As I have been working through the Essays of C.S. Lewis, I have noticed how dedicated to the argument he was. He believed in the reality of fixed and objective truth, and believed it was necessary to assume such a fixed reality in order to get anywhere at all. We have to assume that reality in order to live rightly within it, and we have to assume that reality in order to pretend that it is not there.
Having realized that this was essential, Lewis would then give himself to the rigorous pursuit of a clear understanding of the way the world actually is, so that he might then conform himself to it.
He was certainly a “romantic rationalist,” but this did not mean that he submitted his reason to his feelings, or his feeling to his reason. Rather he was seeking to conform both his feelings and his reason to an objective fixed reality outside him. Men with minds and men with chests were supposed to be the same men, and therefore obligated to live integrated lives in the world God made.
The ancient view that the passions need to be subordinated to reason is actually a category mistake. The passions actually need to be submitted to what God requires of the passions — as revealed in both nature and Scripture. Our reason must be submitted to what God requires of our reason — as revealed in both nature and Scripture. My reason might help me identify what the world is actually like, and thus help me to know what my passions need to submit to, but it goes the other way as well. My passions might help me identify what I ought to love, and thus help me to know what my reason needs to study. Submitting passions in the abstract to reason in the abstract is like adding two oranges to three avocados and asking how many penguins that makes. Some unclear assumptions have been smuggled in somewhere.
But as admirable as the example of Lewis is, I have also noticed that we live in a generation that does not operate in this sane way at all — not that this is a hard thing to notice. The subjectivism that Lewis despised is now everywhere, and it is rampant in the church. In some respects, the church leads the way in it. Pretending to be concerns with the permanent things, we change churches the way we change our favorite restaurants.
For example, as I observe Christians making choices of enormous theological significance, I find them frequently doing it for reasons other than what is real or true. People change churches because they are tired. They abandon theological convictions because they are now out of fashion, and can be safely relegated to the closet of the spare room. They change liturgies for the same reasons that people quit wearing bell bottoms, and will one day start wearing them again.
And here is another example. The whole “social justice warrior” fad was not the result of rigorous analysis or argument. It is a function of deciding that the social conservatism of the parents of millennials was . . . well, too parental. So what we have seen is drift, abandonment, laziness — as though economic reality cares if the head containing the economic fallacy has dreadlocks or not. When it came to the necessity of conservatism, the Pauline principle has been largely ignored. “Only let us hold true to what we have attained” (Phil. 3:16, ESV).
Feelings untethered can be capricious and contradictory. But if we have abandoned the task of anchoring how we feel to how the world actually is, it no longer matters how contradictory we are. And this explains a lot.
Let me finish with an example that puts a knife to the throat of everyone who has complained — with the appropriate amount of spiritual indignation of course — about the greed of the one percent. This example should provide us with an opportunity to follow what we say we believe. It should illustrate the authority that argument has in our lives. If you make more than 25K per year, you are in the global one percent. Now what?
fifth paragraph, last sentence, “concerned” not “concerns.”
If the social justice warriors hear your last factoid, they will simply want to increase the foreign aid. Besides the fact that it is taking of someone’s money instead of asking for it, or that it goes not to the poor but to wealthy government officials.
second paragraph, first sentence, “hear” not “here.”
:)
Without a clear understanding of a godly culture, a City of God, you could say, they (or we as a people) will never care about the difference between giving and taking. We think its about results not how the game is played. Everyone deserves a trophy and all that. Without trust in God’s sovereignty at the bottom, theres just not much hope.
“It is a function of deciding that the social conservatism of the parents of millennials was . . . well, too parental.”
I’m trying to figure out what you mean by social conservatism of the parents of millennials. I was born in 81. I am part of the early millennial generation. There was nothing conservative about my parents’ social views nor that of the majority of my peers’ parents. Most of my peers come from broken homes, government education, and no moral standards. There is nothing conservative about that.
John, for my money, he is referring to those Christian social justice warriors who only find authentic faith in viewing the world and the Bible through Marxist eyes.
I know who he is talking about. I am questioning his characterizing of their parents as conservatives. Just because many may have been against homo-mirage and in some sense pro family does not negate their liberalism in their divorces or sending their children to be educated by the government. These are not conservative values. The millennial generation has taken the seeds of their parents’ hypocrisy to fruition
People stopped wearing bell bottoms?
I think not sir! ????????
Move the decimal. Or miss the point.
Even certain old hippies changed from “don’t trust anyone over 30”. To “don’t trust anyone under $30,000!”
Marxists without guns are like Rastafarians with no ganja.
I’m not sure what your comment means, but I like it!
Me too. I think I’ll figure it out one day.
I really enjoy CS Lewis. I suppose I am a romantic reasonalist, too. It is not that feelings are bad, it is that feelings devoid of reason become problematic. Reason devoid of feelings can also become a great evil. I like to think of the symbiosis between men and women and the kind of harmony that God likes to see. We’re all a bit different, but there is a very complimentary nature to that relationship, women tending to exist more on the emotional side of things, but men quite capable of reasoning themselves into a great deal of trouble. Morality… Read more »
Nice comment being 8 years after. Hope you are well.
The problem with the feelings-oriented folks is that they believe themselves to be the only ones out there who are cold-steel, Mr. Spock rational. I’d appreciate a Mablog article on how to get the touchy-feely people to understand that they really are being touchy-feely.
“as revealed in both nature and Scripture”
I’m grateful you’ve lately been emphasizing the authority of nature (correctly seen, of course).
Isn’t it a fact that Scripture is largely a commentary on what He said & says in & through nature? Both were spoken into being by Jesus, yes?
How can either lack authority?
Oh, Doug. Another millenial whack job, and less imaginative than most. Certainly nobody could shift their priorities toward social justice for any reason other than bitterness toward our parents. Certainly none of us would ever oppose our parents’ reflexive social conservatism for any sensible reason – for example, that it has failed of all its objectives and done serious damage to the Church in the process. But no, we’re abandoning it because we’re whiny and capricious. If Millennials do resent our parents, it’s probably because they keep propagating stereotype-ridden demeaning crap like this right here, and keep denying that we… Read more »
That philosophy you formed — can we see it?
Also, does it often demand this disrespectful jive you offer?
:: shrugs:: is my response any more disrespectful than the actual content of the article? I’m basically accused of making major theological decisions and lifestyle choices because I don’t like my parents. Not only is that a grave insult, but I do actually like my parents a great deal. I suppose (admitting that I’m neither a philosopher, nor a theologian, nor even a spokesman for my generation as a whole) I’d sum up the philosophy as deemphasizing an enlightenment-style, obsessively technical and detail-oriented approach to theology, and more of a shift toward engaging the world around us. That is, I… Read more »
“Perhaps we’re better represented by the rambling, touchy-feely style of 1 John than by the precise technical lecutres of Romans.”
– As Christians, are we not called to incorporate both (all) books of the Bible into our hearts, minds, and worldviews, completely and equally? Is the Inspiration of one not the same as all others?
– Is Romans void of passion, and 1John void of “precise technical” theology? I find it difficult to read Romans 8 without my passions being stirred, likewise reading 1John engages my (renewed) mind and grounds me theologically as much as any other book.
No argument. I use books of the Bible differently as metaphors than I do when actually studying them :)
And “wack job” is one of your touchy feely Johannian terms?
Doug Wilson is not a wack job (or you, probably). The piece is a “whack job” or, more formally, an “attack piece.”
“I’m basically accused of making major theological decisions and lifestyle choices because I don’t like my parents.”
Why do you think he’s talking about you?
Millennials don’t like generalizations. ;)
I was born in 1985. I fit the definition of the category he targeted in the title and again in that specific paragraph. So the real question is, why do you think he isn’t?
I don’t know that he wasn’t talking about you, but I was born in 1984 and he wasn’t talking about me. Are you part of the “social justice warior” crowd?
I suppose it depends who’s drawing the categories. I believe in social justice, and I hope you do too; perhaps Mr. Wilson is describing people whose opinions about what that actually means and how to achieve it differ from his own. In which case I have no idea if he means me or not, but he should still allow for the possibility that people might disagree with him from other motives than anti-parent resentment.
“What doth the Lord require of thee but to deal justly to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God”
So yes I care about justice in scociety.
Then there is the “social justice warrior” crowd Doug was talking about who want reality to conform itself to their feelings. I’ve seen examples of this from tumblr more than anywhere else.
Why does it get to be “Wilson’s generation” on the one hand and you personally on the other?
Do you not see a problem here?
… no, actually. I’m following the precedent Wilson set in the piece.
Sighless,
Speaking as someone born in 1960, keeping an open mind about that “foolishness” thing, sometimes yields unexpectedly large benefits! ; – )
For one thing, it’s saved me from wearing toupes’.!
^ _ ^ If foolishness is the antidote to toupees, how do you explain Trump?
Sighless,
you mis-understand. Considering that wearing a toupee’ might be foolish, is the thing that keeps some people from being foolish enough to wear one.
That lame stream “jounalist” Sam Donaldson was a toupe’ man is a strong indicator that he was very OK with editing reality, as he did.
Trump? As David Letterman once said:
“What’s the deal with Trump’s hair?”
If Trump is anything, he’s a plug man, which does demonstrate that he can deal effectively with root issues, at a root level! ; – )
Social science research repeatedly confirms the accuracy of stereotypes: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201210/stereotype-inaccuracy
(And yes, a lot of the Boomer generation is going to die alone and unloved due to their short-sighted behaviour as parents — but that does not make any of the criticisms levelled at the Millennial generation inaccurate.)
It appears as though you do not believe the article applies to you personally. I get that.
Neither does my son believe it applies to him personally.
He ,however on reading this said, “Yep my generation sucks”, and went back to work.
I can only gather from this that he does not have his identity wrapped up in his “generation” as tightly as you seem to.
Maybe we should have the “generalizations-have-exceptions” discussion again.
It’s not necessarily to have my identity wrapped up in my generation to resent it when my generation gets slammed. As a Christian, I resent it when Christians are generally held to be narrow-minded bigots who are trying to ruin everyone’s fun. I know people like this exist – I have met some personally – and I know I am not one of them, but they are still assumed in some way to represent me, causing overall damage to the perception of Christians by others. I think this is worth opposing, even in cases where I recognize it doesn’t apply… Read more »
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is stereotyping generations in that comment?
^ _ ^ If you oppose stereotyping any generation, we’re on the same team, which is basically the point I’m trying to make. If you think it’s fine for DW to do but mean and unfair when I do it, I’d be very interested to hear why.
Generalizing and stereotyping are not the same thing. It’s possible to say, “This is generally true of this generation,” while still firmly holding onto the idea that the description does not fit every member of the generation. I oppose stereotyping but I have no problem with generalities that are demonstrably true. Whether this one is or not is something that can be discussed, but to write it off on the sole basis that it doesn’t apply to some people is to miss the point, and to refuse to learn what can be learned from the situation. Mostly, though, I have… Read more »
Thanks for your feedback. Actually, the generalization is not mine, it’s DW’s: he presupposes the “social conservatism of the parents of millennials.” Perhaps you should take this up with him.
They’re one step ahead of you, Pastor — being wealthy and successful means you should get a high-paying job and spend your money on Doing The Most Good: http://www.effectivealtruism.org/about-ea
Well,..I guess “Deffective Altruism” is still available as a movement name.
Perhaps socialism could re-brand it’s self! ; – )
I remember years ago watching Millennials as toddlers on the tiled floor of WalMart kicking and screaming because they wanted some candy—raising hell until their parents submitted to their wants. Instead of swift trip to the car for the appropriate discipline, Mom would indulge the child’s feelings and coddle them through their sugar crisis until finally giving in and loading the cart with Skittles. What we have now are grown up Millennials who are behaving the same way while the generation ahead of them capitulates to their every desire and feeling at the expense of anything rational. (Yep…I’m looking at… Read more »
Toddlers of my parents’ generation never shouted for candy, they sat and waited patiently until someone gave them a carrot, whereupon they peeled it gave it to a Republican as a donation.
Toddlers of my grandparents’ generation grew their own candy from the earth’s bounty, and never asked any favors from anyone.
So, Mr. Brown, what judgments ought one to make about your character on the basis of your behavior as a toddler?
I believe the point was about the behavior of the parents.
Toddlers of my parents’ and grandparents’, and mostly my, generation didn’t get the candy when that happened, and when they did, the other adults around looked askance at the parent.
Toddlers of my generation foraged for our own berries, but only when our chores were done.
Toddlers of my generation scraped out the insides of sewer pipes and used it for candy!
“Toddlers of my parents’ generation never shouted for candy”
Don’t we all scream for ice-cream though?
Silas, I was an awesome toddler who bounded through life always obeying my parents. Because of my propensity for being mostly perfect, I grew up into an outstanding adult who always submits to authority. That’s true of every single Generation X’er.
Having said that, I wish you hadn’t been so harsh with the sarcasm of your post. I wish you would rethink what you wrote and understand that it was hurtful. I will patiently wait at my computer and hit refresh until I see a formal apology.
Yikes, hope your wait ended. I didn’t intend any offense, and the tone was meant to be humorous, not cutting. To the extent I did that poorly, I apologize.
Yeah, my post was also meant to be goofy. I may have to take up using emojis because I’m not quite clear enough to be witty.
My mother says I was a toddler of so saintly a disposition that people showered candy on me as a reward while my older brother watched this display with revulsion and loathing. This was why my parents were so startled when Jerry Rubin and I liberated the faculty club, as referenced above.
And don’t forget the Millennials in Ferguson, MO. And the Millennials in Baltimore. Today the first trial of a cop for allegedly killing Freddie Gray ended in a mistrial because the jury couldn’t reach a verdict.
Let’s hope the Millennials in Bal’mor don’t try to burn the city down, like the Millennials in Los Angeles did in ’92. I remember that like it was yesterday. I’m not old enough to remember 1967-68, but Millennials torched a couple dozen cities back then.
Feelings untethered…
New band name! I call it!
The Whining of Fragile Snowflakes. Gonna be huge.
First hit, a “Feelings” remake?
Julio Igelsisas could do a cameo!
Most “social conservatives” want people who consume particular plants to be caged, raped, have their economic potential destroyed, and have their families ruptured, all at the expense of taxpayers (edit: more accurately, at the expense of the unborn through national debt). In their minds this seems like just the normal, healthy, God-honoring thing for society to do, and if someone comes along and questions it, they get shut down. Not shouted down, but shut down. No debate, no understanding, no curiosity, no empathy. And you wonder why so many young people reject the “conservatism” of their parents. Maybe it has… Read more »
Ben, where ever you may be, I’d bet you would be happier living in Colorado!
They’re “Jammin’ ” there, so to speak. ; – )
Then, like…,dude,…. you could like….comment, with, like… a much cooler head!
I could have made my statement like this: “In my opinion, the fact that so many young people reject the social conservatism of their parents may be attributable to certain perceived inconsistencies in that worldview, an example of which is the seemingly unquestioning support so many older conservatives give for the wasteful, ineffective, and costly drug war. Many young people realize that not only is supporting the drug war illogical (if one calls oneself conservative), but it is also an increasingly politically untenable position. In their minds, there is no other option but to reject it outright.” I could have… Read more »
“…and if someone comes along and questions it, they get shut down. Not shouted down, but shut down. No debate, no understanding, no curiosity, no empathy.”
This does not match Colorado’s law and policy re: pot. In some ways the whole state just turned in to a giant head shop.
The predictable social consequences are already showing!
Bummer man. :-(
Perhaps the more youthfull and ever so enlightened generation should light up and re-think their attitude about recreational drugs.
You’re not making any sense. Not trying to be mean. :)
“Feelings untethered can be capricious and contradictory. But if we have abandoned the task of anchoring how we feel to how the world actually is, it no longer matters how contradictory we are. And this explains a lot.”
I’m sorry that you feel I am not making any sense, even while you consider my feelings, “and this explains a lot”! ; – )
(FYI pot is legal in Colorado. Did you know, I mean, feel that?)
It’s just that, when people, like, don’t respect my opinions and feelings and stuff, it makes me feel, I dunno…frustrated, unheard, like they’re not sympathizing or something. And I just wanna like, not even say what I think and feel anymore, ya know?
There there young lad, there is often a modicum of respect in any ongoing conversation! Even when there is no respect involved in a conversation, there is still something to be learned by the thinking person. There is not much to be learned by the feeling person because feelings often cloud the real issues.
If people give their thoughts and feelings proper wieght, they often get wiser as they get older.
So hang in there Beni, but think at least as much as you feel, if not more so!
I agree. Prison time for drug possession is inhumane and unsupportable.
Flogging would be the wiser choice.
Wait, didn’t you say that on a different post somewhere?
Also, would you vote for something like that if you had the chance? I’m just trying to ascertain whether or not you’re serious.
Because if you are, then by any rational standard, you’re insane. Not anymore than the drug warriors, but still….
I don’t really believe in voting. (But yes, I am serious: corporal punishment is in many, many cases more effective and humane than incarceration.)
That may be true, but it’s still insane. Would you have the government flog someone for getting drunk in a private setting? If not, why not? What’s the difference? And if so, would you be willing to flog that person yourself, say, for a million dollars? I understand the importance of appearing crazy to the world in one sense, i.e., having an inexplicable hope and peace in hard times, refusing to bow down to the altar of the latest scientific theories, etc. etc. But this is a different kind of crazy you’re demonstrating. I really hope you don’t promote such… Read more »
LOL somebody’s triggered
Triggered, but not crazy.
Straw man; only a very small portion of inmates are there for “just dope”. Usually the “dope convictions” are more serious charges (assault, etc..) that get plea bargained down to the drug charge. And really, the punishment isn’t the sharp point of an argument for legalization. Rather, you’ve got to address (refute) the hypothesis that dopers are imprisoning millions of Americans in chains of that happy weed and ruining lives that way. If the cocaine dealer I met in college was indeed imprisoning dozens or hundreds of his neighbors with the “snow” he dealt, I don’t mind the fact that… Read more »
This is not a rebellious generation. It has learned the lesson that social conservatism is for losers; the successful and respectable people all agree that feelings are more important than reality, and have for many years now. Thinking or acting otherwise immediately gets you condemned as backwards and irrelevant.
Culture is downstream from power.
C.S. Lewis’s hallmark was his beautiful humility. That is what makes him iconic and worthy of praise. Mr. Wilson is an arrogant ass who is not worthy of licking Mr. Lewis’s boots. The fact that Mr. Wilson thinks that he is Mr. Lewis’s peer and qualified to comment on him is disgusting and worthy of scorn.
“The fact that Mr. Wilson thinks that he is Mr. Lewis’s peer and qualified to comment on him is disgusting and worthy of scorn.”
The fact that Jason Pearson thinks he is Mr. Wilsons peer and qualified to comment on him is amusing.
I love C. S. Lewis – but I also find things in his thought that I cannot embrace or agree with, and some that I outright think is harmful. I freely acknowledge that I’m not anywhere close to his caliber of mind – does that mean I need to keep silent about my disagreement?
I would love to know what you think might be harmful–not because I necessarily disagree.
Some of the neo-platonic stuff I don’t think is quite helpful in its connection to the Biblical model of reality, the Emeth section of The Last Battle, the early stuff on the Problem of Pain where he’s not as convinced of God’s sovereignity.
I also have a suspicion of his critique of Bulverism, because while I think that attacking someone’s motives isn’t a logical thing, it’s often necessary and relevant (see also: critiquing a liberal desiring to expand the government because they want power, or critiquing a Marxist desire to redistribute wealth because they are envious).
A boomer, a member of the most narcissistic, destructive and unproductive generational cohort, has the gall to critique millennial SJWs They are just copying the worst members of the worst generation.
What Boomers need to hear is this: You were no good as a generation. You were not more spiritual, moral or idealistic. You were a bunch of dope-using, excuse-making, manipulating brats.
Boomers were not and are not “special’ in any way other than being especially prone to tireless moralising,m despite making a huge mess and wanting everyone else to clean it up.
Boomers, you created SJW millenials.
Now, now. Some of us were sweet, gentle, and insanely idealistic. And some of us wouldn’t dream of criticizing the younger generation. The only reason boomers got so much attention was that there were so many of us and the news media encouraged a spirit of youth worship that had not been known before.
I have been watching the Buckley/Vidal movie and it has my rage up a bit. I am a boomer by some definitions and a 13er by others. Whenever someone of the Boom cohort starts moralising it strikes me as a little ridiculous, especially when they are going after Millenials, my children’s generation.
Other than the actions of individual Boomers, i cannot think of a thing that the Boomer cohort did that was of any real benefit.
If only that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had gotten off their respective backsides and developed something usefull. ; – )
Both spiritually bankrupt, despite their massive wealth and power.
What good have they done for Christianity?
You said “real benefit” initially. User friendly computers are of real benefit. Blogs would be harder to do if the media was smoke signals! ????
Someone else would have developed them.
That’s moving the goalposts. Anything anyone in history ever did would have been done by someone else, barring the work of Christ. I guess that means that Luther doesn’t count as having done any good for Christianity, either.
I see your point.
I think of Luther and Chemnitz etc as mere instrumentalities of God’ s blessings.
Unlike Jobs and Gates, they loved God.
Yes, but the question wasn’t, “What wonderful God-loving people have contributed anything?” It was “What has any Boomer done that was of real benefit?” If Gates and Jobs have not contributed anything because it would have happened anyway, nobody has contributed anything, because it would have happened anyway, in God’s providence. But if anyone can be said to have contributed anything, then Gates and Jobs can be said to have “contributed,” regardless of their motivations or the state of their souls.
I think I understand. You are saying that I was guilty of hyperbole. I plead guilty to that.
Yet i still maintain that Gates, Jobs, Ayers, Fonda, and many others are despicable people.
No argument with that. And I hope I haven’t come off as antagonizing you the last couple days. I assure you I mean all my comments in a friendly spirit, but I like seeking clarity in discussions so I tend to push back sometimes. :-)
I don’t consider my self to have been antagonised by you. Christ’s Blessings!
I can see your concern with Ayers and Fonda, but why is Gates despicable? Hasn’t he given his money away hand over fist?
It is a purely subjective assessment. if he gave money to some causes i believe in, rather than what seem to be uniformly leftist causes, I would change my view a bit.
Some Boomers have absolutely redeemed themselves in my eyes, such as David Horowitz, or Joan Baez. Baez said she was sorry.
Actually Jane Fonda has apologized twice on national TV: 2000: “I will go to my grave regretting the photograph of me in an anti-aircraft carrier, which looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes. It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized such hostility. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless.” 2005: “I will go to my grave regretting that. The image of Jane Fonda, Barbarella, Henry Fonda’s daughter, just a woman sitting on a enemy aircraft gun, was a betrayal,” said Fonda. “It was like I was thumbing my nose… Read more »
Thanks for letting me know about Fonda. Perhaps my hostility to her will diminish over time. I wonder if she has spent any of her fortune helping out veterans? To me this would be impressive. Of course I also think Fonda should have been imprisoned for her propaganda broadcasts for the communists. One of my vivid childhood memories is sitting with my dad watching the news. There was footage of POW’s. My dad.who never used foul language, cursed a blue streak about the traitors and the hippies. He said the prisoners had been brainwashed. That really made an impression on… Read more »
I would add Kary Mullis. I think his AIDS-denial makes him a genuine fruitcake, but his discovery of the polymerase chain reaction for replicating DNA has certainly been beneficial. And, of course, we can’t overlook Motown!
“And, of course, we can’t overlook Motown!”
We got sunshine from Motown, on a cloudy day!
Such a deal! ; – )
Well, I know, but when I am feeling slightly out of sorts, there is nothing like “I’ll Be Doggone” to get me dancing around the living room (i.e. tripping over my feet).
Jackie Wilson was my father’s generation, i.e a Silent.Wilson Pickett, too.Johnny Otis, as well. Gladys Knight was born in the last year or two of the Silent generation. Smokey Robinson was a Silent. But Boomers did have the good sense to enjoy them!
Of course, you are right as I realized when I stopped to think about it. Actually even the Beatles and the Stones were not genuine Boomers. For Motown I guess we are left with Stevie Wonder and Little Eva!
PCR has helped catch a lot of criminals, I think. AIDS denial is an odd thing. I am not sure what motivates that view.
Mullis is far too intelligent to believe there is really no link between HIV and AIDS. I think he is a bit of a gadfly who adopts outrageous positions to be annoying. The trouble is when he leads less intelligent people to make appallingly stupid decisions. There was a mother here is Los Angeles who refused treatment for herself and her two children because she did not believe in HIV or AIDS. All three are dead now. Mullis should not be lending the prestige of his Nobel prize in chemistry to so dangerous a point of view.
“Someone else would have developed them.”…
Thus saith the???????
‘Wonder Who Actually Ordains these things, like history, etc?
God ordains what occurs in history. For a reason which is not for me to know, He ordained that two spiritually bankrupt, immoral, Christ-hating men would develop some technologies and ultimately make millions. Both were like Baalam’s ass, in a sense. Only the ass, being an animal has not moral responsiblity. ( I write this not to denigrate animals who have done us humans much good by God’s design) Through a technology that these two expanded on, God’s Word is communicated to many. Also plenty other blessings are communicated, such as medical information and even recipes for kohlrouladen or how… Read more »
Romans 8 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who[i] have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. Blanky, Sort of sounds like we agree on Who Ordains things! My opinion is that all generations have their good and not so good… Read more »
While true, and while I, as a millenial, get more than a bit irked every time Doug decides to go off on the generation of pure evil (me and mine), I do think Doug has a point that the prevailing sins of the nation tend to be the ones of the younger, rather than those of the older.
Perhaps. I just would say to you that there is nothing doomed about your generation. You have immense potential. Don’t be paralysed by those who are always talking down to you.
I have a daughter who is a Millennial. She has been to Korea twice, is getting good grades at a very good University, and is very strong in her faith. She has many friends from uni and church who are fine productive young people.
Most millennials are simply struggling against the disordered world the Boomers created. Boomers wanted all this cultural chaos and degeneracy until they got tired of it.
I don’t think anyone actually complains about the “Greed of the one percent,” what People talk about when they criticize Capitalism usually, in the context of the 1%, is economic systems which give undue Power to those With huge amounts of wealth, and economic systems which essencially work for the interests of those With huge amounts of strenght. Of course there are silly People who criticize Capitalism, and do so using dumb arguments, but there are also dumb libertarians, Christians and so on who use arguments, but you don’t judge ideas based on the dumbest arguments for them, you judge… Read more »
But what if you define capitalism as the idea that each man provides for his neighbors a product or service at which he is particularly adept in exchange for something that he perceives has value to him, all in an atmosphere of liberty, such that if the man fails to provide for his neighbors he thusly fails to provide for his family. What about this concept should give Christians pause? What economic system would you suggest as a preferable alternative to this? Having properly understood the concept, can we at least be honest enough to chastise the abuses instead of… Read more »
I mean you could define it in that way, but it’s kind of a pointless definition, I mean I could define Leninism as the idea that everyone has a right to education and Healthcare, but that’s not really what it is. But even that definition assumes certain Things, first of all it assumes that absolute private property is somehow the Natural way humans deal With each other … it isn’t, that doctrine is New, I mean Capitalism basically started partially through privitizing the commons, such as common lands and so on. Also it assumes that Exchange is the Natural way… Read more »
“economic systems which give undue Power to those With huge amounts of wealth, and economic systems which essencially work for the interests of those With huge amounts of strenght.” ???? If knowledge is power, than knowledge and power make the “system”, the system does not “give” “power to those with huge amounts of wealth”. Matthew 25 6 “At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ 7 “Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going… Read more »
Knowledge is power? I don’t know what that means, I mean of course knowledge is power in the sense that if you know more you’re more capable to act, but knowledge as power manifests in different ways in different systems, for example in warrior societies knowledge of how to kill people is power, in other societies other knowledge is rewarded, “Knoweldge is power” by itself is kind of meaningless. Knowledge and power don’t make the system, what makes the system, any system, are the rules, the institutions, and the ideologies that underline it. Power and knowledge are used within those… Read more »
“Knowledge is power? I don’t know what that means,…..”
’nuff said. : – (
Proverbs 18:15
The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge, for the ears of the wise seek it out.
Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, andknowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
Proverbs 11:9
With their mouths the godless destroy their neighbors, but through knowledge the righteous escape.
None of those verses have anything to do with the idea of “knowledge is power” as it relates to what I was talking about …
Knowledge of God gives salvation and it is the beginning of wisdom … But that isn’t “power” in the sense that we were taking about before.
“Knowledge is power? I don’t know what that means,…..”
Romi, you may want to re-think both knowledge and power.
What they both mean.
And Who Is Lord over them. ; – ) (and it’s not me or you!)
Oh! and re-think them by the light of The Word.
Well, when I was talking about power, I was talking about economic power, and knowledge depends on what we are talking about.
And if the fact that God is lord over all power is supposed to be a justification for all power, then I think you’re missing out on the fact that mankind is in rebellion and Christians are to call the world to repentance and righteousness.
But remember what I was taking about in the beginning … Let’s keep this in context.
Ephesians 1 17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit[f] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated… Read more »
Yes amen, so what’s the point in relation to the point I was making originally?
There is no “system”, good or bad, apart from God.
And, any “system” that exists, is not self autonomous.
God and people create and operate “systems”.
“Systems” don’t create and operate themselves, thus “systems” don’t allocate knowledge and power, systems are the means by which the knowledgable and powerful exert control. Good or bad.
Actually they do, systems (as I am using the word, and as the word is used in economic and political contexts) are sets of rules, of course created by agents, but as rational persons we are to compare those sets of rules to the principles found in the scriptures and see if they are at odds with those principles.
God loves Millennials!
Am I the only one who thinks God loves Millenials?
Pastor Wilson, I was wondering if you have any insight or opinion on the Wheaton College issue with Dr. Hawkins and her comments of Muslims and Christians worshiping the same God. Sorry if this seems out of the blue, this particular article reminded me of that issue and I would love to hear what you think about the whole discussion that is going on.