Monthly Archives: March 2016

A Reading List for the Serious Christian

Joel McDurmon of American Vision has put together a great reading list – a list that itself is worth reading carefully.

Not just for the books, but for insight into his thinking on what to include in the list, and what not to include. Very thoughtful!

Advertisements

Rape Culture, Nazis, and the Death Penalty

From Bojidar Marinov

When two years ago a Texas father beat his daughter’s rapist to death, no one in Texas had any doubts as to what the decision of the Grand Jury would be. The law in Texas not only allows but specifically authorizes the use of lethal force to prevent sexual assault. In this, the state gives more power to individuals than it reserves to itself and its courts, because the same law doesn’t prescribe death penalty for rapists when they are brought to court. Now, in my personal opinion, this is a flawed approach: the Biblical Law specifically says that rape is like murder (Deut. 22:26), and therefore the same penalty should apply; the state should execute proven rapists just as it authorizes individuals to execute rapists caught in the act. Either way, under the law in Texas, a rapist should be more afraid of being caught by private citizens than of being taken to court.

If Germany had Texas’ laws, and if Germany had Texas’ men, the Western world wouldn’t be now talking about the barbaric lust of the Muslim men. Rather, the Muslim world would be talking about the terrible wrath of the Western men.

Some of us understand the way things should be.

But, it will be up to Christians to set things up the right way. Fortunately, the atheistic welfare states are on the way out, leaving a gap for something much better to take their place.

But the truth is, as uncivilized and barbaric Muslim men are, they didn’t import the “rape culture.” They only took advantage of it. Because the rape culture has been present in Europe for almost a generation now, and it has been growing, and no one has been protesting against it, and everyone has accepted it for granted. It has been established by the very laws of the European states, by the dominant ideology, not only of the elites, but of the voters as well.

Note that point: “the dominant ideology, not only of the elites, but of the voters as well.”

It will be up to Christians to change this. Fortunately, as the idiotic, willfully corrupt nature of today’s system works its way to it’s nasty end point, more and more men will be willing to listen… and act.

For several decades, the European populations didn’t take rape seriously as a crime; they looked at it lightly, shrugged, and continued voting for more legislative establishment of rape culture.

The most significant establishment of that culture came in 1949 when the Parliament of the newly established West Germany voted to abolish the death penalty. It was done against the will of the majority of the voters at the time, and it was done for purely political reasons: to protect the still unpunished Nazi war criminals against execution. The German population at the time, still devastated by the war – and perhaps conditioned by two generations of monarchical and then Nazi rule to submit to the government – did not protest. Thus, in 1949 the West German parliament declared to the world that in Germany, no crime is considered serious enough to deserve the ultimate earthly punishment. If even the mass murders in the concentration camps didn’t deserve the death penalty, much less an individual rape would deserve it. Prior to the Weimar Republic, the local provinces had their own decentralized legislative solutions to rape, and many of them had capital punishment on the books for many kinds of especially brutal assault, including sexual assaults.

Even before 1949, in 1919, another element of the rape culture was legislated, the full ban on private ownership of guns. The ban was eased just a little under the Weimar Republic in 1928, and then eased significantly by the Nazis in 1938 (after they were secure in their hold on power), but reintroduced in 1945. After 1956, private citizens in Germany were allowed to possess firearms under a heavy licensing regime, but two new elements were added: first, the applicant had to prove “necessity” for owning a firearm, and second, firearms couldn’t be used in self-defense against an attacker. (So self-defense doesn’t even count as “necessity” anymore.) Firearms, of course, are the great equalizer in any conflict between a weaker party and a stronger party; and thus, for almost 100 years Germany has either banned the weaker parties from having access to that equalizer, or have banned them from legally resorting to it when they had it. And since sexual assault is by default a crime of a stronger person against a weaker person, rape was thus made safe for the rapist.

If you don’t care to make life easy for rapists – Muslim or otherwise – let the weak arm themselves.

I hear that an armed and suspicious populace works well in restraining atheistic and contemptuously anti-Christian ruling classes, too.

Psychopaths in Love With Kant

From Jesus Gets Reluctant Acceptance in Science:

Once again, a psychological study reported in Science Daily presumes to portray religion as a figment of our brains. But this time, there were interesting admissions in the story, some shocking. Here’s one: “Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths–not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others.” The point being made is that religion tends to be on the emotional/prosocial side of the brain, while science is on the analytical/logical side. The two oppose one another, psychologists from Case Western Reserve University and Babson College argue; different people suppress one or the other.

Massive bureaucracies and Above-the-Law types adore the analytical side. Helps with the mass theft and mass murder if it’s kept hidden… from secret gulags, concentration camps and mass inflation, to today’s abortion culture and zero-bound banking system.

In contrast, note the enormous fear in the 2016 election, where Our Masters loathe and despise Trump… hardly because of his cultural or moral beliefs (which is little different from any New York City media/political figure), but merely because he’s far too emotional/prosocial for today’s ruling lawyer/banker class.

Clashes between the use of faith vs. scientific evidence to explain the world around us dates back centuries and is perhaps most visible today in the arguments between evolution and creationism.

Uncharacteristically, these psychologists do not try to portray the analytical brain as better than the empathic brain, in spite of their contention that religious people suppress critical thinking and are not as smart. The best brain has a balance of both empathy and analytical thought, they feel.

Friedman said, “Having empathy doesn’t mean you necessarily have anti-scientific beliefs. Instead, our results suggest that if we only emphasize analytic reasoning and scientific beliefs, as the New Atheist movement suggests, then we are compromising our ability to cultivate a different type of thinking, namely social/moral insight.”

Indeed, they point out, many great scientists were (and are) religious. “You can be religious and be a very good scientist,” one said, pointing to the fact that 90% of Nobel laureates professed some religious viewpoint. Not only that, suppressing empathy can have yield very bad science.

Although it is simply a distortion of history to pin all conflict on religion,” [Tony] Jack said. “Non-religious political movements, such as fascism and communism, and quasi-scientific movements, such as eugenics, have also done great harm.”

Nevertheless, the researchers accept the NOMA dichotomy of Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion inhabit separate spheres (non-overlapping magisteria).

Stephen Jones and Carolyn Leicht make the claim on The Conversation that people opposed to evolution are not necessarily ignorant about it. They also deny the NOMA view of Gould.

But another way to look at the subject is to consider why people believe what they do. When we do this, we discover that the supposed conflict between science and religion is nowhere near as clear cut as some might assume.

Historically, “the ‘conflict thesis’ arose in part from the desire to create a separate professional sphere of science, independent of the clerical elites who controlled universities and schools,” they say. That was a political and social trend, not an outcome of scientific progress. These days, poll questions seem geared to create conflict, to “create creationists” by posing science and religion as opposites.

Scientists are quick to slime Christians whenever possible… in the service of Our Only True Lawgiver, the State.

Sensible materialists, who are quick to lick the hand of their paymasters.

Jones and Leicht seek “good debate” over issues of science religion, getting rid of stereotypes.

For example, psychological research has shown that being exposed to stereotypes about Christians being “bad at science” actually causes academically able religious students to underperform. Such findings give good reason to treat this subject with greater care than we do currently.

*Roll eyes*

OF COURSE this underperformance is the intended result! Exactly why have Our Masters – academic, legal, media, and political – pounded away at the ignorant, bigoted Christian stereotype for the last two centuries or so?

I’ll let others cry out, “Master, Master, please show mercy!” I see no reason why any Christian should crawl and beg for those who have always despised them, and always will.

Especially as the Internet permits unsanctioned access to all sorts of interesting information and networks…

Nevertheless, they do not question evolution. The challenge they see is how to help Christians learn to accept it.

I’m unsure what they are worried about. The solid majority of Christians still eagerly send their children to school that carefully teach their children to spit on everything the parents supposedly believe in, after all. “You see, the government schools are free… and we all can trust Our Leaders to respect our beliefs!”

Unless, having gained 95% of control over this society, Our Tolerant Masters insist on the remaining 5%. The problem is, getting that last 5% of reflective obedience is really difficult and expensive…

We’re glad these people are moderating their positions about Christians somewhat, not assuming they are dumb or anti-science, not assuming materialist scientists are faultless, not seeing science and religion as polar opposites. But there are still two glaring flaws in their thinking. One is the failure to recognize the utter dependence of science on faith. Materialistic science is inherently contradictory. What is thought? What is consciousness? What is logic? Science needs these, but materialism cannot account for them. To get by, materialists plagiarize Christian assumptions about reality.

This is no different than Islamic blather about Moses and Abraham and Jesus, while doing the diametrically opposite of what Moses (“One Law for all!”), Abraham (“Salvation comes from internal faith, not external ritual!”) and Jesus (“Before Abraham was, I AM.”) taught.

Steal the clothes to pose as the shepherd, and so fleece the sheep… when you can’t slaughter them.

It’s sad that NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab is even more godless than Johnson Space Center. Bible study groups exist but cannot advertise in the JPL newsletter. They tend to meet secretly, sharing their meetings by word of mouth. Try to share evidence on intelligent design with co-workers, and you could be fired for “pushing religion.” But got a gay group? Oh, JPL will rush to promote your meetings! Woe unto you scientists and materialists, hypocrites.

Establishment Men know who their friends are… and who their enemies are, too.

Still, I will grant that the nature of the Establishment Lie will shift. Instead of pouring contempt on “religious belief” (in practice, only and solely Christian belief), some new gloss will be applied, opening the door to the World of Emotion and Spirit.

So long as all that blather about Love and Tolerance is either 1) put to work to support Establishment goals or 2) is never permitted to affect the real world, some form of hand-waving mysticism may well be encouraged in the Superior Intellectual Circles.

Christians understand why Kant so vigorously stressed the division between the world of the sprit from the world of matter: each has their place, and each shall always be separate. (A.K.A. Telling God to Just Shut Up… because the Voice of Wealthy, Powerful, and Properly Credentialed Men must be heard!)

While Kantian thought not the preferred position for secularist materialists – who prefer the complete non-existence of anything outside of the physical world – it is acceptable option, if pure materialism is no longer sustainable as the core philosophy of society.

Going forward, expect less cool and mechanical ideologies, and more foamy and meaningless cant from the thrones of Our Masters.

Theism Is Healthy (The Right Kind of Theism, Anyways…)

From Creation-Evolution Headlines:

Evolutionists are at a loss to explain why belief in God makes people happy.

Secular scientists typically relegate religion to natural selection, making up stories about how it provided survival value somehow. Live Science, for instance, reproduced an op-ed from The Conversation, “Did angry gods drive humanity’s expansion?” The expected answer to the rhetorical question is, well yes. “Our team of anthropologists and psychologists decided to experimentally investigate how beliefs in gods – specifically those who care about how we treat each other and punish us for immoral behavior – may have contributed to more widespread cooperation.” It goes without saying that “beliefs in gods” are just that—beliefs, according to the worldview of author Benjamin Purzycki, a human evolutionist at the University of British Columbia.

Well, if Purzycki really believes that, maybe he should get right with God so that he can see more cooperation. The fact is, psychologists continue to find that theism is healthy, as long as it is the kind of theism that sees a just God who watches our actions. Watch what Science Daily says about Purcycki’s research. Who wouldn’t want the fruits of a theistic outlook?

I think that Purzycki has a lot more respect for uniformed men from State Security watching you, than some invisible God in the Skies. Like any sensible materialist.

And – since we are ruled by secular materialists – it is only to be expected that they will act on their deep, passionate faith in power, as well as their distain for legal systems outside and above State control and (re)definition….

…as well as their natural, instinctive malice for those who promote legal systems originating from outside the material world: that is the world outside the control of wealthy and politically connected men and the gowned bureaucrats (legal and otherwise) that uphold and enforce their rule.

Well, if Purzycki really believes that, maybe he should get right with God so that he can see more cooperation.

The author wisely does not ask us to hold our breath, waiting for this to happen.

The fact is, psychologists continue to find that theism is healthy, as long as it is the kind of theism that sees a just God who watches our actions. Watch what Science Daily says about Purcycki’s research. Who wouldn’t want the fruits of a theistic outlook?

Certain kinds of beliefs — involving gods who are aware of human interactions and punish for moral transgressions — can indeed contribute to the evolution of human co-operation,” said lead author Benjamin Purzycki, a postdoctoral research fellow at UBC’s Centre for Human Evolution, Cognition and Culture.

If you think you’re being watched, and expect to be divinely punished for being too greedy or thieving, you might be less inclined to engage in anti-social behavior towards a wider range of people who share those beliefs.”

How very nice for Purzyuki to pat Christians on the head like that.

Notice the criteria there; not just any god will do. It needs to be one who dislikes greed and theft. There are “gods” who reward that kind of unrighteousness. That won’t do. The deity must not only be omniscient, but good. He must care about how we treat one another.

Results show that believers in all-knowing gods who punish for wrongdoing are more likely to behave fairly towards anonymous, distant “co-religionists” — those who share beliefs about gods and rituals, but may not belong to the same religious organization.

Now we see that fairness is another moral quality that the deity must reward. And fairness must extend to those of other groups. The Parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind.

When people act this way, the study suggests, they are engaging in behaviour that can support key features of modern-day societies — such as large, co-operative institutions, trade, markets and partnerships.

Religious beliefs may have been one of the major contributing factors in the development and stability of highly complex social organizations, such as states,” said Purzycki.

Well, there is also the need for wealthy and powerful people to take what does not belong to them, and control what is not rightfully theirs, in the name of <pretext>. But that’s what the State is for, as any sensible collectivist knows…

Results show that believers in all-knowing gods who punish for wrongdoing are more likely to behave fairly towards anonymous, distant “co-religionists” — those who share beliefs about gods and rituals, but may not belong to the same religious organization.

Atheists naturally prefer an all-knowing State do this function.

Now we see that fairness is another moral quality that the deity must reward. And fairness must extend to those of other groups. The Parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind.

Well, this is not a truly necessary function of said all-knowing gods. Take a rigorous reading of Islam, for example, which explicitly demands the subjection &  humiliation of Infidel dogs – when they are not simply to be exterminated.

Hmm. Replace that term “Infidel” with “racially impure” or “enemy class”, and you can get some solidly atheistic ideologies going.

I wonder where the family resemblance comes from…

When people act this way, the study suggests, they are engaging in behaviour that can support key features of modern-day societies — such as large, co-operative institutions, trade, markets and partnerships.

Religious beliefs may have been one of the major contributing factors in the development and stability of highly complex social organizations, such as states,” said Purzycki.

Without doubt, Purzycki ascribes this to natural selection. He is, after all, a research fellow on human evolution. But since the fruit is so good – social stability, cooperation, trade, markets, partnerships, and a just society that looks down on theft and greed – why wouldn’t every evolutionist wish to promote theism? That would seem to promote the evolutionary fitness of the community.

The author is being facetious, of course. We all know why: “Nothing above the State, nothing outside the State.”

But wait—there’s more. PhysOrg reports that “Americans who see God as ‘a secure base’ tend to be more committed, satisfied on the job.” Someone like Purzycki might describe this belief as a comforting myth, an opiate for the masses as Karl Marx put it. The point is that it works. Not only do you get a stable, cooperative society with theism; you get job satisfaction, too! What evolutionary anthropologist wouldn’t crave that? There’s a hidden subtext that the converse is also true. Disbelieving in God might produce the opposite results.

What is it that he wants, anyway? The truth?

A betting man might put a reasonable wager that a good materialist like Purzycki believes in no such thing as the truth – or, more correctly, that Truth, like Law, shall be defined and redefined by Our Loving Masters as needed.

But the problem is that Our Loving Masters are sterile, bankrupt, delusional, and on the way out… along with their vicious and malicious (and so, deeply anti-Christian) idol, the State.

Serious Christians should start laying the foundation for a better, decentralized civilization, as defined by God – and not by power-lusting materialist statists.

And the foundation of all worthwhile public social order is to be found in the Bible: especially the laws of Moses, as modified by Jesus Christ. As opposed to the intensely corrupt and self-serving desires of wealthy and politically connected men.

“If ye love me, keep my commandments.”

The Religious Beliefs of an Atheist

From Lawrence Krauss: The Universe is Inhospitable

Lawrence Krauss just finished his opening statement in the “What’s Behind It All? God, Science,and the Universe,” and he once demonstrated what drives evolutionary thought. His arguments from dysteleology said it all. The universe, the physicist from Arizona State University explained, is inhospitable. It is not user-friendly, and in most places, would kill you instantly. And we all know that a Creator would never do such a thing.

Evolutionists have no idea how the world could have spontaneously arisen. They have no idea because the science flatly contradicts evolution. But their metaphysics mandates evolution.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

I like that tagline, “Religion drives science, and it matters.”

As of 2016, it’s probably more important than my main point: “Christians must rule themselves… or be ruled by those who despise them.” But I think that my day is coming, step by step.

Both statements pour contempt on the supposed Objective Neutrality of our overlords, and rightfully so.

Small Victories

Small Victories, Before Great Victories

North, Leadership and Discipleship, Part 7: Wilderness Training For Victory

Small victories are like a dinner salad. They do not constitute the main course. After small victories come larger victories: the main course. Dessert comes late in the meal: the Presidency and other high offices that symbolize cultural conquest. Without the undergirding reality of comprehensive cultural conquest, winning high political prizes is irrelevant except to fill large egos with irrelevant political recognition. It is time for Christian activists to learn to finish their salad, their roast beef, and their broccoli. “Clean your plates, and then you’ll get ice cream and cake.”

In this electoral season, we have seen all sorts of supposed Noble Christian Men reach for the highest political position, without any interest in doing the spadework needed to actually make such an election a meaningful event.

I believe that – with the coming bankruptcy of the American State, and it’s fall as an idol of political salvation – actual, believing Christians will actually gain such positions.

The Rise of Christendom… and the Fall of Empire

Ironically, by the very nature of Christian government – a decentralized number of competing sovereignties, with only God Himself being the final authority over all – by the time an actual Christian is leading an actual Christian America, the raw power and authority of the Presidency will be drastically diminished.

The presidential office is likely to be as forgettable and powerless as the Swiss President, with the two-year terms and drastically independently-minded cantons.

Or – even more likely – the current Constitution will be just another ignored sheet of paper… but not merely ignored when convenient by the President, Congress and the Courts (as it is today) but by absolutely everyone, from the county governments to the corporations to the police to the local Good Ole Boys.

In such an environment, the Presidency is merely a ceremonial position, much like the British monarchy or the Secretary of the United Nations. I find this to be the most likely outcome: after all, many monarchies and institutions endured long after their actual power and authority became mere shadows of themselves.

In summary? By the time actual Christians dominate the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Congress, it is very likely that (say) the Mayor of New York City will have more real power than the senior figures of the United States of America, combined.

And that’s just as well. God has a deep dislike of power-seekers, and has a multitude of ways to cut them down to size. This loathing definitely includes Christian power-seekers.

Conclusion

There can be only one sovereign Most High God after all, and neither the Presidency nor the American government makes the cut.

Also… actual, definitive victory may look a lot different than you think it does.

Leaders Require Followers – The Right Kind

From North’s Leadership and Discipleship, Part 10: Leaders Require Followers

Representation

It was not simply that God promised to impose negative sanctions in history against those who refused to obey Elijah. God also pointed out that there were 7,000 people remaining in the land who had not bowed the knee to Baal, 7,000 pairs of lips that had not kissed him (l Ki. 19:18). That meant that Elijah had followers. They were not visible to him. Even as a prophet, he had not known that they were there. But God had reserved unto Himself 7,000 covenant-keepers who had not been so intimidated by the prevailing culture that they would break their covenant through a public act of covenant renewal with a false god.

They were Elijah’s followers, yet he did not know they were there. How could they be followers if their leader was unaware of their existence? Because of the representative aspect of the covenant: point two. What Elijah did in public they would honor in private. When he challenged the false priests, word went out. God’s prophet had publicly defeated the court priests. This confirmed Elijah as the leader of an invisible army of 7,000. They could not hear him directly, but his representative act of defiance became their act of defiance. He confirmed publicly before the nation what they were doing privately: refusing to bend the knee to a false god.

The biblical doctrine of representation means that a person can be a leader even though he does not have visible followers. What he does in public represents those who share his faith and his vision. Tyrants understand this, which is why they seek to break the resistance of known enemy leaders. They impose threats, torture, and other sanctions in an attempt to break the will of the leader. They understand that if the leader publicly breaks, this will undermine the will to resist among many of his followers. Tyrants may not know who these followers are, but they know that surrender by a leader is a representative act. A portion of his followers will leave the field of battle. They, too, will surrender — not in some public act of contrition, but inwardly. This is what the tyrant seeks.

Christians in leadership positions must be a lot more careful than pagans in similar positions. You will be judged more harshly by men, and – even more important – by God.

This fact is why there are very few Christian leaders of note… and the continual degradation of Christianity since roughly 1660.

But God demands that a Christian society, with Christian views of justice and law (a.k.a. NOT secularistic, statist, Islamic, or any other inferior form of justice) cover the world.

Moreover: it is not to be some kind of centralized universal empire (like the Caliphate the Muslims seek, or the secularist/humanist United Nations, or some Darwinian, genetically-grounded Eugenistic Global Reich/Brave New World), but a multitude of independent Christian nations – with every nation with a population of less than a million, preferably, to preserve liberty – each doing its level best to uphold the will of God in public as well as private.

What God wants and commands, Godly men must provide in devout obedience. Cowardly men of the Church have no interest in this – obviously – which means that brave men of the church must do the work instead.

Screening Disciples

The disciple must be disciplined: first by the mentor or the mentor’s organization; ultimately by inner restraint. Self-discipline is the crucial aspect of discipleship. No organization can afford to police everything under its authority. If it tries, it will meet resistance. Many will depart.

The self-disciplined person is attracted to even more self-disciplined people. The example of near-total dedication becomes a major recruiting factor. The better the example, the better the quality of the disciples. Good men attract good men.

When good men become successful, however, they also attract power-seekers. Power-seekers want a shortcut to power. They want to bypass the long process of subordination. Every successful organization must find ways to screen out such people. The primary biblical screening factors are confession, tithing, and service. The practice of monastic orders of having initiates do the grunt work for a year or more is wise: until a man is willing to do the lowest-prestige tasks, he is not safe to place in a position of great responsibility. He learns to serve from the bottom up. He learns what it is to subordinate himself. Subordination to God is the primary model: confession and tithing. Subordination to the recruiting agency is the secondary model.

As Christendom is reinvorgated and blossoms, it will grow in power on earth as well as in heaven. Earthly-minded power-seekers will start to move in, as well, with lots and lots of pious God-talk.

The less centralized power there is, the less interested collectivist-minded tyrants will be in positions of power. This is an excellent reason for lots and lots of decentralization.

The church offers to every man a marvelous opportunity: membership in an organization that will survive beyond eternity (Rev. 21). Jesus spoke of treasures laid up in heaven for the individual. But building up these personal heavenly treasures has effects in the future. The gospel changes lives. Convert by convert, the adopted family of God extends its influence to the end of time and beyond. The fulfillment of this promise of continuity is unique to the church. God’s word does not return to Him void. This means that it does not return to Him institutionally void. The healing work of the gospel transforms culture.

This healing is something we most definitely need – and something the welfare state is completely uninterested in.

(As it will be utterly bankrupted in a few decades, that’s just as well.)

Eschatology

Succession or continuity is a desire in the heart of every man. The dominion impulse relies on it. Men want to believe that the good that they do in history will extend beyond their death. But modern Christianity denies such a hope to covenant-keepers. Worse; it affirms such a hope for covenant-breakers. Both premillennialism and amillennialism teach that with respect to anything beyond the narrow confines of the institutional church, good will be overcome by evil. Compound growth is said to apply to evil, not to good. “Leaven in the Bible always refers to evil,” we are assured, and leaven symbolizes growth. Both of these eschatologies affirm what Shakespeare had Mark Antony say at Caesar’s funeral: “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.” This is the heart of pessimillennial social theory.

[…]

Every good work by every Christian in history must culminate a huge loss: an inheritance stolen by evil-doers. Pessimillennialism re-writes Proverbs 13:33b: the wealth of the just is laid up for the sinner.

[…]

It is postmillennialism alone that insists that the good works of covenant-keepers can and will compound in history, overcoming the compound growth of covenant-breakers. Succession is therefore not a threat to the church but a long-term benefit. Hanko was correct almost a generation ago: “In the first place, many who strongly advocate Christian social involvement almost always fall into the error of post-millennialism. That is the error of teaching that the Kingdom of Jesus Christ is realized here in this present world by a slow but steady process of social, economic and political evolution” (Christian’s Social Calling, pp. 1-2). He used the humanist’s beloved word evolution in order to tar and feather postmillennialism. Had he substituted the Christian term reformation, he would have called attention to the psychologically unpleasant reality of amillennialism: it denies the eschatological possibility of successful Christian reformation – in state, or society.

It takes destructive men within the church to truly hold back her power…

…but for only a time. God’s will shall not be defied forever, or even all that long.

Reformation

The ideal of Christendom rests on the doctrine of the ascension. Jesus not only rose from the dead; He ascended to the right hand of God in heaven. He rules over the universe. All power in heaven and earth has been transferred to Him (Matt. 25:18-20). Through his ascension His church can have faith in succession – not a succession of defeat but succession of reformation.

The Protestant Reformation cut short Northern Europe’s decline into Renaissance paganism and debauchery. Then it was overcome by several powerful forces: Protestant scholasticism (Aristotelian rationalism) within the camp, Enlightenment rationalism inside and outside the camp, Erastian politics (the king’s religion rules the realm), political pluralism (no covenantal oath to God to maintain citizenship), and in our era, Darwinism. But the Reformation did save Europe from self-destruction.

Those who view Luther and Calvin as merely ecclesiastical reformers miss the larger story: they were cultural reformers who transformed Northern Europe. We cannot understand German culture apart from the unifying power of Luther’s translation of the Bible and his hymns. We cannot correctly understand the origins of capitalism without understanding Calvin’s theology of self-government and self-discipline. We cannot understand modern democratic politics apart from Book IV, Chapter 20 of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, which sets forth the doctrine of the right of political revolution when led by lesser magistrates.

The heirs of the Protestant Reformation, when they know anything about this formative era, fall to understand the magnitude of what the Reformers accomplished. Worse; they resent the implication that every generation of Christians is called by God to extend that comprehensive Reformation. This thought reminds them of the huge responsibility that belongs to the church in every era. Protestants and Lutherans have preferred to circumscribe the Reformation’s accomplishments because they have preferred to circumscribe their personal responsibility as transformers of culture. God has granted them their desire, sending leanness into their souls.

A generation is rising within this rotting and aging secularist culture… a generation that will find the promises of pleasure and ease distinctly unsatisfying.

Especially as the welfare state collapses around them… and there is no family to fall back on.

As the Messianic State fails in its claim as universal healer – or even in its ability to restrain crime – a different Messiah will be sought.

Conclusion

Leaders require followers. To attract reliable followers, leaders must be able to promise benefits to those who will commit their lives to the extension of Christendom. Then they must follow with the proof. The best proof is long-term personal success in the face of a culture that rejects what we believe. The second-best proof is a string of disciples who have gone and done likewise. Men commit to stories. God gave us stories of commitment in the Bible. These stories are still relevant today.

Followers must not be regaled with stories of easy successes. They must understand the words of Francis Parkman, author of The Oregon Trail: “He who would do some great things in this short life must apply himself to work with such a concentration of force as, to idle spectators who live only to amuse themselves, looks like insanity.” Understanding, they must then commit. And then they must follow through on their commitment. Putting their hand to the plow, they must not turn back. This is the example the remnant requires: leaders who follow through.

Winners must actually commit, and pay the price to complete the race.