Newsletter



Friday, April 15, 2016

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN - A RELIGIOUS INTELLECTUAL



BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
A RELIGIOUS INTELLECTUAL
By
Al Cronkrite

Benjamin Franklin, one of our most influential founders, is often thought of as a researcher and inventor.  Much of his long life was consumed in a patient effort to bring peace and order to the colonies in spite of British oppression.

There are copious books and articles about Franklin.  Many emphasize his Deism.  In reading through his autobiography I was struck by his consistent faith and commitment to God.
First, a little about his early life and later his religion:  
 
He was one of seventeen children sired by Josiah Franklin, a tradesman who emigrated from England in 1682. Josiah was a studious worker and managed to earn enough money in the candle business to raise his large family.  He was a religious man and had a small library of theological books. He was also musically gifted; he played the violin, could carry a tune, and had a good singing voice.   Known for being wise and level headed he was often sought after for advice and direction.

From the time of his earliest memories Benjamin liked books, he taught himself to read, and spent any money he earned buying more books.  While still very young he read and was impressed by John Bunyan’s “Pilgrims Progress”.  Later in life he could not remember when he could not read.  His love of books continued into his adult life and he formed several groups of book lovers who met regularly to discuss their reading adventures.  He was interested in poetry and counted several aspiring poets as his friends.

Benjamin’s brother, James, had a printing business in Boston.  He was 12 years old when Josiah Franklin sent him to work for his brother; an Indenture was signed binding him to the job until he reached the age of 21, it provided no salary until the final year.

During the early 1720s James began publishing a newspaper, the “New England Currant”.  It was the second newspaper to be published in America.  The paper was a forum for the opinions of many of James’s friends.  When Benjamin read these articles he thought he could do as well but being yet a boy was reluctant to approach his brother.  Instead he disguised his handwriting, wrote an article, and put it under the door of the printing house.  It was considered acceptable and as a result Benjamin wrote several more, watching and listening as they were published and discussed.

A piece written by one of James’s friends published in the New England Current upset the Assembly.  James was summoned, censured, jailed for a month, and forbidden to continue publishing.  He and his friends convened and decided the best course would be to publish the paper under Benjamin Franklin’s name.  This brought up the question of the indenture which was voided and replaced by a new contract naming Benjamin as the new proprietor.

The new arrangement went on for a time but Benjamin became more and more disgusted with playing second fiddle to his brother who treated him like a servant and occasionally even beat him.

John Collins, one of Benjamin’s book reading buddies, arranged a clandestine passage to New York allowing Benjamin to escape without a trace.  He arrived in New York with limited funds, knowing no one.  However, he had a trade and was able to find a printer where he applied for work.  The printer did not have an opening but directed Benjamin to Philadelphia where he said his son had lost an employee and might hire him.

The trip to Philadelphia was a disaster involving ships that ran aground, a fifty mile walk, and several delays.  When Benjamin finally got to Philadelphia, the printer’s father had already arrived on horseback.  His son had hired a replacement.  They took him to another print shop owned by Mr. Samuel Keimer where he found employment.  He was 17 years old.

Benjamin Franklin was special and his father wanted him to be educated as a clergyman.  However funds were limited and it was impossible to pay for his schooling.  Sending him to work in his brother’s print shop was his father’s way of promoting his love of reading. 

In Philadelphia, a letter being carried by his brother-in-law, Robert Holmes, a ship Captain, was shown to the Governor, Sir William Keith, who was so impressed with the letter written by a man so young that he visited Benjamin at his job, took him out for lunch, promised to help him set up his own printing business and wrote a letter of recommendation to his father urging him to help his son financially. 

Later, while in New York on the way back to Pennsylvania, the Governor of New York, William Burnet heard from the Captain of the ship that one of his passengers was shipping a large quantity of books. He invited Benjamin to his home, showed him his library, and they had an interesting discussion about books and authors.

When Benjamin returned to Boston and showed his father the letter from Sir William, his father said that Governor Keith “must be of small discretion to think of setting a boy up in business who wanted yet three years of being at man’s estate.”  In spite of the urging by both Benjamin and Captain Holmes his father refused to help and sent Governor Keith a letter thanking him for his offer but believed Benjamin was too young to manage such an important business.

Not to be denied Governor Sir William Keith, disgusted with the current crop of printers in Philadelphia promised to set Benjamin up himself.  Plans were made for Benjamin to travel to England to buy the proper equipment.  Letters of Credit were to be furnished.  Sir William entertained Benjamin several times at his home and the coming voyage to England was discussed as a forgone conclusion.  However, setting an exact date took longer than expected but finally the date was set and Benjamin was ready to leave for England.

James Ralph, a close friend from his reading club, though married, insisted on going with Benjamin to England; both departed.  The Letters of Credit were supposed to be in the ships mail bags and when the ship was underway the Captain gave Benjamin permission to examine the mail.  There were no Letters of Credit. 
 
During the voyage which ran into bad weather and was not pleasant, Benjamin became acquainted with a Mr. Denham, a Quaker merchant.  When he related his plight to Mr. Denham he found that Governor Keith was famous for failing to honor his promises and that he actually had no credit to give.

Denham advised Benjamin to find employment and he quickly found a job with a reputable printer named Palmer.  Ralph, however, was not so fortunate.  He found some of his relatives but they were all poor.  He brought no money and now let Benjamin know that he had no intention of returning to the Colonies.  Since Ralph could not find work he was dependent on Benjamin and managed to keep him broke.

Ralph was an aspiring poet but without the poetic gift.  Benjamin discouraged him but he continued to give him samples for evaluation.  He finally found employment in another town.  He had a girlfriend and while he was out of town Benjamin helped her and they became close.  He writes, “I grew fond of her company, and, being at that time under no religious restraint, and presuming on my importance to her, I attempted familiarities (another erratum) which she repulsed with a proper restraint, and acquainted him with my behavior. This made a breach between us and when he returned again to London, he let me know that I had cancell’d all the obligations he had been under to me.”   He meant, of course, that he would no longer attempt to pay the sizeable debt he owed to Benjamin.  Benjamin was relieved to be free from the burden as he was now was able to save some of his own money.

Following his extended sojourn in England Franklin returned to the States.  During his absence Deborah Read, the young woman whose hand in marriage was refused by her mother got involved with a rascal who married her and then quickly absconded with her dowry leaving her shaken and alone.  Franklin continued to want her as his wife and since she was not legally free to marry they established a common-law marriage.  Also, Franklin had sired an illegitimate son and they took him into their home and raised him.  They had two children of their own, Francis and Sarah.  Francis died of smallpox at the age of four while Sarah survived and became a caretaker for her father during his dotage.  The autobiography I have does not mention his common law marriage or that his son, William, was illegitimate.

Franklin soon had his own printing business and developed a partnership arrangement where he would set up deserving men in the printing business and receive a portion of the profits in return.  He writes that this provided him with an income and allowed him to become active in local politics.

His reading habit took him to the Public Library and an extensive study of world history.  Thoughts about his historical studies created a wish to bring peace to the world.  He decided that wars were a result of “parties” and the variety of motives these parties brought to the public square.  He maintained that even when a particular party rose to prominence the individuals that made it up tended to adopt their own views and promote them to the detriment of the party.  He concluded that all this created confusion.  He observed that very few men who rise in power have the best interests of the nation as their prime concern and “fewer still, in public affairs, act with a view to the good of mankind.”

In response to the world’s problems he conceived the idea of forming a “United Party of Virtue” which would gather the “virtuous and good men of all nations into a regular body, to be governe’d by suitable good and wise rules, which good and wise men may probably be more unanimous in their obedience to than common people are to common laws.”  He intended a creed that would include:

 

“That there is one God, who made all things.
“That he governs the world by his providence.
“That he ought to be worshipped by adoration, prayer, and thanksgiving.
“But that the most acceptable service of God is doing good to man.
“That the soul is immortal.
“And that God will certainly reward virtue and punish vice, either here or hereafter.

He recalled this project in his autobiography and noted that he was extremely busy at the time this idea was birthed and unfortunately it got shelved.

Franklin lived a long and productive life.  He brought together several different groups that liked to read and discuss authors.  His intent was always to bring benefits to society.  His inventions were never commercially exploited.  He was one of the founders of the University of Pennsylvania.  He was Postmaster first for the State of Pennsylvania and later co-master with William Hunter for all of the colonies.

His religion is evident all through his autobiography.  Concerning the Colonies he wrote “Providence seems by every means intent on making us a great people.  May our virtues public and private grow with us, and be durable, that liberty, civil and religious, may be secured to our posterity, and to all from ever part of the Old World that take refuge among us.”

Even after he gained some fame he continued to sign his name as “Benjamin Franklin, Printer”.  As his father had intended, the printing business was an excellent foundation for his work.  In 1732 he began publishing an “Almanack” using the pseudonym, Richard Saunders.  It became know as “Poor Richard’s Almanac” and became very popular.  At its zenith it had ten thousand subscribers and provided him with a generous income.

Likewise, his “Book of Virtues” became well known and was used by many as a guideline for personal improvement.  The book listed thirteen virtuous qualities: Temperance, Silence, Order, Resolution, Frugality, Industry, Sincerity, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Tranquility, Chastity, and Humility.  The book provided and astute expansion of each quality. 

 Franklin writes about the thirteenth virtue which was added to the original twelve.  “My list of virtues contain’d at first but twelve; but a Quaker friend of mine having kindly informed me that I was generally thought proud; that my pride show’d itself frequently in conversation; that I was not content with being in the right when discussing any point, but was overbearing, and rather insolent, of which he convinced me by mentioning several instances; I determined endeavoring to cure myself, if I could, of this vice or folly among the rest, and I added “Humility” to my list giving an extensive meaning to the word.  He goes on to admit that he was never entirely successful but that he made a number of changes in his verbal contentions all designed to reign in his ego.

At the beginning of his autobiography he wrote, “And now I speak of thanking God, I desire with all humility to acknowledge that I owe the mentioned happiness of my past life to His kind providence, which led me to the means I used and gave them success.  My belief of this induces me to hope, though I must not presume, that the same goodness will be exercised toward me, in continuing that happiness, or enable me to bear a fatal reverse, which I may experience as others have done, the complexion of my future fortune being known to Him only in whose power it is to bless to us even our afflictions.”

There was a distinct flavoring of the Reformation in Franklin’s reference to Predestination and his preoccupation with good works which was stronger than that of most Wesleyan evangelists. His father’s religion affected him more than he would probably have admitted.

Ben Franklin was an intellectual who during his long lifetime read and digested hundreds of books.  Though he eschewed organized religion disdaining the shallow and boring sermons of many preachers his association with the famous evangelist George Whitefield was amicable.  He endorsed Whitefield’s preaching but not his theology.  Whitefield’s attempts to convert Benjamin failed.

Franklin was not the cold Deist he is often portrayed to be.  His religion was active and vibrant but neither public nor contentious. He was intellectually religious.  He was not a chosen Christian.  I suspect his resistance to Christianity might have been a result of sexual sin.  In “Chastity”, his twelfth virtue, his counsel was: “Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.”  Not a Christian definition of sexual restraint. Confronted with the Gospel he declined but his refusal to become a Christian did not preclude his serious pursuit of Christian ethics. He endeavored to help his fellow man by doing good works and pronouncing ethical standards.  He seemed to believe that salvation was a result of good works.

I am often astounded when I think about the variety of conversions that make up the Christian Body.  Some of us were selected and apprehended from a dissolute existence, others went forward at Evangelical Churches, some came to Christ slowly, some are intellectual believers who have never experienced the hand of the Savior, and some grew up in Christian families where they knew Grace from an early age.  Franklin’s faith that god was in control and was guiding his steps was a sweet counter to some of today’s Christians who seek to control God making Him their servant.

With all of his theological wisdom and intellectual prowess R. J. Rushdoony spoke of his private relationship to the Savior where he would seek His help and guidance by silently asking in everyday matters.  Those that miss that intimate relationship miss the essence of the Christian life.   

An intellectual understanding of the Gospel is missing in our age and has put the world into confusion and chaos.  Franklin’s wisdom was a result of His faith.  Knowledge is king but Wisdom is foreign in today’s anarchic intellectual climate.  Though he was not “saved” in the Evangelical vernacular he was restrained by a fear of God and guided by virtuehere are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Monday, April 11, 2016

Materialism, Parts One & Two

There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Materialism (Part One) Steven Yates

Author's note: these are the first two parts of a four-part (plus postscript) essay that first appeared on the commentary site NewsWithViews.com. I have corrected a couple of typos and put in a few new links but otherwise kept substantive changes to an absolute minimum.
“ … we are living in a material world

And I am a material girl.

You know that we are living in a material world

And I am a material girl.” ~Madonna, “Material Girl” (1984).

Madonna’s first big hit defined, in part anyway, the mindset of a generation. What did this generation want? Material affluence, which became an ideal in the 1980s and beyond after its rejection two decades before. While that earlier era had its problems as we’ll see, the new materialism opened the door to the kind of business behavior which brought about the S&L crisis, a couple of decades later the Enron and Worldcom debacles, and then finally, the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression. No, greed is not good! Greed does not work! But the story is longer and more complicated than this.

The word materialism has more than one meaning. It does not refer just to a preoccupation with material goods, affluence, or pleasures and excess, although those are legitimate uses of the term. As explained in my Four Cardinal Errors (2011) and in my ebook Philosophy Is Not Dead (2014), materialism also names a comprehensive philosophical worldview which began to replace Christianity as an intellectual and cultural force, first in Europe in the latter half of the 1700s and then more rapidly in the 1800s. In the 1830s, Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857) offered a philosophical ideology known as positivism, which would ensure that materialism became the dominant philosophy of science. Meanwhile, Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) developed his dialectical materialism underwriting a theory of historical progress resulting from material economic forces that would culminate in Communism. Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882) offered a materialist theory of the origins of species, including humanity, with his theory of evolution by natural selection which quickly became the mainstay of modern biology. Wilhelm Wundt (1832 – 1920) developed an experimental psychology suitable for studying human beings conceived as little bundles of responses to stimuli: material boys and girls. As some of his leading students were Americans (e.g., G. Stanley Hall of Johns Hopkins University), he became the intellectual godfather of behaviorism as well as educational psychology as materialism came to the U.S.

Philosophically, the replacement of Christianity with materialism culminated when Friedrich Nietzsche’s (1844 – 1900) Zarathustra proclaimed that “God is dead!” followed by Nietzsche’s own call for a “revaluation of all values.” Nietzsche was one of the most ruthlessly honest thinkers who ever lived. He realized that once God and transcendence vanished from your worldview, everything changed. Everything those notions made meaningful also vanished. The death of God meant the death of morality in any standard sense, and this could not be evaded forever. Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970) penned “A Free Man’s Worship” (1903) and was more hopeful in finding ideals of peace and justice in the dead universe disclosed by materialist science. The impotence of these ideals was revealed in the disasters of future decades: the world wars, the brutal dictatorships, the casual genocides, the many hidden cruelties such as global sex trafficking (young girls kidnapped and forced into prostitution so sociopathic pimps could get rich), and finally the rising specter of scientific oligarchy by a technocratic elite.

Optimists insist that despite the carnage we have made incredible levels of technological progress thanks to scientific advances. This much is true. We have cured diseases, sent men into space and returned them safely, and now have the means to communicate with one another visually across oceans (e.g., with Skype). Violent crime in advanced nations has fallen consistently over time. Poverty has diminished. But we inhabit a world of dangerous imbalances. Viewed ethically, something is terribly wrong, and every thinking person knows this. Technology has also produced weapons capable of laying waste to continents. Some of its products threaten the food chain, the disruption of which would precipitate mass extinctions. Technologists splice genes, work on AI, and speak of “transhumanism.” I am reminded of one of the great movie lines of all time, from Jurassic Park: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they forgot to stop and ask if they should” (Dr. Ian Malcolm, played by Jeff Goldblum).

Materialism as trained philosophers use the term refers to a metaphysics, or theory of reality, a range of views we can summarize succinctly with the following:

(1) Reality means spatiotemporal reality, the physical universe. No sense is to be made of anything existing “outside of,” or “beyond” space and time, such as a God, or Heaven or Hell. Eternity and transcendence are meaningless concepts.

(2) What exists in spatiotemporal reality comes down to material things — physical entities (particles, forces, energy, however we cash out the specifics), which obey unyielding laws of physics and chemistry. Again, no sense is to be made of anything outside of these laws, such as God creating a world ex nihilo or performing miracles which would suspend or violate universal causality. The universe is self-existing and uncreated; it may have an origin and its present form an explanation, but these need not resort to any form of causality “beyond” physical or material nature. Naturalism, in other words, is the mandated methodology.

(3) Our only reliable means of knowing the world is naturalistic science, based on observation, hypothesis, experiment, data collection, theorizing, and replication. Natural science is just the use of the collective sense experience of trained and disciplined observers and experimenters in their various specialized domains. Science, unlike religion in this view, is not infallible but is self-correcting and progressive. Its authority, even if never settled, is decisive in what we can legitimately say we know about the universe. Outside of science, all is superstition, emotion, and unreason. Scientific methods have given rise to technological and economic progress, the world of relative comfort we now enjoy, and this is their primary validation.

(4) A human being is no less physical than anything else in nature. Our differences from other animals are differences in complexity, not in kind. Evolution did not “aim” to produce us. It had/has no “goals.” Our existence is a grand cosmic accident, as is life itself. The mind is just the brain (or, perhaps, the brain, senses, and central nervous system). Free will is an illusion created by ignorance of the actual causes of our behaviors. It makes no sense to say we can act outside the world’s causal structure.

(5) The diagnosis of the human predicament comes down to the prevalence of superstition, a lack of disciplined scientific reason, flawed institutions (governmental, commercial, educational); prejudice, hatred, and fear of what is different; and — in general — ignorance. The cure: knowledge, through universal education, leading to consciousness of public goods, more responsible governance, better use of science and technology. Thus we will find our way to our philosophical adulthood, giving up childish notions about a ghostly man in the sky and standing on our own feet.

(6) In term of ethics, if there is no God or transcendence, then as Russell observed, morality must be found in this world, or in ourselves. While Darwinians have had ideas about morality as an evolutionary adaptation, in the last analysis if materialism is true there is nothing standing over us, even figuratively, insisting that we “be moral” and threatening punishment us if we disobey — aside from social sanction and the state, of course. Morality is in this sense an invention of cultures (a cultural artifact, an anthropologist might say), not a discovery of something built into nature. Morality differs from place to place and from time to time, as anthropologist Ruth Benedict (1887 – 1948) spelled out in her magnum opus Patterns of Culture (1934): cultural relativism, in which cultures draw from the many possible patterns of human behaviors possible for them to approve. What is “immoral” is whatever set of patterns a culture refuses to use.

Philosophers have struggled since the late 1700s to find some basis for stable morality in a material world, a very practical endeavor, as it was clear even then: if the majority of people did not behave ethically at least most of the time in the sense of being honest in their dealings, respecting others, helping and not hurting them, taking responsibility for their mistakes, etc., very soon you did not have a society. You had breakdown and chaos. This, though, was compatible with the idea that all morality does is serve as a kind of glue that cements cultures together by supplying a basis for resolving disagreements and solving societal problems, without any transcendent grounding. The Darwinians would say it had survival value. Cultures not adopting such mores do not survive. Simple as that.

Is this the only reason we should be moral in the material world? What if I can get away with not being moral as my culture defines morality? Is there any reason I shouldn’t make the attempt?

Materialism (Part Two) Steven Yates

“Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea

All we do crumbles to the ground although we refuse to see.

Dust in the wind

All we are is dust in the wind.” ~Kansas, “Dust in the Wind” (1977)

I’ve always enjoyed progressive rock, even if it raises my Christian friends’ brows sometimes. Much of it is well done, and sounds like some thought went into it. As implied by my referencing Madonna at the outset, popular music is often a good guide to the zeitgeist of a culture. Many singers/songwriters are sensitive to this in ways academics are not. Our cultural worldview, as I’ve emphasized, is fundamentally materialist, and even those uninterested in the philosophical specifics laid out in Part One will find themselves immersed in its consequences, one of which is the exclusive preoccupation with material goods amidst ethical ambiguity. One of the questions underwriting this ambiguity was best put by one of the first philosophy professors I was a teaching assistant for, back in the early 1980s. Are there any absolute values? was the question she posed in class. Must we rest content with the relativism of the anthropologists?

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) believed we could deduce absolute duties from Pure Reason, and they would apply to all rational beings. He called his main principle the categorical imperative: always act as if the maxim or principle guiding your action could apply to everyone (I am paraphrasing, of course). Always tell the truth out of respect for the truth and respect for others as moral agents. Always keep your promises out of the same respect. Honor contracts. What is morally wrong is making exceptions for oneself, or treating oneself as a special case. Morality is universal or it is useless. Kant had problems, however, when universal duties appeared to conflict, as they sometimes did.

Great Britain’s John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873), a Utilitarian, argued that morality is a matter of following the greatest happiness principle: your action is ethical if it creates a greater balance of happiness over unhappiness in the world, where happiness tends to mean pleasures of various sorts (those of the mind, such as scientific knowledge or appreciation of the arts, take precedence over those of the body, involving sensuality and appetites). This kind of position logically permits the sacrifice of some if it brings about enough knowledge and social benefits for the rest to enjoy a greater balance of happiness. And by the way, these are not idle games played by intellectuals locked away in academic cubicles. Mill’s ideas were widely studied and absorbed into governing bodies throughout the English-speaking world. They came to affect policy decisions in a variety of arenas, and were furthered by people who barely even heard of Mill himself. The sacrifice of dozens of black men in Macon Co., Ala., during the Tuskegee syphilis experiment is consistent with utilitarian thought! The public health community got away with this for decades! Also compatible with utilitarianism is every decision to send the children of the masses to fight wars of choice!

So is it the case that, as Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky’s (1821 – 1881) character Ivan Karamazov put it, “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted”? Twentieth century secular ethics has been a struggle against this wretched conclusion, as well as against the relativism of anthropologists such as Benedict. Thus far, the results are less than promising!

A few major thinkers of the later twentieth century weighed in with fresh proposals. Among the best known is John Rawls (1921 – 2002), who pursued a theory of social justice as fairness. He sought to identify rules that would be adopted by rational persons from behind a veil of ignorance: that is, from an ideal vantage point where the adopter does not know his race or class standing or other particulars. What principles would be most worth embracing by the rational and fair-minded? Rawls’s answer: every person should have basic liberties no government can take away, to the extent compatible with equal liberties for all (the liberty principle); “offices and positions” should be open to all persons regardless of race and sex (an equality of opportunity principle); inequalities, to be acceptable, must work to the advantage of the worst off (the difference principle).

Rawls’s critics noted that his original position (behind the veil of ignorance) works under the assumption that most people are risk averse. They would not want to risk the results of principles that left disadvantaged groups to fend for themselves, as they might be in one such group. Saying this is a bit strange, however, and others wondered if the thought experiment was realistic. Can anyone actually imagine themselves behind a “veil of ignorance”? It certainly doesn’t comport with the identity-politics that has come about since Rawls wrote his major work A Theory of Justice (1971). Rawls did not see any connection between morality and justice on the one hand and metaphysics or worldviews on the other. The idea that these areas can be divorced from one another is part of secular ethics in the material world.

One of Rawls’s Harvard colleagues, Robert Nozick (1938 – 2002), developed an individualist ethic, as have other notable libertarian philosophers such as Tibor R. Machan (1939 – 2016*), some influenced by Ayn Rand (1905 – 1982). They focused instead on negative rights of individuals, rights to be left alone in ways that imply no duties to others except to leave them alone. These they contrasted with supposed positive rights to specific goods someone is obligated to supply, which led to collectivism. Their view was that all individuals have the right to act freely, pursue their own goals, and keep the fruits of their labors (private property) so long as they do not interfere with the same negative rights of others. All should deal voluntarily with one another in the free market. According to the non-aggression principle, central in the libertarian ethos, what is forbidden is physical aggression or coercion against others.

This view appeals to defenders of freedom and Constitutionally limited government, obviously, since to the libertarian government is the primary aggressor against individuals’ rights, to be kept very small (minarchism, what Nozick called the night watchman state) or eliminated (anarchocapitalism), therefore. The downside is that individuals rendered helpless or infirm, e.g., by illness or infirmity late in life, would have no inherent right to care, as that would be a positive right. For libertarian purists, even social security is the collectivized and forcible taking from some and giving to others. Negative rights do not do you much good, however, if all they come down to is a “right” to starve, or to die helpless. Families are considered responsible for helping their own, but reality is that in industrial civilization family members have had to spread everywhere in search of work, often leaving elderly parents behind. Nothing in libertarianism forbids a person from acting on his own to help, e.g., Alzheimer’s patients who are alone. This is hardly reassuring, though. An ethic of purely negative rights seems neither realistic nor humane. Libertarians assumed, moreover, that free market dynamics plus what Nozick’s night watchman state would be sufficient to control corporate greed or prevent the dominance of the state by corporations acting in consort as they hungered after power. History suggests that this is wrong, that the locus of power is not government per se but networked corporate leviathans who can buy political loyalty. One need only read John Perkins’s (1945 – ) Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2004) to see the role corporations have played in controlling governments and bringing about a wide variety of regime changes and cultural catastrophes against those who resisted.

While all these various notions have all received great discussion and debate, no one position has emerged as dominant. Richard Rorty (1931 – 2007), arguably the last major philosopher of the twentieth century (and possibly the last major philosopher the West will produce), put it like this in his Consequences of Pragmatism (1982): again to paraphrase, in the actual world, people have the rights and obligations society says they have, no more and no less. We are back to the anthropological view. Society, neither Rorty nor they quite tell us, devolves upon authority, especially those with the capacity to enforce their will on others, or to use language in ways ensuring psychological conditioning and de facto control. One of Rorty’s favorite philosophers was educationist John Dewey (1859 – 1952). Dewey, who had studied under Wundtian G. Stanley Hall whom we mentioned earlier, had also seen merit in behaviorism.

All of the philosophers we have considered were atheists except for Kant who believed society benefited from a general belief in God, although from a philosophical standpoint Kant decoupled God from morality. Later philosophers just built on this separation. Kant did not believe our reason was capable of solving the problem of whether or not God exists; its categories, Kant called them, limited its possibilities. But we cannot really evade the choice: believe in God and His commands, or not? To not choose is to be an operational atheist, acting as if God does not exist while going along with what is fashionable, ethically speaking.

Rorty’s implicit answer to Dostoevsky is: “If God doesn’t exist, then everything is permitted that your fellows allow, the state permits, or that you can get away with.” The infamous “eleventh commandment”: thou shalt not get caught. If your culture has not convinced you that you shouldn’t lie, cheat, steal, or go on stage and perform nearly naked (think Miley Cyrus!), then so much the worse for your culture! Any ethical objections to the idea that corporations may do as they please and call it “the free market at work” turn out to be toothless.

Parts Three and Four will appear next week.

*Sadly, Professor Machan passed away just since the first appearance of this essay.

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Reformed Theologian Downplays Total Depravity In Pluralism's Name

On an episode of Issues Etc, Dr. Michael Horton condemned the Donald Trump campaign on the grounds that no candidate should run for the presidency on the basis of fear and for promoting a mindset of Us vs. Them in terms of “opposing the Other”.

Dr. Horton positions himself as standing in the camp of rigorous Reformed theology.

Reformed theology promotes itself as approaching the world as it actually exists rather than how fallen humanity would like it to be.

As such, aren't there many things in a world permeated by sin that we need to protect ourselves from or (to put it in other words) be afraid of?

Furthermore, it could be argued that, apart from biological racialism since you can't change skin color (no matter how hard Michael Jackson might have tried), Reformed theology has got to be the ultimate form of Us vs. Them thinking.

For no matter how much effort one might put into the attempt to persuade someone to repent and turn to Christ, it is ultimately God alone who selects from eternity past those that will be with Him in Heaven and those that He will allow to slip into Hell.

By Frederick Meekins There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Sunday, April 3, 2016

Narcissism Or Aversion To Communalism?

The cover of the 5/20/2013 edition of Time Magazine reads, “Millennials are lazy, entitled narcissists who still live with their parents. Lazy and entitled narcissists might be reason for moral concern and reflection, but on what grounds is it the business of the wider society as to whether or not individuals live with their parents?

In regards to such an issue, Scripture is largely silent with individuals of regard and esteem living in a variety of ways in relation to their respective parents. It seems Isaac remained at home until his 40's. Some have speculated that the Virgin Mary might have been as young as 15 or 16 before having the Christ child and fully becoming the wife of Joseph

It might be that the demographic targeted by this intended smear might skew a little “too White” to be extended a number of the privileges other such categories.

When was the last time a major news weekly (if it hadn't already ceased print publication) published a cover story criticizing welfare recipients (especially minorities) for being “lazy and entitled narcissists”?

Yet many of those not only incessantly suckle off the public teat but also grumble indignantly nearly to the point of threatened uprising if what flows through the civic nipple grows increasingly sparse or diluted in their opinion.

Just what is being categorized as “entitled”?

Does this include things such as Obama phones and the cancellation of student loans after 20 years irrespective of whether or not those willingly assenting to such debt are anywhere near to fulfilling this financial obligation?

Is “entitled” apparently preferring to live in the comforts of the home they have known their entire lives rather than in cramped, roach-infested apartments filled interestingly with the kinds of “entitled” folks good liberals such as the editors of Time Magazine lack the spine to criticize?

Young adults born into American families (especially of a Caucasian phenotype) apparently deserve condemnation should they decide for whatever reason to stay with their parents beyond the time upheld as standard ironically by those the most insistent that standards do not exist.

Yet these very same radical relativists heaping condemnation upon typical American young adults living at home with their parents turn around saying how wonderfully family-oriented it is when nearly a dozen immigrants pack themselves into domiciles that begin to feel cramped with four people residing in them.

Granted, self-absorption can be taken to extremes. Lindsay Lohan, numerous members of the Kenendy clan, or the British royal family clearly attest to this truth.

However, given what is known about the kind of liberal mindset predominant at the highest echelons of American journalism as typified by Time Magazine, the discerning should probably read a little between the lines.

If an individual is residing with their parents, it can inoculate them to an extent against a number of social or mental pathologies that many liberals and secularists applaud as the “New Morality”, which isn't quite so new anymore. Such allegedly cutting edge ethical reflection is beginning to sag in many places like the aging hippies that thrust their decadence into the face of American popular culture and public awareness.

For example, sin can take root in any of our lives in the dark corners that we would least expect. However, the young adult living with parents that expect those living under their roof to abide by what would be considered a broadly traditional morality will probably have to work a lot harder at things such as boozing and generalized carousing if those are the deepest longings of one's heart beyond those brief temptations that plague us all in weak moments.

In the collectivist mindset serving as the foundation of contemporary liberalism, “narcissistic” does not necessarily mean a propensity to wallow in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life as warned in Scripture. To many of those that would like to see American society revolutionized away from an ethos of responsible individualism and single family orientation to something more group oriented, narcissistic can mean nothing more than tending primarily to the concerns of one's own household, looking to one's own abilities and resources to make it through the struggles of life, and expecting that all but the extremely disabled or the aged that have paid into the system ought to do the same for themselves

This is evidenced in the numerous graduation exhortations delivered on the part of the Obamas. In these orations, the President and his consort admonish the students not to pursue private sector careers marked primarily by what they consider the material comforts that accrue as a result of success and achievement in that particular sector of human endeavor. Instead, those persuaded to embrace President Obama's vision of the good life will give themselves over to what is considered the public sector such as government and forms of the nonprofit activism fomenting revolutionary upheaval such as community organizing.

However, it is through the overwhelming majority of businesses that exchange a good or a service for financial profit that most needs and desires are met. As John Stossel pointed out in a documentary on the subject, though her motivation may have been nobler, corporations such as Walmart and Microsoft have actually done more to elevate the material status and quality of life of a greater number than Mother Terresa ever did.

To those of the Obamaist mindset, the ideal place for young adults is not laboring to establish the foundations of their future by either getting their own place or by residing with their parents and saving for the day when they will be on their own by purchasing their own home or inheriting one upon the passing of their parents. Rather, the totalist progressive would like nothing more than to see these organic sociologically processes disrupted by altering whatever trajectory the productive young adult might find their life headed by conscripting them into some form of involuntary servitude.

The minds of most are set to a default to conceptualize of that as some form of military service. As such, many are programmed to respond, “And what is so wrong with that?”

Nothing in a time of actual declared war where the very survival of the nation is on the line. However, contrary to the hypothesis put forth by luminaries such as historian Stephen Ambrose and, to an extent, even William F. Buckley, the military during peace time does not exist to ensure that everyone sings from the same songbook.

During such periods in American history, the nation is better served by a force of volunteers that have decided to pursue military service as a life's calling or only for a short season. That way the number is sufficient so that the country is protected but not so large that the interests of the military threaten the well being of civilian institutions.

However, when liberals such as President Obama extol the glories of compulsory voluntary service, those tasks within the narrowly defined parameters of the military are the last such orators are calling for the completion of. What these elites have in mind are more akin to the police state functions undertaken by the infamous totalitarian regimes of the early decades of the twentieth century.

For example, as he was laying the groundwork for his regime, Barack Obama announced his vision for a civilian security force as large as the military and capable of intruding into areas of your life where the traditional military would never dream of intruding. Michelle Obama reiterated that, under Barack, we would not be allowed to return to our lives as we had previously known them.

Though abandoning or altering a number of fundamental worldview assumptions regarding the nature of work and the relationship of the individual to the overall economy, communalist elites are able to manipulate the unsuspecting into viewing the most basic and innocent of activities as acts surpassing the most vile acts of debauchery in terms of overall subsversion.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

So-Called Evangelicals Denounce The Atonement As "Too Individualistic"

In an interesting article posted a Christianity Today, Mark Dever examines growing opposition within the Evangelical community to the substitionary atonement, meaning the death of Christ upon the cross for the fulfillment of our sins.

Thinking they know more than God now, a number of theologians oppose the Atonement as a barbaric holdover from less enlightened times that fosters a sense of individuality among believers. Heaven forbid anything that hinders our sublimation into members of the COMMUNITY.

Frankly though, if Christ did not die for our sins and rise from the dead, why bother being a Christian at all? 1 Corinthians 15:19 says, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

Furthermore, what's the point of forgiveness and eternal life if it means the obliteration of our individuality in a manner akin to Brahmin in Hinduism or the Nirvana of Buddhism? Also, the observant might note that, if these theological babblers have constructed elaborate arguments to convince themselves they are without sin, the last thing they want to confront is the most jarring reminder of all that the bad in humanity outweighs the good.

The word sin is simply retained as a convenient tool with which to prod the masses when the uneducated clods drag their feet in implementing the agenda of the elite and hindering the revolution rather than to convict any one person of individual wrongdoing.

For the offenses of materialism, racism, and nationalism mentioned are so broad that they are more interpretations than specific misdeeds.

In the eyes of our social and ecclesiastical overlords, materialism is not so much the Saganist philosophy that the universe all the was, is, or ever will be but rather the failure to relinquish one's property to the state or other institutions of authority. Racism is not so much the mistreatment of a particular individual and thus covered under more traditional ethical codes but rather failure to support undue concessions or favors for protected groups. Nationalism is not so much the elevation of the state above God or even the individual but rather the failure to embrace the headlong rush towards global government.

As all powerful as the Communitarians would like their collective to be, it's not going to do one bit to keep you out of Hell or launch you into a happy afterlife. And if there is no hope beyond the grave, why shouldn't we party like a bunch of Epicureans, maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain as each of us sees fit if death is nothing but the ultimate get out of jail free card as the cold end of it all with neither the guilty being punished or the righteous rewarded?

by Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

No Mere Consideration: The Apologetic Quandaries Found In The Lewis Classic

Psalms 14:1 says, “The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'.” Only those seeking to live in utter irrationality can ignore the arguments made in favor of the God of the Bible by C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity”. Three of the most compelling issues the skeptic will have to confront when reading this classic include the universality of the moral law, the existence of a personal God as Creator of the Universe, and whether Jesus is who He says He is.

Fundamental to the creed of the contemporary skeptic is the notion that everything is relative and that there are no absolutes. However, that is itself an absolute. And no matter how cool it is to feign the attitude that one exists beyond right and wrong, no one wants to be treated as if right and wrong did not exist.

Of this universal truth, Lewis observes, “Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right or Wrong, you will find the man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' before you can say 'Jack Robinson' (15).”

Since law exists whether we like it or not, it must have a source beyond us in order to be binding upon us and to avoid degenerating into a matter of mere preference or opinion. Since this universal law represents the codification of a set of principles, it could not have come about as a result of random choice, but rather through some kind of purposeful intelligence. Thus, a second issue confronting the skeptic in “Mere Christianity” is whether the source of this law is personal or impersonal.

The views regarding God can be divided into two basic viewpoints. On the one hand, pantheism believes, in the words of Lewis, that “God animates the universe as you animate your body: that the universe is almost God (30).” Traditional monotheists, on the other hand, believe that God is distinct from creation in a manner similar to “...a man making a picture or composing a tune...A painter is not a picture (30).”

From our understanding of law as a set of principles established for determining right and wrong, the monotheistic conception would be the one most in keeping with the evidence. For if God and the universe were co-terminus as postulated by the pantheists, by definition whatever is, is ought. Only by being distinct from what He has made is God justified in pronouncing judgment upon it.

Since God is the source of perfection and man so marked by imperfection, there must be some way for these seemingly irreconcilable twains to meet. Since man is imperfect, there is nothing he can do of his own merit to bring himself to God's level. Rather, the imperfect can only be made whole and elevated to a higher status on the terms of the perfect.

Since God is the ultimate authority and source of power, it is up to Him to determine the method through which man can be reconciled to God. Of all of the religions of the world, orthodox Biblical Christianity is the only one where that particular belief's conception of salvation is not granted on the basis of the adherent's own merit or accomplishment but rather as a result through the realization that one's own works are as filthy rags and by throwing oneself on the mercy of a loving God willing to extend forgiveness to those embracing what God has done for them rather than on what they have done for Him. In the Christian tradition, this eternal pardon is granted to those believing that Jesus as the only Son of God lived the perfect life that we could not, suffered and died upon the cross for the sins of the world, and rose in bodily form from the dead.

Thus, the most important issue the skeptic is forced to confront is exactly who do they think Jesus is. Impressed with the morals of Jesus but not wanting to admit that they themselves are sinners, most unbelievers think they are broadminded enough by giving Jesus an esteemed status as an ethical teacher from the past with no present claim on their lives.

However, as Lewis points out, a moral person would not say the things about himself that Jesus said about Himself. Lewis writes, “A man who...said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would be a lunatic --- on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg --- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice (41).”

Much of the spiritual danger of the contemporary world lies in the numerous distractions available to those preferring to avoid those fundamental questions nagging at the human soul. C.S. Lewis, in “Mere Christianity”, forces the reader to confront these issues in an engaging and forthright manner.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Monday, March 21, 2016

Prominent Critic off the Mark Regarding Apocalyptic Thriller

As a semi-professional contrarian prognosticator on current events and ideas, I’ll be the first to admit how easy it is to find fault with things falling outside the purview of one’s own take on the world. However, it would seem from John Whitehead’s review of "Left Behind" in the February 7, 2001 edition of WorldNetDaily that some people are never happy.

Though I have not yet seen the film nor read the series of novels as of earlier 2001, I have seen similar works such as "The Omega Code", "One Moment After" and the 70’s classics "Thief in the Night", "Image of the Beast", and "Prodigal Planet", as well as having noticed the proto-eschatological themes addressed in more mainstream science fiction such as "Babylon 5" and "Earth: Final Conflict". I believe I am safe in addressing John Whitehead’s criticism of this cinematic production.

John Whitehead levels considerable criticism at "Left Behind". Yet at one time he was one of the voices calling for greater Christian involvement with popular culture as evidenced in a profile of him published in the December 7, 1998 edition of Christianity Today. It is in response to this yearning that the producers of "Left Behind" hope their efforts will "lead to more family-friendly movies".

But of such efforts, John Whitehead says today, "Christian involvement in culture should be in a way that ultimately serves that end --- not merely to pour $17 million into a poorly adapted feature that does not contribute to leading viewers into a deeper relationship with their eternal Creator."

One must assume Mr. Whitehead thinks such edification can be found in "The Last Temptation of Christ" which he classified as "a sympathetic and reverent treatment of Christianity’s origins," according to the Christianity Today profile. It should be recalled that "The Last Tempation" was the movie that made Judas out to be the hero and cast Jesus as the villain.

Mr. Whitehead further admonishes contemporary Evangelicals in light of the "Left Behind" phenomena, "Instead of dedicating their lives to taking care of the poor and the needy, American followers of Christ too often ignore His example and instead look for cheap thrills in an increasingly superficial world."

Mr. Whitehead should be reminded of his own neglect of the downtrodden in his own pursuit of glitz and the limelight. According to Christianity Today, Mr. Whitehead’s civil rights organization the Rutherford Institute, at the expense of those facing more pressing and substantial First Amendment religious rights issues, came to the defense of Paula Jones --- the floozy who wouldn’t disrobe for then Governor Clinton but who apparently had no problem doing so for Playboy photographers.

To some Christians, it’s not legitimate missions activity unless it’s directed at some impoverished foreigner halfway around the globe. John Whitehead writes, "...instead of centering their hopes, prayers and financial resources behind the tragedy in India [a reference to the recent earthquake] ... much of the American Christian community was busy hyping a movie that one reviewer called ’unintentionally hilarious’."

Elsewhere on his gaudy and semi-tasteless looking magazine and website Gadfly, John Whitehead has explored the metaphysical background of the "X-Files".

How would he propose we reach out to those whom this particular genre speaks to? Somehow I don’t think vaccination clinics or soup kitchens will quite grab them where they are hurting most. An evangelistic film geared towards their interests in paranormal phenomena and government conspiracies likely would, however. And for others, such visualization would help make the obscure beasts, dragons, plagues and judgments of the Book of Revelation and other passages of Scripture relevant to their early twenty-first century lives.

John Whitehead dismisses "Left Behind" as a "B" film and comments, "Truly Christian films embody this aim by exploring the human dimensions of loving thy neighbor as thyself, portraying servants in a world where everyone seeks to be a master, and by encountering the Divine in unexpected places ..."

What more could Mr. Whitehead hope for than a movie set during the time of the Tribulation?

During that period in eschatological history, the very power of Satan will be allowed the seemingly unbridled power the Prince of Darkness has always longed for since the time of his fall, and during this future era simply being a Christian could get you executed. It is under such conditions to which Americans are currently not accustomed that the protagonists of "Left Behind" must stand for truth and righteousness during the heyday of the New World Order.

In all likelihood, "Left Behind" is not a perfect movie. However, much of the drivel and filth produced by Hollywood is not worth watching to begin with.

It must be remembered that Christians have not had much practice at producing cinematic masterpieces that are both theologically accurate and appeal to a broad audience. This is due in large part to the sanctimonious piousness like that displayed by those such as John Whitehead, who in at least this instance, refuse to realize the apologetic of certain literary genres and narrative techniques.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network