

Westminster Confession of Faith

The Westminster Confession of Faith is the chief confessional standard for presbyterianism that traces its roots back to roots in the British Isles. Together with the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, it is the confessional standard for the denomination to which I belong (the Presbyterian Church in America).

Chapter V (Of Providence):

I. God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible fore-knowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

II. Although, in relation to the fore-knowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

III. God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against, them, at His pleasure.

Charles Hodge

Charles Hodge was one of the most important American theologians of the 19th century. He is perhaps somewhat out of favor in the American reformed scene these days because his epistemology and apologetic method are at odds with Van Tillian presuppositionalism, which is now the prevailing view. On questions of providence, though, his views are mainstream. His Systematic Theology in many places speaks affirmatively of 'second causes’. It’s clear that he takes the Westminster view of secondary causation for granted. Here are three examples.

Systematic Theology I.I.X.2


§ 2. Mediate and Immediate Creation.

But while it has ever been the doctrine of the Church that God created the universe out of nothing by the word of his power, which creation was instantaneous and immediate, i.e., without the intervention of any second causes; yet it has generally been admitted that this is to be understood only of the original call of matter into existence. Theologians have, therefore, distinguished between a first and second, or immediate and mediate creation. The one was instantaneous, the other gradual; the one precludes the idea of any preëxisting substance, and of cooperation, the other admits and implies both. There is evident ground for this distinction in the Mosaic account of the creation. … There is, therefore, according to the Scriptures, not only an immediate, instantaneous creation ex nihilo by the simple word of God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working in union with second causes.

Systematic Theology I.I.XI.


§ 1. Preservation.

Creation and preservation differ, first, as the former is the calling into existence what before did not exist; and the latter is continuing, or causing to continue what already has a being; and secondly, in creation there is and can be no coöperation, but in preservation there is a concursus of the first, with second causes.

Systematic Theology I.I.XI.


§ 4. Principles involved in the Scriptural Doctrine of Providence.

Conclusion

Such are the general principles involved in this most difficult doctrine of Divine Providence. We should be equally on our guard against the extreme which merges all efficiency in God, and which, in denying all second causes, destroys human liberty and responsibility, and makes God not only the author of sin, but in reality the only Being in the universe; and the opposite extreme which banishes God from the world which He has made, and which, by denying that He governs all his creatures and all their actions, destroys the foundation of all religion, and dries up the fountains of piety.

I would be very curious to see how Dr. Hart would characterize the differences between Augustine’s view of God’s sovereignty and Calvin’s.

D.B. Hart on Calvinism

PEG tweeted a link to excerpts from an interview with D.B. Hart in which Hart seemed to me to seriously misrepresent Calvin and the Calvinian view of God’s sovereignty. The two problematic claims are that (a) Calvin had no regard for church tradition, and (b) Calvin (and Calvinists, presumably) held that God was the direct efficient cause of all things.

I tweeted my immediate responses, but really, Twitter is not the right venue to untangle such questions. PEG was conceded he was not an expert in matters Calvinian and assured me that he was interested in hearing what I had to say on the matters. I offer the following informal prolegomena:

  • I do not propose to demonstrate the correctness of the Calvinistic view of the matters in question (though I think it is correct), but only to show good reason to think that Hart was wrong in his assessment of Calvin and Calvinism on the points mentioned.
  • I read and appreciated PEG’s post at Patheos about Honest Ecumenism. I pray that what I write is in the spirit of his post.
  • I proceed from the hopeful presumption that we are brothers in Christ, and that at the return of our Lord we will greet one another with joy and with a full understanding of the truth. By which I do not mean I’ll emerge as having been right in everything all along.