non nova sed nove

“It is the custom among ecclesiastical socialists to deny that there is Biblical warrant for private property. Their ground for this is the often repeated Biblical declaration, “The earth is the LORD’S” (Ex. 9:29, etc.). They choose to neglect the total witness of Scripture to private property. The so-called communism of Acts 2:41-47, also cited by ecclesiastical socialists, was simply a voluntary sharing on the part of some (Acts 5). It was limited to Jerusalem. Because the believers took literally the words of Christ concerning the fall of Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1-28), they liquidated their properties there. The wealthier members placed some or all of these funds at the church’s disposal, so that a witness could be made to their friends and relatives before Jerusalem fell. Very early, persecution drove all but a nucleus out of Jerusalem (Acts 8:1).

The earth is indeed the Lord’s, as is all dominion, but God has chosen to give dominion over the earth to man, subject to His law-word, and property is a central aspect of that dominion. The absolute and transcendental title to property is the Lord’s; the present and historical title to property is man’s. The ownership of property does not leave this world when it is denied to man; it is simply transferred to the state. If the contention of the liberals that the earth is the Lord’s, not man’s, is to be applied as they require it, then it must be applied equally to the state; the state then must be denied all right to own or control property.”

— Rousas John Rushdoony †2001

One of the reasons for the Reformation, one that does not get the press it deserves, is the break with a ground-motive that was and is at odds with the Biblical motive of Creation-Fall-Redemption. The reigning spiritual structure of the years preceding the Reformation was expressed in the writings of Thomas Aquinas — the Nature-Grace synthesis, the child of the marriage between Hellenic and Biblical notions. The creeping specter of the synthesizing attitude is still around today. It means the end of Protestantism if it continues.

It is a fascinating fact of church history that the Eastern branch of the church has avoided this particular pitfall that has infected the Western. The Eastern theologians have put a bar at the door of Being and said, “None shall enter”. Their apophatic methodology has saved them from much of the Hellenic mistakes found in the West. This has laid them open, perhaps mistakenly, to the charge of mysticism, but the West’s rationalism has been and continues to be it’s Achilles heel — “You shall be like God” is a temptation that comes in all sorts of forms.

Semper reformanda.

This is a little late in coming, but a recent discussion with my oldest daughter and wife about the film sparked some thoughts and I wanted to get them down before I forgot. These are just some basic ruminations based on questions my daughter was asking — she loves fantasy literature and we went and saw the film together when it first came out. My wife has not seen the film but was wondering about some of the controversy that has swirled around it within evangelical circles.

There is a sermon excerpt from Mark Driscoll that circulated around the web on the film. In it Mr. Driscoll stated boldly that Avatar was satanic and demonic. This précis is a riposte to his bloviation.

First, Avatar is that new species of the fantasy — or fairy-tale — genre known as science fiction. In other words, it is not asserting a philosophic or idealistic view of reality within our own as contradictory to the one we experience, but rather creates an entirely different place where creatures and things that we do not know exist. Pantheism suggests that known things are god. Avatar presents things, such as trees, as actual creatures- they are not trees as we know them, but exist as a wholly other kind of thing. Much like Tolkien did with the Ents in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The story of Avatar acknowledges the existence of earth as a distinct kind of place from Pandora within the setting of the film, they co-exist as two separate, distinct kind of places. It could even be argued that, contrary to classic paganism, the story of Avatar maintains the distinction between the Creator and the creature. What we have is simply a different set of creatures within a different environment.

Secondly, the humans who experience the alien world of Pandora engage with it as a distinct reality from the one they knew on earth. They do not experience a revelation in their own minds regarding the nature of earthly existence, but rather experience the alien planet as an objective, alternative kind of place. Pantheism suggests that men do not see reality as it is, and until their minds are opened to a particular revelation of it, they remain unenlightened. This is not the notion suggested in Avatar. The experience of Pandora is not activated by a personal revelation, but is a physical reality experienced by all who visit.

Having said this, the film suggests an explicit world based on the popular notions found in the Gaia hypothesis, ideas that date back to the Hellenic search for a unifying substance or controlling aspect within nature. That search for a unifying notion is not itself Satanic, as men are religious by nature. When men pursue a unifying idea within temporal experience, they express their participation in the fall of Adam, as oriented toward the creation rather than the Creator. They do this within the realm of this world, in reality.

But, when a fantasy world is created, and the creatures within it act in accordance with the reality of that world — whatever kind of world that might be — then what we have is a potentially interesting piece of literature or film.

Finally, and as an aside, Mr. Drsicoll asserts that the film is contrary to the cultural mandate found in Genesis 1:28. He does not go so far as to suggest that the film depicts people who are fulfilling the mandate, but his words suggest that the opposition to the invasion of Pandora is a denial of something that might be close to it. Mr. Driscoll demonstrates deep confusion about the mandate in this regard. But again, I am not so sure the mandate was ever intended to include fantasy planets.

I would hope that Christians would take more time to think through these issues. We can be faithful without compromise, and still engage the artistic works of fallen men with intelligence and understanding. Reactionary and dogmatic evaluations are rarely accurate or helpful. Although we need to be circumspect, there is much to admire in the work of all kinds of men. We should strive as far as possible to see the world without a jaundiced eye.

“But as I put my head over the hedge of the elves and began to take notice of the natural world, I observed an extraordinary thing. I observed that learned men in spectacles were talking of the actual things that happened–dawn and death and so on–as if THEY were rational and inevitable. They talked as if the fact that trees bear fruit were just as NECESSARY as the fact that two and one trees make three. But it is not. There is an enormous difference by the test of fairyland; which is the test of the imagination. You cannot IMAGINE two and one not making three. But you can easily imagine trees not growing fruit; you can imagine them growing golden candlesticks or tigers hanging on by the tail”.
— GK Chesterton

Psalm 20
May He remember all your meal offerings
And find your burnt offering acceptable! — 3

The burnt offering was a substitutionary sacrifice. “…he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD. He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf”.— Leviticus 1:3b-4

Jesus was the acceptable substitution, the unblemished Lamb of God. By standing in the place of those condemned in Adam, Christ has propitiated the necessary wrath of God — “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins”. — 1 John 2:2. There is now, therefore, no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

We will sing for joy over your victory,
And in the name of our God we will set up our banners.
May the LORD fulfill all your petitions. — 5

The crucifixion, seen by the devil and his seed as the victory of darkness, was instead the end of darkness, of death and slavery to sin. As the Apostle Paul wrote: “And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross”. — Colossians 2:15

Now I know that the LORD saves His anointed;
He will answer him from His holy heaven
With the saving strength of His right hand. — 6

The anointed is, first, David, who is a type of the Christ who is to come. It is also, by extension, all those who are included in Christ, having been purchased with His blood.

“Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives”. — Hebrews 2:14-15

They have bowed down and fallen,
But we have risen and stood upright. — 8

The Lord was raised from the dead, and now sits at the right hand of the Father. His enemies have been vanquished. Death has been killed. “The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil” — 1 John 3:8

Maranatha! O’ Lord, come!

Psalm 19:2-3 contains what appears at first glance to be a contradiction.
Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech, nor are there words;
Their voice is not heard.

The challenge is to clear up the apparent contradiction, while still maintaining the dialectic that is built into the poem — one which some translations try and flatten out with the non-existent qualifier “where” in verse 2. The language may seem paradoxical, but it is here that something special is found.

If verse 2 is understood as the denial of a kind of speech, that is the logo-centric type, the contradictory tension is lifted. In this regard, there is silence. The kind of speech which is the creational order is understood in a naive sense, as an immediate, intuitive knowledge that transcends the νοῦς. In this regard, it does pour forth speech, but not the kind heard by the ears or understood by our analytical powers.

The content of this kind of talk is found in verse 1:

The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

The content is the same — albeit the mode of transmission as well the receptor are different — and no less articulate and meaningful than the written Word.

“Now our very eyes and the Law of Nature teach us that God exists and that He is the Efficient and Maintaining Cause of all things: our eyes, because they fall on visible objects, and see them in beautiful stability and progress, immovably moving and revolving if I may so say; natural Law, because through these visible things and their order, it reasons back to their Author. For how could this Universe have come into being or been put together, unless God had called it into existence, and held it together? For every one who sees a beautifully made lute, and considers the skill with which it has been fitted together and arranged, or who hears its melody, would think of none but the lutemaker, or the luteplayer, and would recur to him in mind, though he might not know him by sight. And thus to us also is manifested That which made and moves and preserves all created things, even though He be not comprehended by the mind.”
— Gregory Nazianzen, The Second Theological Oration

“Woe to him that receives; for if one having need receives, he is guiltless; but he that receives not having need, shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what, and, coming into straits (confinement), he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape thence until he pay back the last farthing (Matthew 5:26). But also now concerning this, it has been said, Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give“.
— Didache, Chapter One

“To me, there nothing more important in a preacher than that he should have a systematic theology, that he should know it and be well grounded in it. This systematic theology, this body of truth which is derived from the Scripture, should always be present as a background and as a controlling influence in his preaching”. — Martyn Lloyd-Jones*

“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things. But if both readings, or all of them (if there are more than two), give a meaning in harmony with the faith, it remains to consult the context, both what goes before and what comes after, to see which interpretation, out of many that offer themselves, it pronounces for and permits to be dovetailed into itself”. — Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, 2:2

Lloyd-Jones is silent in regards to conciliar systematics, but Augustine was not. The silence is not a denial necessarily, just an assertion of the individuality that Lloyd-Jones prized so much. I think Lloyd-Jones would admit that he was dependent on church councils, despite himself.

*Thanks to Mr. Wilson for the quote from Lloyd-Jones. All italics mine.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. vv. 1-2

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. v. 7

Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. v. 14

The daily pattern of the created order, the written Word and the life of the reforming saint speak in harmony of the glory of God. The daily, regular pattern of “morning and evening” is a confirmation of the faithfulness of God. The law is, likewise, a perfect reflection of the character of God and His power. Only the saint must keep watch and reform, and seek to live in harmony with what is already perfect — the divine intention.

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. — Philippians 2:12-13

At the brightness that was before him his thick clouds passed, hail stones and coals of fire.

The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire.
— Psalm 18:12-13

David gives clue to an understanding of historical judgment and apocalyptic literature generally. The language, if understood as the specific way in which the judgment happened, would be contrary to the historical record. There were not physical hail stones, nor coals of fire that fell on David’s enemies. Rather, the means which God used to judge the enemies of Israel were warfare, famine and political maneuvering. In the place of describing these very normal means (found in the historical books), David uses these thematic terms. This is a type of figurative trope — one in which the species of the genus has been changed. David uses poetic compaction to speak of the judgment of God. John does the same in Revelation.

Besides misconstruing the book of Revelation, perhaps we miss the judgment of God today, because we are waiting for hail stones and coals of fire.

“His epitaph is Athanasius contra mundum, “Athanasius against the world.” We are proud that our own country has more than once stood against the world. Athanasius did the same. He stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, “whole and undefiled,” when it looked as if all the civilised world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius—into one of those “sensible” synthetic religions which are so strongly recommended today and which, then as now, included among their devotees many highly cultivated clergymen. It is his glory that he did not move with the times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away”.

— CS Lewis, Introduction to On the Incarnation