By Selwyn Duke
Whether or not you
believe in the wrath of God, there is no question that the wrath of the ungodly
left is often on full display. As for the latter, evangelist Pat
Robertson got quite a liberal dose of it recently. The founder of
the 700 Club was placed in the crosshairs for suggesting that Ariel
Sharon’s stroke may be the result of his division of Israel, an imprudent act
incurring the wrath of God (Taking a gander at Sharon, it seems more like the
wrath of Twinkies).
No lone comment inspired
me to finally treat this issue. Really, this is merely the latest in a
series of culture war clashes involving traditional Christian judgements about
God’s judgement and the “non-judgemental” liberals’ judgements about those
judgements. You may remember the hue and cry that ensued after 9/11 when
Jerry Falwell implied that America was being punished for having abandoned
godly principles. More recently there were those – such as Alabama State
Senator Hank Irwin – who opined that Hurricane Katrina was a whirlwind reaped
by a gulf coast rife with vice and sin, prompting derision from even the likes
of Rich Lowry.
As for this man of
faith, I don’t know that any or all of these tribulations were visited upon us
by the Divine Hand. Likewise, however, I also cannot say that all of them
were not. What I do know is that this issue isn’t really about Falwell or
Robertson or “fundamentalists,” terrorism or storms or strokes, but something
far, far deeper. It is in fact about the spirit of the age and dogma,
both the religious and secular variety, that is.
Historically speaking,
the preponderance of the notion that God would never punish man is a relatively
recent phenomenon in the Western World. For most of the history of
Christendom – and the history of humanity, reaching back to the pagan
civilizations and primitive tribes of antiquity, for that matter – the wrath of
the supernatural was a given. When pagans sacrificed humans on bloody
altars, oft times the end was to appease wrathful gods and gain their
favor. If the rain didn’t fall upon thirsty crops and starvation loomed
on the horizon, a people’s thinking was often that they had committed a mortal
transgression against divine will and remedial expiation was in order.
And, while Abe Foxman of the Anti-defamation League said that Robertson’s
comments were “. . . a perversion of religion,” the Hebrew Scriptures are
replete with stories of God visiting quite a variety of torments upon the
enemies of Foxman’s ancestors.
Thus, this “dark ages”
idea was not some Christian shibboleth born of puritanical morality but was
simply the quite natural and instinctive perpetuation of what had always
impressed man as self-evident: that collectively we are quite sinful and
sometimes deserving of correction. What Christianity did reveal was that
God was a loving God who occasionally got angry, not an angry god who
occasionally was loving; he was not a god who was like them, He was the God
they were supposed to be like. Moreover, we are called to atone for
misdeeds through personal sacrifice, not the sacrifice of persons.
Regardless, Christian
tradition always held that, in typical Sodom and Gomorrah fashion, God may
punish peoples who descend into turpitude. This is why post-First Crusade
failure to roll back Moslem gains inspired medieval Christians to institute lay
piety movements all across Europe: they viewed the frustrated military campaigns
as a sign of God’s disfavor and endeavored to make themselves worthy of victory
over the menacing hordes.
In our time, though, the
enlightened set scoffs at such “antiquated” notions; they fancy themselves to
be far too sophisticated to believe that sin is real and punishment
justified. One of them, one Paul Levinson of the Fordham Media Studies
Department, weighed in on the O’Reilly Factor on January 6. He dismissed
Robertson as a man who is not very “modern” in his thinking (“Modernistic”
would more aptly describe what Levinson seems to espouse), as if that’s a grand
trespass. Transitioning from the hubristic to the completely idiotic, he
went on to liken the evangelist to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man
with a long terrorist past and possibly a brief and terrible future.
Levinson justified the equivalency by saying that the two were both
“fundamentalists” (lexicon note: a secularist who disagrees with a liberal is a
Nazi; a Christian who disagrees with a liberal is a fundamentalist).
Now, lest I be
misunderstood, I part company with Robertson on the etiological factors in
Sharon’s stroke. However, I would have a question for Levinson: is being
a fundamentalist inherently bad? If so, what if you're a liberal
fundamentalist? And I say this not merely as a rhetorical device.
After all, Levinson and his fellow travelers seem to exhibit a formulaic
devotion to their leftist creed, deviation from which is often treated as
heresy. And this, I will add, hearkens back to a pearl of wisdom from the
great philosopher G.K. Chesterton:
Today’s prevailing dogma
states that God would never visit death and destruction upon us for any reason,
let alone in the exercise of a tool as clumsy as punishment. Why, God is
a loving God, you puerile fire-and-brimstone fundies. Moreover, when
devastation is wreaked and the carnage reveals both the wicked and the good,
the wizened and the budding babes, are we to call it justice? Would a
loving God so indiscriminately take life?
Without a doubt, in an
age in which Jesus is being portrayed as a milquetoasty hippie type (The Book
of Daniel), gussied up in the spiritual fashions of the day and completely
bereft of the depth and passion evident in the Bible, such a New Age position
may seem beyond question . . . much like dogma. And in the theological
universe of modernism it does fit like a conforming piece in a jigsaw
puzzle. The problem is that this belief’s adherents have the wrong
puzzle, ensuring that a traditionalist piece like God’s wrath will be grossly
incompatible.
Literally put, the
critics scoff when this element of orthodoxy cannot be explained within the
context of heterodoxy. They divorce themselves from any semblance of
traditional Christianity, embrace their modernistic mutation of it, then wonder
why anyone would think that the man’s limb would fit on the mutant’s body.
So now I will offer not
answers, but explanations. But I will preface my response by saying that
if you don’t believe in God, this will seem like much ado about fairytales to
you. I hasten to add, however, that the prevailing criticism here is not
to the effect of, “God doesn’t exist, therefore talk of God’s wrath is
silly.” No, the bulk of the criticism originates with people who
acknowledge God’s existence, at least tacitly. They just find this brand
of divine intervention unfathomable.
It is correct to say
that God would never kill. This is because He never does. He gives
us the gift of life, and when He takes us from this world we pass into the next
and inherit eternal life. There is no death. Moreover, if upon
liberating us from the shackles of the material, God takes us into Heaven, a
place where pain is unknown and peace and joy immeasurable, has He not done us
a good turn?
Another impediment to
spiritual understanding is a misunderstanding involving scientific
understanding. The ancients had no trouble believing that a storm,
earthquake or some other natural phenomenon could be an instrument of God’s
will any more than they had trouble viewing a sunrise or a baby’s birth as a
miracle. We, though, are quite different. We learn about barometric
pressure, tectonic plates and seismic waves, planetary rotation, conception and
chromosomes, and then the scope of our understanding of God’s creation changes
our understanding of God’s scope. Our burgeoning knowledge robs miracles
of their mystery, and then we think it’s a mystery that anyone would claim that
they’re miracles.
It really is a
fascinating phenomenon. It’s much like marveling at an intellect that can
ascertain a faraway star’s distance from the Earth, but then concluding it’s
nothing special upon hearing an explanation of triangulation. We are left
unimpressed because God hasn’t worked His wonders with the magical, but we
always forget that the magical fails to make us wonder once we understand
it. God had to create the world in some fashion, but had He done so in a different
manner, would we be more awed and faithful? Not if we could glean insight
into His methods, for it would always be the same old story. As Mark
Twain said, “Familiarity breeds contempt.”
It’s ironic, if we were
too dumb to penetrate the outer layer of God’s handiwork, faith would not be so
elusive. Perhaps, though, our brilliance in the scientific realm is equaled by
our ignorance in the spiritual one.
We are children of God,
like Him in that we possess intellect and free will. Is it surprising
then that those made in the image of He who created the world would have an
ability to understand that creation? Would it make sense to grant these
creatures dominion over the Earth and enjoin them to subdue it without
providing them with a capacity to grasp its workings commensurate to that
task? The irony is that God gives us the ability to understand His world,
and then we can’t understand how the world could be His.
Thus, I wouldn’t scoff
at those who claim that God didn’t direct a particular storm at a hapless city
or visit a certain ailment upon a given man, but neither would I laugh at the
claim that, were we to incur His wrath, He might use the nature He created to
effect His will. Nor would I score those who don’t attribute a certain
terrorist act to divine retribution, but I always accept that His “permitting
will” may allow worldly agents to be the instruments of His justice.
Naysayers may mock such as fringe thinking. But if they expand their
frame of reference and tally the votes of all those who have existed from time
immemorial to the present, it will become obvious how they can identify those
on the periphery of consensus belief. They have only to look in the
mirror.
Then there is the fact
that punishment has become a dirty word. In another wholesale departure
from prescriptions based on the millennia of human experience known as
tradition, many among us eschew punishment, regarding it an ineffectual tool of
the unsophisticated. This is why we see the embrace of the euphemistic
“time-out” (which should be reserved for athletic contests), the enactment of
anti-spanking laws, parents who are unable to control five-year-olds, and a
judge who just sentenced a man convicted of continually raping a young girl for
four years to a mere sixty days in jail. Then, laboring under the
illusion that our errancy is enlightenment, we take a leaf out of the ancient
pagans’ book. Just as their gods were imbued with their own fallen
nature, we ascribe our characteristic failings – in this case pusillanimity,
the tolerance of evil, and gratuitous leniency – to God. We then fancy
Him to be more the divine therapist than the just judge.
Most telling about the
current state of Western civilization, however, is the fact that those who
claim God’s wrath are so roundly subjected to man’s wrath. And a lack of
piety alone doesn’t explain it, for a self-assured atheist would simply laugh
such assertions off as the superstitious musings of anachronistic minds.
No, there’s something else at work here: pride.
Christendom had long
embraced the humbling truth that we are sinners, most deserving of
damnation. It had simultaneously been buoyed by the uplifting truth that,
despite this, we’re not going to get what we deserve because Jesus already paid
the price. Now, in post-Christian America, we have done a 180 degree
about face. With our “I’m okay, you’re okay” attitude, self-esteem (a
euphemism for pride) conditioning in schools, and the New Age belief in the
primacy of the self, some of us prance about as if we had been immaculately
conceived. Thus, the suggestion that we may be deserving of a great
chastisement and, by inference, that we are proportionately corrupt, evokes
howls from corpulent egos.
And perhaps this is what
should truly raise the alarm. We can spend our time crucifying the
admonishers, or we can discover whether they are pretenders or prophets by
casting the probing eye inwards and seeing if the emperor really has no clothes.
And make no mistake, we would be best served by doing the latter. After
all, cultivating a collective pride that blinds us to our faults is a sure path
to oblivion.
Thus, the real problem is not that we won’t believe we have been subject to punishment. Nay, with a society that is quickly making the seven deadly sins a pastime as it slays virtue, the real problem is that we don’t think we deserve it.
© 2008 Selwyn Duke -- All Rights Reserved
Bring back Bruse Walker!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
We want Bruce!
Posted by: bigTom | February 09, 2009 at 09:23 AM
I like this article. It's interesting. Keep the philosophy coming.
Posted by: John | February 09, 2009 at 04:13 PM
Mr. D., you continue to amaze me with your intellect and insight. I "got" most of what you said, but can you explain these two sentences for me?
"We can spend our time crucifying the admonishers, or we can discover whether they are pretenders or prophets by casting the probing eye inwards and seeing if the emperor really has no clothes. And make no mistake, we would be best served by doing the latter."
Posted by: sondra | February 09, 2009 at 09:37 PM
Firstly protesting the utterly childish post by bigTom, I both praise and criticize the esteemed Mr. Duke's article.
I am an amateur, but accomplished student of God's word. One of the most fundamental keys to understanding scripture is to understand difficult verses in light of clear verses. This one is abundantly clear: I John 1:18 - God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. Sewlyn had it right when he said that our God is love. He is incorrect when he asserts that God exacts punishment. This would be darkness, rather than light (and by extension, love) no?
We are behooved to know our enemy. The great Chinese General Sun Tzu wrote a timeless volume stressing this (The Art of War, for those of you who enjoy blissful ignorance). The enemy has a name. It is Satan. The devil is his job description (transalted literaaly from the Greek and Aramaic texts of which our English Bibles were derived, it means "the accuser"). Our enemy has been inordinately successful in convincing us to blame God for his evil "handiwork". Needless to say that I am disappointed that the esteemed and brilliant Selwyn Duke failed to mention this in his op-ed.
I urge you to read Matthew, chapter 4, verses 1-11. In it you will see that Satan makes some interesting offers to the Son of God in exchange for his worship. Did he have the goods or not? Would Jesus not have called his bluff if he did not acknowledge that Satan had such authority?
Satan has had the dominion over the heavens and earth ever since he usurped it from Adam during the fall. Christ Jesus has won this dominion back from him to the extent that we believe he has done so. To the extent that we do not believe this, our salvation shall not occur until he returns again in glory. And he will.
Posted by: Philip France | February 09, 2009 at 11:14 PM
"This one is abundantly clear: I John 1:18 - God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. Sewlyn (sic) had it right when he said that our God is love. He is incorrect when he asserts that God exacts punishment. This would be darkness, rather than light (and by extension, love) no?"
I have to respectfully disagree with you here. When a father punishes his son in order to correct his behavior and make a better person out of him, doesn't he do so out of love? Inversely, wouldn't ignoring that bad behavior and allowing it to shape the child's character for the worse be a true act of hatred?
Biblical history is replete with examples of God punishing His beloved children. When they turned from Him, He visited countless punishments upon ancient Israel, but restored their land each time they repented. If punishment was an evil act, God would allow His followers to descend into moral deviancy with no worldly consequences, thus they would not correct their mistakes and they would pass into Hell after death -- If you ask me, that act of passivity would be much more hateful and evil than any worldly punishment.
Furthermore, can't it be easily observed that God punishes iniquity in this lifetime? Increasing sexual immorality the world over has wrought a geometric increase in the number of known STDs, for example. Giving yourself over to sin has many physical, emotional and psychological consequences -- God doesn't always need floods and pillars of flame to correct our behavior.
Posted by: Xander | February 10, 2009 at 10:42 AM
I do not believe God acts to punish individuals on a case by case basis. Through the Bible, we are given "Commands" and advice. The commands and advice are not given as to be a burden but as a blessing. There is a natural order of things. The natural order is within Gods plan. God's original plan however, did not have evil as a part, nor is it a part today. Satan’s plan is the inverse of God's. Satan wishes to destroy the object of God's affection...his people. God knows this and has given us "The Word" (John 1:1) to survive the world and the deeds of its prince. Within the natural order, consequences follow actions. The "Commands" and advice in the Bible are our only source of Truth in a fallen world. A map trough the gauntlet if you will. If we follow the map not only will we have eternal life with an adoring Father, but we will avoid the predetermined earthly punishment for failure to adhere to his natural order...the consequences of actions. The consequences are not just physical ones like STDs and the like but emotional strife and dissatisfaction. The Word, both in a physical and literal meaning "...was not sent to condemn the world, but that we may have life, and have it more abundantly." John 10:10b. I certainly am not here to say God never acts to punish a person or deed as sent by a strike of lightning, but such behavior is not displayed too often in scripture. Off the top of my head I can think of Jonah, Cain, Ahab and Lots wife. I know there are more but I believe they are the exception and not the rule. However, God does judge and punish Nations in their time....ouch!
Posted by: Walt | February 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Walt's post is very good. Xander's post is a humanistic understanding of God's Word, which is to be of no "private interpretation" (II Peter 1:20).
Ancient man attributed all acts, good or evil, to God for two primary reasons: 1. They were mindful of the 1st Commandment wherein there shall be "no other gods before me" and 2. Satan had not been fully exposed until the advent of Jesus' ministry on earth. Satan is hardly mentioned in the Old Testament.
The negative consequences that are visited upon sinners throughout the Bible and history are the works of Satan, not God. Walt mentioned John 10:10b, a very valuable verse declaring Jesus' "mission statement", if you will. The first part of that very same verse is Satan's "mission statement": "The thief cometh not but for to steal, and to kill and to destroy." This phrase is worded deliberately so as to show that Satan has no other purpose but these three goals. He has had millenia of "practice" at this and he is quite successful. The repitition of the word "and" is a Figure of Speech known as "Polysyndeton" (or many "ands"). The purpose of this Figure is to add emphasis to the items between the "ands".
The Bible appears to many to be (aside from historical text and devotional passages) a book of rules. It is not. Taken as a whole, it is a love story. It tells the greatest story of love; the love of The Father for his creation. Jesus Christ is the hero of the story and the subject of The Bible from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 22:21.
God's plan of salvation is to restore mankind to oneness with him that Adam originally enjoyed when he was created "in His image". Jesus Christ was the human sacrifice that replaced the Old Testament offerings that substituted for temporary approach to God. This salvation is available this very day, but will be fully realised for those who believe on Jesus after the events recorded in I Thessalonians 4:15-18. For all others, the prophecy recorded in the Book of Revelation apply.
Posted by: Philip France | February 10, 2009 at 01:26 PM
Good stuff Philip! I enjoy the comments on this site almost as much as as Selwyn's stuff. As iron sharpens iron.
Posted by: Walt | February 10, 2009 at 04:20 PM
Indeed Phil very good stuff. I even hate seeing you waste your time arguing with Nihil.. He's Plankton.. He couldnt smell where you defecate. Let sleeping dogs lie.
Posted by: Mike | February 18, 2009 at 08:35 PM
Mike,
I am very grateful for your kind words (toward me, that is). I appreciate your opinion about Mr. Plankton, but let me run this by you: I believe that clear-headed thinkers preach to their own choirs too often and not enough to the lunatic fringe, or even benign liberals, for that matter. Regardless, truth is a clarion. I think of this as ringing a bell that cannot be "unrung" and that we should speak the truth regardless of how it is accepted.
My friend, we need to take our Republic back, if it has to be one sound-byte at a time. Your thoughts?
Posted by: Philip France | February 18, 2009 at 10:42 PM
I would have to say I agree with you Philip. Nihli is new here (at least his screen name is). He is obviously a liberal but we all have no idea how left he really is. In a forum where reason, logic and cooler heads prevail, the argument for personal and economic freedom will always prevail (the right). Ad Hominem tactics never further the discussion, nor are they designed as a tactic of persuasion; but a tactic of confusion and exit. One reason I would like to keep it cool, is the conversion of David Horowitz. Mr. Horowitz was born into a Communist home, raised as a communist, and acted as one in his adult life...however, David Horowitz saw the flaws of the left, defected, and has become a very powerful voice of reason. I do not know what turned on the light for Horowitz, but I would imagine it was logical arguments and observation and not because he was tired of being called a Marxist, pinko, commie, red diaper baby, and so on; the inverse...they feed on that. The art of persuasion is not one of quick returns. As a matter of fact from the very beginning of this constitutional republic of united states there have been naysayers. Of course back then men were much more educated in history, and the art of communication. AS a matter of saving the Union and preserving the constitution, a number of our founders participated in the "Federalist Papers." Most Americans have no idea what they are, nor could most Americans comprehend the content due to lack of vocabulary. This is sad. The Federalist Papers are not an easy read, nor, I imagine an easy write. But they are a treasure; not only relevant in the 18th century but today as well. Wisdom is timeless.
Posted by: Walt | February 19, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Philip once again I agree with your logic: "I think of this as ringing a bell that cannot be "unrung" and that we should speak the truth regardless of how it is accepted." Great point. We allow them to dictate the conversations, to decide whats important and what isnt. We lose when this happens. We cannot fall prey to being labeled insensitive or haters or whatever new term they've come up with to label anyone that disagrees with their opinions. They give credance to the phrase "One man speaks a falsehood and a hundred repeat it as true." Its like one lies and the other swears to it. What can we do though? I so want to take back our country. I certainly want to leave it better than it is for the sake of my children and the other children that have no say at this point in what is happening. The thing that I dont understand is why so called "heavy hitters" like Rush, Savage, Hannity, Beck and other Conservatives are not standing behind Keyes and Berg on this issue with Obama's eligibility. Any ideas? I know some die-hard liberals and they fimly believe this issue is moot... That he has proven that he is a "natural born citizen" by posting that document on his web site. We simply have to unite and energize the sleepers among us who feel the same way about our great nation.
Posted by: Mike | February 19, 2009 at 08:31 PM
Mike and Walt, I appreciate your compliments and I welcome you into my bosom as fellow Patriotic Americans that can think with their intellect and not through the kaleidoscopic filter that is our human emotions.
Mike posits the question that "why the heavy hitters", et al, are not backing Berg and Keyes. I have heard Savage speak on this subject and I reluctantly agree that it would be bad for our nation as a whole. While I dispute Obama's election; not only on the grounds of his natural-birth status but also because of the rampant voter fraud that no doubt added to his electoral numbers in immense capacity; his support from the pants-peeing press and how they would portray any investigation and dismantling of his election would result in strife and discord.
My hope and prayer is that common Americans will feel Obama's incompetancy and lurch toward Marxism in their wallets, in their gun safes and in their very freedom to disagree. I pray that the good people of the United States of America will awaken from their slumber and ask, "What happened?" while they were watching baseball, football, "All My Children" and "American I-Dull".
In the meantime; let sensible, sober people like you, Walt and I; with the help of great thinkers and voices like Michael Savage and Selwyn Duke never relent on the opportunity to shout down the lunatic fringe. They are a very small, albeit loud, minority. Let's show them to be the mentally disorded psychopaths that they really are... and their useful idiots along with them!
Posted by: Philip France | February 19, 2009 at 10:50 PM