Something Wicked This Way Comes

Throughout all of human history this is a truth that men have taken into account as they have dealt with one another, as they have conducted business, as they have passed laws, and as they have built civil societies.  It is the first and most basic insight of both anthropology and sociology.  Evil exists.  It wrecks havoc on our best laid plans and our sincerest intentions.  The world is infected by sin and populated by sinners.

No one ever had to teach a child how to sin.  No one was ever dependent upon a bad environment to learn how to be cruel or selfish or perverse.  No one ever needed older siblings to show them the ropes of greed, or pride, or dishonesty.

This natural inclination to sin is no petty or trivial matter.  Evil is destructive.  It is bent on death and thus runs roughshod over everything and everyone—including the person who perpetrates the evil in the first place.  If left unrestrained, evil morbidly embraces death.  For, “there is a way that seems right to a man but its end is the way of death” (Prov. 14:12).

The landscape of evil is all too familiar to us.  We have seen it time after time during the course of the last century.  Broken bodies.  Cast off lives.  Stark naked tragedy.  Gore and devastation.  Sadness and sorrow.  There before us lay the vexing specter of mortality and the awful stench of death.  It is a gruesome panorama that defiles our senses and haunts our every waking thought.  It is a nightmare come to life.  The memory of it is carved onto the fleshly tablets of our hearts with a dull familiar blade—a blade variously wielded by Adolf Hitler, or Josef Stalin, or Mao Tse Dung, or Margaret Sanger, or Ho Chi Minh, or Idi Amin, or Pol Pot, or Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden.  Indeed, the calamity of evil clutters the pages of human history.  Its pathos persistently torments the hodge podge ideals of human hope.  Replayed again and again and again, it has become a semeiotic symbol of the end of man and the end of his doing.

Every great society and every great institution has necessarily had to take evil into account.  The simple fact is that relativism is a practical impossibility because of the existence of evil.  If freedom is to survive, and civility is to prevail then evil must be restrained.           

Robert Goguet, in his authoritative history of the development of American judicial philosophy, argued that the genius of the Constitution was that it took this fully into account.  The Founding Fathers recognized that because evil was a present and horrible reality, they would have to choose some identifiable objective standard of good upon which to build cultural consensus.  Though many of them were not personally practicing Christians, the precedence they gave to Biblical morality was a matter of sober-headed practicality: “The more they meditated on the Biblical standards for civil morality, the more they perceived their wisdom and inspiration.  Those standards alone have the inestimable advantage never to have undergone any of the revolutions common to all human laws, which have always demanded frequent amendments; sometimes changes; sometimes additions; sometimes the retrenching of superfluities.  There has been nothing changed, nothing added, nothing retrenched from Biblical morality for above three thousand years.”

The American Framers were heavily influenced by the writings of Thomas Hooker, founder of the City of Hartford in the Connecticut Colony and learned Puritan divine.  Thus they agreed whole-heartedly with his oft quoted maxim on the wellspring of law and order in society: “Of law there can be no less acknowledged, than that her seat is in the bosom of God, her voice in the harmony of the world.  All things in heaven and on earth do her homage; the very least as doing her care, and the greatest as not exempt from her power.  Both angels and men, and creatures of what condition soever, though each in a different sort of name, yet all with one uniform consent, admire her as the mother of their peace and joy.”

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court similarly affirmed the necessity of a standard of virtue for the proper maintenance of civil stability and order: “No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion applied and accepted by all the classes.  Should our Republic ere forget this fundamental precept of governance, men are certain to shed their responsibilities for licentiousness and this great experiment will then surely be doomed.”

Constitutional provisions such as the separation of powers, mixed government, checks and balances, jury trials, and civil rights were all predicated on the notion that left to their own devices men are helpless against the wiles of evil.  In this poor fallen world both sin and the sinners who sin must be restrained if justice is to prevail.  In order for there to be law and order, right and wrong not only must be defined, they must be accounted for in the very fabric of our relationships.

Thus, a brash and cavalier attitude toward any exclusive standard of goodness and morality is perhaps the single most distressing trait of modern relativism.  In the name of civil liberties, cultural diversity, and political-correctness it has pressed forward a radical agenda of willy-nilly moral corruption and ethical degeneration.  Ironically, its brazen disregard for any objective standard of decency and its passionately undeterred defense of perverse impropriety has actually threatened our liberties and diversity because it has threatened the foundations that made those things possible in the first place simply because it has no mechanism for the restraint of evil.  Unfettered evil is the enemy of any and all societies because unfettered evil makes the very idea of society impossible.

Relativism wants the privileges of civilization bestowed upon the citizenry as an unearned, undeserved, and unwarranted entitlement.  But great privileges bring with them great responsibilities.  Our remarkable freedom has been bought with a price.  And that price was moral diligence, virtuous sacrifice, and ethical uprightness over and against real and objective evil.  The legal commitment of relativism to any and all of the fanatically twisted fringes of American culture is a pathetically self-defeating crusade that has confused liberty with license.

Gardiner Spring, the eloquent pastor-patriot during the early nineteenth century in New York, persuasively argued that the kind of free society America aspired to be was utterly and completely impossible apart from moral integrity: “Every considerate friend of civil liberty, in order to be consistent with himself must be the friend of the Bible.  No tyrant has ever effectually conquered and subjugated a people whose liberties and public virtue were founded upon the Word of God.  After all, civil liberty is not freedom from restraint.  Men may be wisely and benevolently checked, and yet be free.  No man has a right to act as he thinks fit, irrespective of the wishes and interests of others.  This would be exemption from all law, and from the wholesome influence of social institutions.  Heaven itself would not be free, if this were freedom.  No created being holds any such liberty as this, by a divine warrant.  The spirit of subordination, so far from being inconsistent with liberty, is inseparable from it.”

Similarly, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the brilliant Russian novelist, historian, and Nobel laureate, has said: “Fifty years ago it would have seemed quite impossible in America that an individual be granted boundless freedom with no purpose but simply for the satisfaction of his whims.  The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless.  It is time to defend, not so much human rights, as human obligations.”

According to James Q. Wilson, the shabby ambiguities of relativism are a kind of riot of second-bests: “Many people have persuaded themselves that no law has any foundation in a widely shared sense of justice; each is the arbitrary enactment of the politically powerful.  This is called legal realism, but it strikes me as utterly unrealistic.  Many people have persuaded themselves that children will be harmed if they are told right from wrong; instead they should be encouraged to discuss the merits of moral alternatives.  This is called values clarification, but I think it a recipe for confusion rather than clarity.  Many people have persuaded themselves that it is wrong to judge the customs of another society since there are no standards apart from custom on which such judgments can rest; presumably they would oppose infanticide only if it involved their own child.  This is sometimes called tolerance; I think a better name would be barbarism.”

The entire witness of Western civilization bears this out.  Thus, through the ages faithful men have boldly cut across the grain of comfort and convention, warning men and nations of their dire danger: evil lurks.

In the weeks and months immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington no one doubted the reality of wickedness.  No one doubted that there was such a thing as sin.  No one questioned whether or not our world was stricken by evil.  Suddenly, we once again found consensus in the reality of the fall.

Doublethink and Doublespeak

In his brilliant dystopian novel, 1984, George Orwell perfectly and presciently described the kind of doublethink and doublespeak we have now come to expect of our modern politicians:

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them, to tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies--all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth." 

Extremism's Ongoing Saga in Egypt

Exactly one month before he was assassinated, on this day in 1981, Anwar Sadat attempted to appease the Islamic fundamentalists of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood by sanctioning fierce persecutions against the Christian minority and exiling Shenouda III, the Patriarch of the Coptic Church.  Christian lands were confiscated.  Hundreds of Christians were martyred.  And churches were desecrated and destroyed.  

Officially, the Sadat government attributed all the strife to the besieged Christians.  Nevertheless, the ploy failed to satisfy the Islamic hard liners and the assassination of Sadat was ordered and carried out.

The Miracle Mayflower

After having failed to sail from England on three earlier occasions and leaving behind her sister ship Speedwell, the Mayflower sailed from Plymouth for the New World on this day in 1620. 

Aboard were 101 passengers. Just ninety feet long and twenty-six feet wide, it hardly seemed the vessel to alter world history. The sailors cursed the pious passengers, whom they detested. Their food consisted of dried fish, cheese, and beer. The only sanitary accommodation was a single slop bucket. There was nowhere to bathe. Seasickness was rampant during storms. With little air below decks, the conditions were nauseating at the best. Despite this, only one passenger died at sea. 

Two months and five days after sailing, the ship landed at Cape Cod. Before going ashore the passengers signed their famous Mayflower Compact. And thus began the saga of the Pilgrims in their new home: America.

A Moral Foreign Policy

When the esteemed Senate Majority Leader, Henry Cabot Lodge, addressed his colleagues on this day in 1919, the nation was already in the midst of a “Great Debate” over its future foreign policy.  What was then called the Great War—what we call the First World War—had just ended.  Should the country now join the new League of Nations that President Woodrow Wilson had hammered into shape at the Versailles Peace Conference, or should the nation retain its traditional commitment to neutrality—as articulated in Washington’s hallowed Farewell Address? 

Utilizing carefully measured phrases and appealing to the mood of the audience Lodge’s speech somehow bridged the gap between the two positions and unleashed a storm of applause from the packed galleries.  A group of Marines, just returned from France, pounded their helmets enthusiastically against the gallery railing; men and women cheered, whistled, waved handkerchiefs and hats.  It was minutes before order could be restored, and when a Democratic Senator attempted to reply to Lodge’s arguments, his rebuttal was greeted with boos and hisses.

Lodge argued against any possible infringement of America’s sovereignty:

“I object in the strongest possible way to having the United States agree, directly or indirectly, to be controlled by a league which may at any time, and perfectly lawfully and in accordance with the terms of the covenant, be drawn in to deal with internal conflicts in other countries, no matter what those conflicts may be.  We should never permit the United States to be involved in any internal conflict in another country, except by the will of her people expressed through the Congress which represents them.”

Likewise, he argued for a strong moral stance regarding the horrors of war while at the same time ringing the bell of patriotism:

“In the Great War we were called upon to rescue the civilized world.  Did we fail?  On the contrary, we succeeded, succeeded largely and nobly, and we did it without any command from any league of nations.  When the emergency came, we met it, and we were able to meet it because we had built up on this continent the greatest and most powerful nation in the world, built it up under our own polices, in our own way, and one great element of our strength was the fact that we had held aloof and had not thrust ourselves into European quarrels; that we had no selfish interest to serve.  We made great sacrifices.  We have done splendid work.  I believe that we do not require to be told by foreign nations when we shall do work which freedom and civilization require.  I think we can move to victory much better under our own command than under the command of others.”

His logic, resounding with the moral fervor of his dear friend Teddy Roosevelt, won the day.  In the end, the League of Nations treaty was defeated and the policy Lodge elaborated became the foundation of all American foreign relations for much of the rest of the century. 

But alas, no more.

Not Just Passing Through

"Humanity does not pass through phases as a train passes through a station: being alive, it has the privilege of always moving yet never leaving anything behind." C.S. Lewis

The Democracy of the Dead

"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about." G.K. Chesterton

Uttermost Challenge: Week 1

This summer I'm running 500 miles, biking 1500 miles, and swimming 13 miles--along the way, I'll be joined by some of my friends and students. 

Why would we take on such a huge challenge, you ask? 

Well, we want to raise $30,000 for the Chalmers Fund to provide scholarships for worthy, needy students. Won't you support us?  You can give online right here, right now.

Meanwhile, here is the progress report for the first week:

Total running miles: 45.92

Total biking miles: 80.55

Day 7: Sabbath Rest

Day 6:  3.5 mile run and 22 miles on the bike

Day 5: 10 mile run and 22 miles on the bike 

Day 4: 3 mile run in the Firecracker 5K

Day 3: 8.25 mile run and 12.75 miles on the bike

Day 2: 11.4 mile run and 11.8 miles on the bike

Day 1: 9.77 mile run and 12 miles on the bike

The Great Condescension

“The study of everything that stands connected with the death of Christ, whether it be in the types of the ceremonial law, the predictions of the prophets, the narratives of the gospels, the doctrines of the epistles, or the sublime vision of the Apocalypse, this is the food of the soul, the manna from heaven, the bread of life. This is meat indeed and drink indeed.” John Angell James

“It was great condescension that He who was God should be made in the likeness of flesh; but much greater that He who was holy should be made in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Matthew Henry

Gaining Our Liberty--and Losing It Again

On June 9, 1776, the Continental Congress accepted a resolution of Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee to appoint a committee to draft a declaration of secession from the dominions of the English King and Parliament. On June 29, the committee—composed of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston—presented their draft for debate and a vote. It was defeated twice and sent back to the committee for revision. Finally, on July 4, a newly amended version of that draft was accepted. The war that had been raging for more than a year had finally driven the reluctant revolutionaries to sever all ties with their motherland.

The document they finally approved was based on the “covenant lawsuit” sequences from Old Testament books like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Micah and influenced by classic historical works of political, literary, and theological profundity such as Scotland’s Arbroath Declaration, Richard Hooker’s Laws of Polity, Richard Baxter’s Holy Commonwealth, and William Walwyn’s Good Samaritan. Not surprisingly, it contains some of the most beautiful and enduring political rhetoric ever written. Soaring phrases abound:

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

“We hold these truths to be self‑evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

“We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in general congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.”

“For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

From the opening refrain the Declaration ringingly affirms the absolute standard upon which the founders hoped that liberty might be established. Appealing to the “Supreme Judge of the World” for guidance, and relying on His “Divine Providence” for wisdom, the framers committed themselves and their posterity to the absolute standard of “the laws of nature and of nature's God.” A just government exists, they argued, solely and completely to “provide guards” for the “future security” of that standard. Take away those guards, and liberty was simply not possible.

That is precisely why they felt compelled to so boldly declare their autonomy from the British realm. The activist government of the crown had become increasingly intrusive, burdensome, and fickle and thus the possibility of genuine liberty had been thrown into very real jeopardy. The founders merely protested the fashion and fancy of political, bureaucratic, and systemic innovation that had alienated the inalienable.

They said that the king’s government had, “erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” It had, “called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant. . .for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with the king's measures.” It had, “refused assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary to the public good.” It had, “imposed taxes without consent. . . taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our government.” And it had, “plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, destroyed the lives of our people. . .and excited domestic insurrections amongst us.”

The founders believed that no one in America could be absolutely secure under the king, because absoluteness had been thrown out of the now ideologically-tainted political vocabulary. Because certain rights had been abrogated for at least some citizens by a smothering, dominating political behemoth, all of the liberties of all the citizens were at risk because suddenly arbitrariness, relativism, and randomness had entered into the legal equation. The checks against petty partiality and blatant bias had been virtually disabled. The private sector had been swallowed up by the public.

Thus, they acted boldly to “form a more perfect union.” They launched a sublime experiment in liberty never before surpassed, never again matched. Author P.J. O’Rourke comments, “There are twenty-seven specific complaints against the British Crown set forth in the Declaration of Independence. To modern ears they still sound reasonable.” Reasonable, because they could all too easily be leveled against our present Federal Government in Washington.

The men who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for a very risky proposition indeed. In so doing they established a precedent for a courageous defense of principle which has been a hallmark of American civilization ever since--but which, alas, seems to be all too rapidly slipping away from us.