Category — Philosophy

“Meaning is the being of all that has been created and the nature even of our self-hood”.
— pg. 4, Herman Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Vol. I

“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

“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

Arise, O LORD, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword (cf. Ezekiel 25):

From men which are thy hand, O LORD, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes.

As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.
— Psalm 17:14-15

Present prosperity and fruitfulness is not a definitive marker of God’s favor. It could simply mean that you are a tool in God’s hands. A hope in what is unseen and yet to come, despite current troubles, is that sign of a prosperity that will never perish, spoil or fade.

“The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot”. — Psalm 16:5

The sorrows of those who have bartered for another god will be multiplied;
I shall not pour out their drink offerings of blood,
Nor will I take their names upon my lips.

The LORD is the portion of my inheritance and my cup;
You support my lot.
The lines have fallen to me in pleasant places;
Indeed, my heritage is beautiful to me.
— Psalm 16:4-6

The bourgeoisie versus the aristocrats or the shop window and the sitting-room versus the throne room.

Here is my definition of relevance — knowing the Word and knowing the heart. This means identifying and pressing the antitheses, discerning between the religious ground-motives and those aspects of life that are relative. Identify and press the deep antithesis between the two kinds of men, identify and press the antithesis between the Word and every other worldview. On the other hand, accept truth where you find it, but reject the ground-motives. When minsters start to trade what is absolute (the Word) for what is relative (man’s temporal-aspectual experience), make the relative absolute, or dismiss truth because it is spoken by an enemy, the battle is lost.

“For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart”.
— Hebrews 4:12

The pomo rejects the meaning in the text, because they reject authorial intent. The Christian accepts the meaning in the text, and sometimes in spite of authorial intent.

“…let every good and true Christian understand that wherever truth may be found, it belongs to his Master; and while he recognizes and acknowledges the truth, even in their religious literature, let him reject the figments of superstition, and let him grieve over and avoid men who, when they knew God, glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things”.
- Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II

“But for the searching of the Scriptures and true knowledge of them, an honourable life is needed, and a pure soul, and that virtue which is according to Christ; so that the intellect guiding its path by it, may be able to attain what it desires, and to comprehend it, in so far as it is accessible to human nature to learn concerning the Word of God. For without a pure mind and a modelling of the life after the saints, a man could not possibly comprehend the words of the saints”.
— Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 57:1-2