“Things ain’t cookin’ in my kitchen
Strange affliction wash over me
Julius Caesar and the Roman Empire
Couldn’t conquer the blue sky…” [1]

Today, the Australian government’s carbon tax repeal bills cleared Parliament’s lower house. They will be voted upon in the Senate next year. To see this reported as an act of climate vandalism by the media isn’t a surprise. What is surprising is the consternation of many Christians.

One facebook acquaintance summarized some data from the national broadcaster’s “vote compass,” a site which was set up prior to the recent federal election. The voter enters their leanings on certain issues and the site tells them which party best represents their views. He writes:

Compared to other religious affiliations, Protestants are the least welcoming of asylum seekers, least concerned about climate, least supportive of foreign aid, most supportive of increasing military spending, least supportive of mining tax increases, least supportive of constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians, least supportive of a faster NBN, least supportive of public services, most supportive of CSG and least supportive of workplace protections.

NB Before anyone complains, the results have been weighted by census data, so with a huge sample size (1.4m), it is basically irrelevant that it was a self-selected sample.

This gentleman is concerned about the future of the planet, mostly for the sake of his young son. He has spent years reading the science concerning climate and is understandably worried. But for the Christian, there ought to be some biblical “pillars” undergirding one’s worldview. The first one is Bible history and the second one is Bible prophecy. That probably sounds boring, but if you’ve been around this blog long you should know by now that I rarely take the reader where he expects. Because that’s boring.

Bad Science

When it comes to climate science, we have more data than we know what to do with. As someone who loves to look for patterns in things, I can understand the desire of scientists not only to figure out what is going on, but also to predict future weather.

Looking for patterns begins with past records, and it is here that modern climate science is revealed as the victim of modern philosophy, that is, Darwinism.

We are told that 97% of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change. But 98% of palaeontologists believe in evolution, and they are wrong. What is more relevant is that these two consensuses are related.

I don’t deny the data used to support climate alarm, just as I don’t deny the stuff palaeontologists dig out of the ground, or pretend that the devil put it here. What I deny is the story of how it came about. The stories told by modern science are all based upon their deluded revision of the history of the planet. If we deny the historicity and reliability of the book of Genesis, all our science will be wrong. We will be basing our models upon a past that never really happened. How so?

The Creation event itself is fundamental, but the catastrophic global flood seems to have a direct bearing on climate data. Tas Walker writes:

I just listened to a podcast by climate scientist Murry Salby to the Sydney Institute entitled “Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources.”

During question time toward the end of the recording (55min 15sec) he says:

Just a historical note, the guy who started this was a Swedish chemist whose lab I used to work at Stockholm by the name of Arrhenius. He won the Nobel Prize for chemistry and for his understanding of the temperature dependence of chemical reactions he got the Nobel Prize. He got into this and he started the whole global warming thing because he was actually trying to explain ice ages and he saw CO2 varied and temperature varied and he figured maybe CO2 caused the Ice Age. Now I don’t think anyone believes that anymore …

In other words, the whole idea that global warming is caused by CO2 came out of the need to explain what caused the Ice Age—a mystery that still eludes modern scientists.

In the Wikipedia entry on Arrhenius it says:

He was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes would cause global warming. Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. From that, the hot-house theory gained more attention. Nevertheless, until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the hot-house / greenhouse effect as implausible for the cause of ice ages as Milutin Milankovitch had presented a mechanism using orbital changes of the earth (Milankovitch cycles). Nowadays, the accepted explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback.

Note the term “amplifying feedback”. This means that Milankovitch cycles are not enough to explain the Ice Ages, which is understandable considering the relatively small variations in orbital parameters for the earth. So, they added a positive feedback mechanism from CO2. A positive feedback means the system is unstable, which explains why many scientists today are concerned about global warming and the earth reaching an unstable tipping point.

The problem is that these scientists have ignored the huge climate catastrophe of Noah’s Flood. By ignoring the Flood they cannot explain the post-Flood (Pleistocene) Ice Age. The Ice Age was the earth’s thermal response to the massive climate shock caused by the biblical Flood. It was largely the volcanic activity during that year-long event that produced the necessary conditions—warm oceans and volcanic dust high in the atmosphere. But the earth returned to equilibrium in about 700 years, demonstrating that it is a stable system. The biblical Flood provides the only explanation for the Ice Age.

See how a wrong understanding of the true history of the earth leads to a misunderstanding of what is happening in the present. And a wrong understanding will lead to wrong decisions about what we need to do.

So, the stupidity of evolution and the stupidity of modern climate science are directly related. They both misinterpret the data because they both base their interpretations on uniformitarian assumptions.

Bad science doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It is a result of something. Evolutionists constantly tell us that their science is constantly under review “because that’s how science works,” while they desperately protect their failing dogmas from real scientific criticisms. Bad science is the product of bad philosophy, which is in reality a bad religion, a religion which goes way back.

Bad Religion

98% of palaeontologists might be evolutionists, but 98% of westerners are now statists, and they, too, are wrong. Statism is believing the government is god, and in control of prosperity, and now it seems even the weather. A climate action rally in Sydney last weekend was rained on, creating a sea of colourful umbrellas. This action was most likely the peak of effectiveness for this endeavour, the weather equivalent of putting a paper bag over one’s head in a nuclear attack.

It is bad enough seeing Christians sucked into a “science” which cannot tell the future because it rejects the past. It is worse when these intelligent Christians believe the government can do anything about it. If Protestants are the least concerned about the left wing issues mentioned above, the reason might not be that Protestants don’t care about them, but because Protestants are far less likely to fall for statism and its pretenses. They know that government is rarely the solution, and usually the problem. There’s a reason that good government and prosperity flowed from Christianity, and then Protestantism. God blesses obedience. The entire world was blessed through the principles of the British Empire, which brought good government when it arrived and left it as a blessing when it departed. But Protestants understand that good government is an extension of Christianity, and not itself the spring of life. Without Christ, Western Culture cannot be “progressive.” It amazes me how incapable these progressives are of perceiving their progress as a reversion to paganism.

On a panel TV show on the national broadcaster recently, entitled “Dangerous Ideas,” one panelist jokingly said that abortion “until the age of 30″ might be a good idea. Without realizing it, these fools have become basically pagan, albeit in a new guise. Sacrifice your children and give your wealth to the weather gods. Whatever their “scientific” pretense, the only real option to true Christianity is baalism. Science without God promised to make Man into god, the manipulator of nature. Modern man got more than he bargained for apparently—anthropogenic climate change. Frustratingly, the weather is not a vehicle we know how to drive properly. It possesses a seemingly infinite number of variables. Like your average shopping cart on swivelling wheels, it seems to have a mind of its own. It does have a mind of its own but it is not mechanistic. The weather is the chariot of God, and He never takes His hand off the wheel. [2]

Covenant Science

As Gary North observed, “power religion” assumes control over nature through “stimulation,” whether that be oblations to the gods, infant sacrifice, or religious prostitution. Nature is Man’s to manipulate. Man makes the miracles.

“Dominion religion,” however, is a different process. The blessings of abundance, of “increase,” are to be gained miraculously, but at the hand of God, not through manipulation but through obedience. This is what we see in the life of Joseph. Wherever he served, his faithfulness resulted in abundance. His masters recognized that the Spirit of God was with him.

Modern science was the direct result of men who submitted to God. The amazing discoveries and advances we enjoy were all gifts to the minds of men by the Spirit of God. Because we were made in the image of God, we can use these gifts as blessings or as curses. Nuclear fission and genetic modification of food are prime examples. This is because every gift is intended to bring greater judicial maturity.

Our leaders do esteem “ethics,” but not God’s ethics. They intend to do what is right, but what is right in their own eyes, not the eyes of God, who can see much further and whose sight is far keener.

Watching commentators from the Right and the Left argue about how much taxation is right, and where those dollars should be spent to solve our problems, is frustrating. An example might be the current desire to spend untold millions on mental health. Nobody ever mentions sin. Why does no one ever mention that infidelity costs Australia between 3 and 6 billion dollars every year, not to mention the resulting delinquency of children and burgeoning mental health problems? If anybody, even jokingly, suggested that it would be good if we all tried to keep the Ten Commandments, they would be ridiculed and shouted down. Religion is a private matter, they would say. And what goes on in the bedroom is nobody else’s business.

Turns out it is everybody’s business. These educated people are extremely stupid.

Based on the blessings and curses of the One who rides a chariot of fire in a cloud of glory, anthropogenic climate change is indeed possible. In Deuteronomy 28, Moses gave Israel a great list of blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. These cover the natural realm (the Land and the womb) as well as Israel’s economic status in relation to other nations. Land, womb and nations sounds very Abrahamic. That’s because it is, and it is also the reason Israel suffered so many famines in her history. It was always the result of the shedding of innocent blood.

And if you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God… Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out. The Lord xwill cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven way. The Lord will open to you his good treasury, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hands. And you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. (Deuteronomy 28:1, 6, 7, 12)

But if the Covenant, through Jesus’ death and resurrection, now includes all nations, is it beyond possibility that God would bless a faithful, obedient nation or culture with good weather, with rain in due season, with a decrease in mutating diseases or problems like food allergies, diabetes, autism and cancer? Is it beyond possibility that the reason for our food allergies may be deeper than we think, and related to the fact that we no longer say grace before our meals?

I am a postmillennialist, and thus an optimist. This is not only because of the way in which I interpret Scripture but also my faith in the character of God. Peak oil and a climate tipping point don’t seem to fit with Jesus’ plan for the world. He kept fingers off red buttons during the Cold War and He will continue to restrain evil until His work is done and His words are vindicated before all nations.

Things this side of the final judgment will never be perfect, but things are getting better, thanks to the many blessings brought about by the incarnation and resurrection, the Scriptures, and two millennia of Christianity. All improvement comes from the Spirit of Christ, whether it be in medicine, technology or even widespread literacy (another problem which the idiot statists believe can be solved with money). If we do not wish to lose these blessings, we need to humble ourselves and repent before God as a culture. Stopping the murder of the unborn, the shedding of innocent blood, is the first place to start. The goddess of “sexual freedom” behind these murders would be next. This cultural repentance can only occur if it begins in the Church, the source of all new spiritual life, and the guardian of the sacred heart of any nation.

Certainly, climate science is not a simple issue, and we must keep our wits about us, but we must not surrender to the baalism of the secular state, which calls us to sacrifice our children for prosperity and give our wealth to the weather gods. These people have unimaginable amounts of data at their fingertips, yet they interpret it all in the dim light of their naturalist fantasy. CO2 is a “Day 3″ blessing from God, oil (and other fossil fuels) is a “Day 4″ blessing from God. As history moves from Garden to City, who knows what our good God has in store for us next. The 20th Century brought blessings and curses which would have been unimaginable in the 19th. Like Joseph, we just need to trust and obey, let the Pharaohs be humbled by their bad dreams, and let God bring the increase. Our Joseph is always one step ahead of the weather.

________________________________
[1] The title refers to the song “Weather With You” by Crowded House.
[2] For some more thoughts on the weather, concerning “the sons of thunder,” see Jesus’ New Broom.

“Typologically speaking, life on other planets would be Creational ‘polygamy,’ something outside the character of God.”

Aliens and Sojourners

…and there was not a man to till the ground. (Genesis 2:6)

The Bible does not simply record events. It presents them in sequences, as acts which have consequences, and in doing so it also shows us how God works. Unfortunately, most Christians are not taught to read the Scriptures with an eye on the processes going on in each narrative, let alone in the big picture. So when a question is asked such as, “Is there life on other planets?” even the best theologians can only reply, “The Bible doesn’t tell us.”

Well, in truth, the Bible does tell us, but only if we are paying attention. The Covenantal pattern inherent in every part of Scripture shows us precisely how God works, and identifying this structure not only enables us to interpret the Bible and history correctly, but also to predict the future.

The Seed

Biblical history is all about seed and fruit, barrenness and fruitfulness, gathering and scattering, in every domain—physical, social, and ethical—and this is achieved through the process of Covenant. God creates or calls a man, gives him a job to do, shows him the method for success, then leaves him alone until the time is right and the land is ripe. This is why Israel’s harvest calendar is a picture of all Covenant history in microcosm.

The modern mind passes over this often repeated theme of sowing and reaping, limiting it to the historical concerns of subsistence farmers (Land) and their tribal life (womb), both cursed by unfaithful Adam in Genesis 3, and promised to faithful Abraham in Genesis 15. In once sense, through technology and its resulting prosperity, we moderns have indeed moved beyond an existence tied so closely to the ground, but God’s Creation is a fractal. This means that although we move from a day of small things (such as “Do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”) to greater exploits, every advancement carries similar risk and similar promise. The process of growth in farming and families can also be perceived in investment banking, global demographics, software development, and even in spiritual warfare. “Increase” is always achieved through some kind of delayed gratification, an act of faith in a promise that the sacrifices made now will result in greater rewards down the track. We pray in secret that God might reward us openly. Paul chose personal suffering that he might receive a greater resurrection.¹1 Based on what we know of Paul, I suspect that he was not referring to a more glorious resurrection for himself, but a more numerous one from among the nations through the preaching of the Gospel. We fast privately that we might enjoy a greater feast in company with others. Indeed, Israel’s final annual feast, a party for all nations, followed the culmination of her purification through fasting and self-examination prior to the Day of Atonement.

One World

With such an understanding, is it possible to extrapolate an answer from ancient documents written for tribal farmers to the question of whether life exists on other planets? If the Bible is true, surely we must begin with the establishment of life on this planet.

The Spirit hovered only over this world, just as He overshadowed only Mary, and descended only upon Christ at His baptism. It is in our God’s character to choose the one from the many, that the one might become many. Mary had other children, and Christ gave the Spirit to the saints at Pentecost.

Adam was given Eve that he might be fruitful. The “Land” is always feminine, given seed by Man but made fruitful only by obedience, with the increase coming directly from God (1 Corinthians 3:6). It seems to me that womb and the Land were only “opened” to Adam following the shedding of sacrificial blood, albeit with limiting curses intended to humble him.

All the famines in Israel were judgments according to the curses in the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 28:15-24). Only the Land of Israel was subject to blessing and cursing under the Law. Yet God chose Israel from among the nations not only that Israel might be blessed by the nations but that all nations might eventually be blessed through one nation, Israel.

God is consistent in all His works, since they image Him. Out of all the worlds, God chose to bless only this one, and the sevenfold process of Filling in Genesis 1 is recapitulated in every Covenant which follows.²The sun, moon and stars (which include other worlds) were not created until Day 4, prefiguring a time of priestly training (the Land and its grain and fruit bearers) before kingly dominion. The Scriptures often use the heavenly lights as images to describe earthly rulers, including the saints. Deuteronomy 4:19 condemns the worship of the stars, but also suggests that they were, and perhaps also will be, a part of our inheritance.

So it is not entirely speculative to assert that while the other planets are currently barren, only this one has many children. Typologically speaking, life on other planets would be Creational “polygamy,” something outside the character of God.

But neither is it a stretch to imagine that the separation, sanctification and fruitfulness of this world is intended to be a blessing to all worlds. Like the nations at Pentecost, they have already been Formed and are waiting to be Filled. But when might this be?

 The Sower

God could certainly have put life on other planets, but the Bible shows us that He always works through mediators. The fruit of the Land and the womb depended on the fruits of the Spirit in Adam.

Some Christians believe the world existed long before the creation of Adam (if indeed Adam even existed!) but according to revelation and our own experience, the world is not self-sustaining. Like Israel, as a people set apart in Abraham and trained under the Law of Moses, nature itself requires guidance, or cultivation.

In social terms, circumcision was a kind of pruning, not a cutting off (or cutting down) but a cutting intended to lead to greater fruitfulness—a sacrifice now for a great blessing in the future. However, Abraham seized a firstborn via Hagar in the way Adam seized the fruit in the Garden. But Abraham matured until he was even willing to offer his firstborn to God, as a kind of firstfruits, and he was given many more children. The physical Creation by God, and the subsequent social Creation delegated to the charge of Adam, are inseparable. Fruitfulness in Land and womb depend not only on cultivation by the Man, but also cultivation of the Man. Where Adam failed, Noah succeeded. In a preliminary sense, Noah was the first “interplanetary” colonist.

Thus, it is not in the nature of God to make a self-sustaining “wilderness.” Nature has its laws but that does not make nature sovereign. Nature itself requires “training.” Since the world was created to be cultivated, the world cannot be fruitful without Man. Man can most certainly damage the world through exploitation, but a world without Man would not be the pristine utopia imagined by environmentalists. Gary North writes:

The earth was never designed to be autonomous. Neither was the garden. Though the creation was able to function without man’s immediate presence, it could not achieve its full flowering apart from man… Nature was allowed to operate briefly without man for five days. Man was allowed to operate briefly without woman for less than one day. Neither could be fully comfortable without its complement. Nature needed subordination under man. Man needed subordination under God… Like nature, he had been created good but incomplete. He knew from the very beginning that he was not self-sufficient.³Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis – An Economic Commentary on the Bible, Volume 1, 84-85.

The care with which God had planted the Garden was to be noticed and replicated, imaged, by Adam in the Land. Tending and guarding the Garden as God’s representative was training for dominion of the Land and then the entire World.

Although the Creation is still under the curse of death, we see the dominion of Christ working in the social realm, through the Gospel, expanding throughout history. “Covenant faithfulness” is now entirely wrapped up in one glorified Man, but working through all nations. If we do indeed colonize other planets, it will not so much be “by Covenant” but “in Christ,” with technologies given to us by the Spirit of God, and through the sacrifice of individuals with the desire for new frontiers built into the Great Commission.

Shining Like Stars

So, there is no life on other planets. Not yet. Based on how God has worked in the past, it is likely there may well be in the future. The Spirit will overshadow other worlds, but not as He did in Genesis 1. Since the Spirit now indwells the Sons of God, making us co-workers with the Son in the maturity, conquest and redemption of mankind, it seems that the glorified redeemed will be “governing lights” in the eventual conquest of Creation. Perhaps this task will be carried out by the saints in ways we cannot yet imagine, but we have already made a start, have we not? Despite the trials and tragedies that plague humanity, in many respects this world is a better place now than it has ever been.

One day, the phrase “the new world” could be used quite literally, with exploration motivated by more than mere exploitation, a desire for cultivation rather than plunder, a sustainable harvest established upon just measures. God’s increase always begins with obedience and wisdom. The universe displays the glory of God, but like the earth, it is a gift which requires tending by Adam for it to reach the full potential of that glory.

See also The Obedient Planet.

This is an essay from Inquiétude: Essays for a People Without Eyes.

A great little book in the Gary North arsenal.

Here’s the thought-provoking questions. Download the book for his thought-provoking answers (1oMB PDF).

1. Didn’t God Hate the Unborn Infant Esau?
2. Could Pharaoh Have Repented?
3. Does God’s Absolute Predestination Make Him Unfair?
4. If We Can’t Work Our Way INTO Salvation, How Can We Work Our Way OUT?
5. How Can God GUARANTEE Good for His People Without PREDESTINATING Good?
6. How Can We Escape the Love of God?
7. If We Can “Fall From Grace,” Isn’t Christ’s Intercession Ineffective?
8. Are We LESS Than Conquerors?
9. Doesn’t God Make “Vessels Fitted For Destruction”?
10. When Did God Decide to Give Us Eternal·Life?
11. Isn’t· Our Heavenly Inheritance Fully Guaranteed?
12. Aren’t Our Good Works Predestined?
13. Didn’t Jesus Deliberately Hide His Message so People Wouldn’t Repent?
14. Could Judas Have Refused to Betray Jesus?
15. Don’t Evil Men Also Glorify God?
16. Can Satan Repent and be Saved?
17. Aren’t Men Ordained in Advance to Eternal Life?
18. Doesn’t God Compel Men to Believe in Jesus?
19. Didn’t God Choose Us Long Before We Accepted Him?
20. How Can an Unregenerate Man Accept Christ?
21. Could the Authorities Have Acted Righteously and Released Jesus?
22. Isn’t God’s Grace Irresistible?
23. Isn’t the Will of God Absolutely Sovereign?
24. Isn’t Faith in Christ the Gift of God?
25. Did Christ Die for All Men?
26. Isn’t it Immoral for People to Have Sex with Animals?
27. How Can We Love God But Ignore God’s Law?
28. Is Profession of Faith Enough, or Do Our Acts Also Count?
29. If Men Won’t Obey God’s Law, Are They Saved?
30. Are We “Once Saved, Always Saved”?
31. How Can We Accurately Define Sin if We Deny God’s Law?
32. Does God Answer Prayers of Lawbreakers?
33. Do We Really Love the Brethren if We Disobey God’s Laws?
34. How Can We Identify Christians if We Ignore God’s Law?
35. How Can We Know if We are “Dead to Sin” if We Ignore God’s Law?
36. How Can We “Walk in Newness of Life” if We Disobey God’s Law?
37. How Can We Stop “Serving Sin” if We Disobey God’s Law?
38. Since God’s Law Can’t Kill Us, Won’t it Help Us to Live?
39. How Can Sin Still “Reign” in Us if We Obey God’s Law?
40. Aren’t Those Who Disobey God’s Law “Instruments Of Unrighteousness”?
41. What Does “Under Grace, Not Law” Mean?
42. Are We Free to Ignore God’s Law if We are “Under Grace”?
43. Is a Christian’s “New Spirit” Opposed~ to God’s Law?
44. Is the Law of God “Carnal,” or Holy, Just, And Good?
45. How Can We “Walk After the Spirit” if We Disobey God’s Law?
46. Isn’t a “Carnal Mind” One Which is Opposed to God’s Law?
47. How Can We “Mortify the Flesh” if We Disobey God’s Law?
48. Didn’t Paul Believe that the Specifics of God’s Law Still Apply?
49. How Can We Separate the “Moral Law” from God’s Laws?
50. Doesn’t Faith in Christ Establish God’s Law?
51. Aren’t Those Who Obey God’s Law the “Saft of the Earth”?
52. Isn’t a “City on a Hill” to be an Example for the World?
53. Should We Limit the Areas to be Illuminated by Our “Light”?
54. How Can Christians be Resurrected Before the Millennium?
55. Doesn’t God’s Kingdom Grow Slowly Until It Fills the Earth?
56. Doesn’t “Leaven” Mean Victory?
57. Didn’t Christ’s Kingdom Begin Before the Crucifixion?
58. Wasn’t Satan Cast Out of Heaven During Jesus’ Earthly Ministry?
59. Isn’t Faith Progressively Productive Until Christians Win?
60. How Can Satan Rule the World if Power Comes from Righteousness?
61. Aren’t Christians Supposed to Crush Satan?
62. What Can Possibly Interrupt Christ’s Dominion?
63. Isn’t Christ’s Kingdom in this World?
64. Doesn’t the New Testament Teach that Christians are Powerful?
65. Aren’t Christians Supposed to Execute Judgment?
66. Why Shouldn’t Christians Become Civil Rulers and Enforce God’s Law?
67. Doesn’t the Bible Require an Appeals Court?
68. Won’t the Resurrection Take Place After the Millennium?
69. Won’t Men Live Longer as God’s Kingdom Progresses?
70. Doesn’t Christ’s Kingdom Expand Over Time?
71. Doesn’t God Want His “Heirs” to Inherit Everything?
72. Didn’t the Prophets Forsee the Church Age?
73. Didn’t David Foresee the Church Age?
74. Didn’t Moses Foresee the Church Age?
75. Aren’t There Two Kinds of Salvation?

.

The new atheists believe Christianity is a wet paper bag, and they are intent on punching their way out of it. They don’t understand that Christianity is the source of blessing, and that through their unbelief they are its bastard (or mutant) children. They are unlike the old atheists. Their moral outrages are not at all consistent with their nihilistic beliefs.

The truly evil are the ones who do understand the integrating, empowering, culture-building force of Christianity, and shamelessly steal it for their own ends. Satan knows the Scriptures. His policy isn’t scorched earth. His desire is a thorny crop of his own, and for that he must imitate Covenant hierarchy – a totus Diabolus. An authority structure has the potential for far more carnage than anarchy does, especially one with a dictatorial “Covenant succession” built-in.

It is a strange fact that many tinpot dictators, many terrorists, many proponents of promising but destructive modern philosophies, were products of a Western education. Or is it so strange? Counterfeiters invest a lot of time in studying the real tender before they manufacture their own currency, otherwise their plans will fail. The finished product is identical but for two things: the source of authority (Head); and the end result on the community (Body). Gary North writes:

“Satan needs a chain of command in order to exercise power. Thus, in order to create the greatest havoc for the church, Satan and his followers need to imitate the church. Like the child who needs to sit on his father’s lap in order to slap him, so does the rebel need a crude imitation of God’s dominion theology in order to exercise power. A child who rejects the idea of his father’s lap cannot seriously hope to slap him. The anti-Christian has officially adopted an “anti-lap” theory of existence. He admits no cause-and-effect relationship between lap and slap. To the extent that he acts consistently with this view, he becomes impotent to attack God’s people.

This means that with an increase in epistemological self-consciousness, the ethical aspects of the separation become more and more fundamental. Not logic but ethics is primary. Reprobation is by ethics, not logic. Thus, the increasing epistemological self-consciousness on the part of the power-seeking unbeliever does not lead him to apply Satan’s philosophy of ultimate meaninglessness and chaos; it leads, him instead to apply Satan’s counterfeit of dominion religion, the religion of power. He can achieve power only by refusing to become fully consistent with Satan’s religion of chaos. He needs organization and capital — God’s gifts of common grace — in order to produce maximum destruction. Like the Soviet Union, which has always had to import or steal the bulk of its technology from the West in order to build up an arsenal to destroy the West, so does the satanist have to import Christian intellectual and moral capital in order to wage an effective campaign against the church.

This is the key point in my argument against Van Til’s view of common grace. First, the Christian exercises dominion by becoming epistemologically self-conscious, meaning morally and logically consistent with the new man within him, and therefore by adhering ever more closely to God’s law. Biblical law is the covenant-keeper’s fully self-consistent tool of dominion.

Second, the covenant-breaker exercises power by becoming inconsistent with his ultimate philosophy of randomness. He can commit effective crimes only by stealing the worldview of Christians. The bigger the crimes he wishes to commit (the ethical impulse of evil), the more carefully he must plan (the epistemological impulse of righteousness: counting the costs [Luke 14:28-30]). The Christian can work to fulfill the dominion covenant through a life of’ consistent thought and action; the anti-Christian can achieve an offensive, destructive campaign against the Christians – as contrasted to a self-destructive life of drugs and debauchery – only by stealing the biblical worldview and twisting it to evil purposes.

In short, to become really evil you need to become pretty good.“

Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress, p. 130-132

“Deny that God speaks to any area of life, and you have denied God’s jurisdiction in that area of life.”

A very intelligent Christian recently posed the question, “What will be the most pressing intellectual challenge facing the church over the next 50 years?” What if the biggest challenge facing the church is not intellectual at all, but ethical. [1]

Through the Reformation, the church regained the understanding that obedience to the Law cannot merit salvation, even in part. But since the Reformation, the church seems to have lost the understanding that obedience to the Law is, as always, the tool of dominion.

Modern theologians are adept at identifying the church’s problems, but hopeless at providing solutions. The Old Testament terrifies them. The very idea of Christendom terrifies them. [2] Preaching obedience to God’s laws terrifies them. Authority terrifies them. Male headship offends them. Executing any kind of church discipline is bullying. Authority will always be abused. Just look at the conniving so-called Christians in politics. Look at Constantine! We are Christians, and we have God’s Spirit, so we don’t need God’s Law. We can do what is right in our own eyes now.

Fed with sermons below the level of Sunday school lessons:

J E S U S   S A I D,   “B E   N I C E.”

the “true” church is seen as one relegated to the ghettos and catacombs and soup kitchens (after all, isn’t real Christianity always menial?), and that is where the church is to stay. Is that the kind of kingdom Christ promised? One that is irrelevant and powerless in the public square until the very last day, when all-of-a-sudden downtrodden and marginalised Christians will have what it takes to judge angels? Is that what we see modelled for us in the Bible? Joseph can run Potiphar’s household and Pharaoh’s gaol, but public power, as a Christian, in the name of God, will mean getting his hands dirty? Are the Law and the Prophets now redundant because Jesus summed them up in a simple soundbite?

Gary North writes,

C. S. Lewis understood that there is a war going on between Christ and Satan. His magnificent novel, That Hideous Strength, subtitled A Modern Fairy-Tale for Grown-Ups, deals with the fusion of magic, technology, and the demonic quest for power. Perhaps better than any Christian writer of this century, he understood Satan and Satan’s mode of operations.

We cannot say as much for his understanding of Christianity. His theology was muddled, at best, and his epistemology was clearly a mixture of Platonism and the Bible. So we would not normally go to Lewis to discover a solution to our problems. We go to him for an understanding of our era, however.

His view of history was very much like Van Til’s. He believed in the increase of epistemological self-consciousness over time. This progress over time removes the latitude for making moral decisions, for the issues of life become clearer. Here is a speech given by a college professor (possibly modeled after Lewis himself) in That Hideous Strength:

“If you dip into any college, or school, or parish, or family — anything you like — at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren’t quite so sharp; and that there’s going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous. Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing. The whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder.”

The problem with Lewis’ outlook is that he never suggested any way that Christians could make these moral decisions in the public realm. He told us of the war, told us that we would not be able to escape our responsibilities, told us that our decisions would become ever-clearer, and yet refused to offer any hope that the public issues of any era could be solved by an appeal to the Bible. Indeed, he specifically rejected such a suggestion.

He dismissed as unrealizable the creation of any distinct or distinctly Christian political party — a long-time ideal of many Dutch Christians. Christians do not agree on the means of attaining the proper goals of society, he argued. A Christian political party will wind up in a deadlock, or else the winning faction will force all rivals out. Then it will no longer be representative of Christians in society. So this minority party will attach itself to the nearest non-Christian political party.

The problem as Lewis saw it is that the party will speak for Christendom, but will not in fact represent all of Christendom. “By the mere act of calling itself the Christian Party it implicitly accuses all Christians who do not join it of apostasy and betrayal. It will be exposed, in an aggravated degree, to that  temptation which the Devil spares none of us at any time — the temptation of claiming for our favorite opinions that kind of degree of certainty and authority which really belongs only to our Faith.”

This is an odd line of argumentation. First, what he describes as a strictly political problem is in fact the problem with any distinctly Christian institution. Christians need to do what is God’s will, but in doing it, they exclude other acts as not being in God’s will. Yet according to his view of history, these decisions will become clearer over time, and the range of Christian (as well as non-Christian) choices will become much narrower. So what is the problem? It should be easier as time goes on to build Christian institutions of all kinds, not just political organizations.

Second, why doesn’t this same problem of speaking in the name of the accepted moral sovereign afflict every religious, political, or ideological group? Why single out politics? Isn’t ascertaining God’s will equally a problem in all other institutions? Furthermore, why are Christian political coalitions so evil, so doomed to defeat? Aren’t coalitions going on in every area of life all the time? Besides, why is the problem of coalitions a uniquely Christian problem? Humanists make coalitions all the time – yes, even highly ideological humanists. Coalitions are basic to life.

What he is really saying is that humanists can run their institutions and our lives just fine, but Christians cannot – not because Christians are presently incompetent, but simply because they are Christians. He argues that anyone who adds “Thus saith the Lord” to his earthly utterances will insist that his conscience speaks more clearly “the more it is loaded with sin. And this comes from pretending that God has spoken when He has not spoken.” Hath God said? That was what Satan asked Eve. But God had said. And He has spoken to us, too: in His Bible. Dare we deny His words? Eve dared. See where it got her. And us. But Lewis feared those who speak concretely to real-world problems in the name of God.

We are back to Barthianism. God’s will in history cannot be conveyed in cognitive sentences, creeds, political programs, economics, or anything else in this scientific, factual universe. God does not speak to specific problems in history. This is the essence of Barthianism. It is also the essence of antinomianism.

Perhaps Lewis was willing to accept creeds as God’s word, but creeds are written by Christians who disagree with other Christians. That is the function of creeds: to separate (exclude) wrong-thinking Christians from better-thinking Christians. Creeds are hammered out in the midst of controversy, sometimes including political controversy, and sometimes even life-and-death controversy. Are we to deny, as Barth did, that God speaks cognitively to men in creeds? Deny that God speaks to any area of life, and you have denied God’s jurisdiction in that area of life. Deny that men are responsible before God for searching out God’s will and then working to apply it, and you have adopted the theology of mysticism.

Then how are Christians to make moral decisions? Lewis appeals to that old Stoic standby, natural law. “By the natural light He has shown us what means are lawful: to find out which one is efficacious He has given us brains. The rest He left to us.”

In short, do your own natural thing, but do not do it in the name of Jesus.

What he recommended was an interdenominational voters society whose members will write letters to their political representatives. They will “pester” the politicians. But in whose name should they pester them? In God’s name? If not, then haven’t Christians become just another special-interest group with no distinctly Christian platform?

But he did offer some hope — a postmillennial hope. He ends the essay with these words: “There is a third way — by becoming a majority. He who converts his neighbour has performed the most practical Christian political act of all?”

What can we make of all this? He said that choices in life will become more epistemologically self-conscious. He was afraid of politicians who speak in God’s name. He appealed to natural reason. He told Christians to pester politicians. Then he said to spread the gospel and become a majority.

What then?

It is all a muddle, but at least it is a four-page muddle. The endless publications of those who call for Christian relevance in society, but who refuse to turn to biblical law as God’s inspired “platform” in every area of responsibility, are no less muddled than Lewis, and far more verbose.

The principle is simple enough: no law of God, no jurisdiction of God. Until Christians get this straight in their thinking, they will remain either Christian activists who are publicly muddled and culturally irrelevant, or else Christian retreatists who are privately muddled and culturally irrelevant. [3]

Making clear the distinction between the mandate given to Adam, and the mandate given by Christ, is crucial. The first was flesh; the second is Spirit. The first was a Law written on stone; the second is this very same Law written on our hearts. (As in Esther, there were two decrees: bread and wine, priesthood and kingdom.)

The church’s job is not to impose biblical law on society by coercion. The church’s role is to humble God’s people under God’s Law, training them in governmental roles within the “household” until they are ready to take on positions of leadership within society and teach the nations. The modus operandi of the Great Commission is yeastlike infiltration. That usually does involve ghettos and catacombs — and soup kitchens — to begin with (priesthood), but if the Old Testament and Christendom 1.0 are anything to go by, God exalts those who humble themselves, and uses them to change the world (kingdom). [4] As Doug Wilson says, authority flows naturally to those who take responsibility.

Everything God does in the Garden flows out into the Land and the World. Yes, we are to bring every thought into captivity to Christ. But then we are also to bring every nation into captivity to Christ as well — under His jurisdiction. This is not triumphalism. It is authority delegated from the throne of Greater Joseph, the Servant-King. And He will reign, through the church, until He has put all His enemies under His feet. We live in a world where there is still great suffering and horrific abuses of human rights. But it was the West, despite all its faults, with the church at its heart, that taught the world that foreign aid is a good thing, that there are such things as human rights, and that brought incredibly increased health and prosperity to many nations over the past few centuries. [5]

As James Jordan says, I believe, and then I understand. Obedience to the Law, and the subsequent world-changing biblical wisdom, are the order of the day. Intellectual debate is not. If a man cannot manage his household, he cannot be a steward of the church. If the church cannot manage its household, why would the world want its opinion on anything at all?

We live in a culture desperate to maintain the blessings of Christianity but without Christ; do its rulers look for help to a church (and the families within the church) integrated miraculously by God’s Law-Spirit, running businesses that are productive and prosperous because they are obedient and blessed by God? Or do they see Christianity’s skills shortage when it comes to practical government?

The American Dream flowed out of the Bible: faithful obedience to God, hard work (and innovative, wise thinking), brings from God the miraculous increase, and a cup that overflows into the nations. The church has followed the humanistic barons of barrenness and bankruptcy in their attempt to turn the world into one big soup kitchen. We need some new Josephs to reinterpret the Constantinian (postmillennial) dream for the nations, the construction of a kingdom of plenty according to the manufacturer’s instructions, the “Tabernacle” pattern given on the mountain by Christ that turns the world upside down, both spiritually and materially.

Western New South Wales, after many years of drought, has recently suffered terrible flooding. Imagine an Australian Parliament where a Christian politician could suggest that the nation’s immorality was the problem, that obedience to God’s Law would bring the rain in season, and due to his reputation for wisdom the Parliament would not laugh but listen.

Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Inasmuch as God has shown you all this, there is no one as discerning and wise as you. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall be ruled according to your word; only in regard to the throne will I be greater than you.” And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” Then Pharaoh took his signet ring off his hand and put it on Joseph’s hand; and he clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. And he had him ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried out before him, “Bow the knee!” So he set him over all the land of Egypt. (Genesis 41:39-43)

_________________________________________________

[1] Another very intelligent Christian answered that the challenge was proving to the world that life has purpose, as if this can be done intellectually, and with a mythical interpretation of Genesis. “Hey, come and believe the Bible, just like we don’t!”

[2] See Toby Sumpter’s assessment of Walter Bruggemann’s misunderstanding of Solomon’s kingdom in Oppressing the Text.

[3] Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace, pp. 148-153.

[4] See Did Plato Read Moses? by Peter Leithart, and Church and State.

[5] Doug Wilson posted this video.

or Cooking the Golden-Egg Goose

Gary North has a free course on reducing your debt. Part of the plan is an application of the 5-point Covenant structure. Basically, God calls a man, gives him a job to do, and returns at the end to assess the man’s work. North refers to the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:

“Jesus often used what I call pocketbook parables. People understand money. They are interested in money.

The parable of the talents teaches about personal responsibility and final judgment. It uses money to explain this. This parable reveals how God expects us to use our money. We are to expand it — meaning our influence — rather than waste it.

There are five principles governing this passage:

1. God is the owner.
2. He delegates administration to representatives.
3. Each representative adopts a plan of action.
4. The owner requires a final accounting.
5. There is a system of inheritance and disinheritance.

This structure reflects the five points of the biblical covenant model. (On this model, read Rev. Ray Sutton’s book, That You May Prosper [1987]. Download it for free here.)

1. The sovereignty of God
2. The delegated authority of man
3. The law of God
4. The judgment of God
5. The kingdom of God

Put more commonly:

1. Who’s in charge here?
2. To whom do I report?
3. What are the rules?
4. What do I get if I obey or disobey?
5. Does this outfit have a future?”

This correlation between Covenant and economics is crucial to understanding the Bible and its irrefutable dominion theology. The Bible repeatedly describes worship as commerce, “buying and selling.” [1]

Even more interesting is the correspondence which I believe exists between the 5-point Covenant model and the 7-point Creation model. [2] Human history in its entirety follows this “economic” pattern. Why did God allow these tragic, bloody millennia to begin in Eden? Because at His coming, He will receive back what He put into it—with interest.

Matthew 25 describes His coming in AD70, the end of the Old Covenant. He received all the saints into the place He had prepared for them, and slew all those who had murdered them. Just like Adam, Herod had seized the riches of kingdom rather than patiently receiving them as an inheritance. He had turned the Law into a self-serving tool and wilfully ignored the Spirit in which it was given. The abundance promised for faithfulness became scarcity.

The ascended martyr-church cried out for vengeance. The rich would weep and howl. [3] The words of Portia to Shylock spring to mind:

“Tarry, Jew. The law hath yet another hold on you… your wealth is forfeited to the state for having conspired against the life of one of its citizens. Your life lies at the mercy of him you conspired against.” [4]

Consequently, we see this pattern in the book of Revelation:

1. God is the owner.
2. He delegates administration to representatives.
3. Each representative adopts a plan of action.
4. The owner requires a final accounting.
5. There is a system of inheritance and disinheritance.

But this first century judgment was a type of the future judgment to come, the end of the New Covenant, at which Christ, the only truly faithful Adam, will hand the kingdom as abundant produce from Eden, full repayment with interest, to the Father. Then God will be all in all.

For those who support this misguided “Make Wealth History” campaign, money and economy are blessings from God to be received with gratitude and used with wisdom. The Bible is full of rich people who were faithful with their money.[5] That is why micro-loans are transforming third world countries that well-meaning foreign aid has weakened.

The West’s problem is not wealth but debt, which is the original sin multiplied into a culture. [6] Like Herod, we have sold the farm for trinkets. Jesus is very obviously taking the Land and giving it to those who will bring forth the fruit of the Kingdom.

______________________________
[1] Follow the tag Worship as Commerce.
[2] See Lambs in Limbo. The significance is multiplied when we take into account that both the Creation Week, the Tabernacle and the Annual Festivals of Israel all follow this same pattern. All is sacred, but all is commerce. See The Go-Betweens. On Ray Sutton’s model, see A Jaw Dropping Book.
[3] See Fool’s Gold.
[4] Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Scene 3.
[5] See Charity, Not Revolution.
[6] See Building Cages Out of Freedom.

or Judaism is a Testimony to the End of the World

There is a patisserie in the Blue Mountains that bakes traditional German sourdoughs. Originally the mother culture for their sourdoughs was brought to Australia in a phial by the owner’s father from a bakery near Stutgart. The culture is 500 years old and has been given the name, “Corey”. This is a fantastic picture of what leaven symbolises in the Bible. It is not a symbol of sin. It is a symbol of historic continuity.

Passover’s unleavened bread and bitter herbs were a picture of the death of the old history of slavery. Judaism celebrates the end of the old creation every year, getting rid of any trace of leaven, any link with the history of the previous year. There is to be no crossover from the past, and the smallest trace remaining can take over the new world. Jesus warned the disciples to watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees, not because leaven was bad, but because this particular leaven would be eradicated from the kingdom of God forever. (Paul uses the same illustration concerning the cutting off of Corinthian culture in 1 Corinthians 5.)

To the Jews, Jesus was unleavened bread. He brought an end to the old history, an end to slavery, an end to fallen Adam. But to those who believed, He was also the introduction of a new leaven, one from heaven. Immediately after Pharaoh’s army “went down to the Abyss” (the death of the uncircumcised again!), a new history began with manna, the bread from heaven. It was not bitter, but sweet.

So when we break bread each week (and it should be weekly!), we liturgically end the old world, the old history, personally and corporately. But the broken bread is the broken veil, “that is, His flesh” (Hebrews 10:20). It is a doorway into a new history, not of death but of resurrection. This new history has been spreading across the world for two millennia. And, like Corey, He has a name.

Gary North writes:

“The kingdom of God is like leaven. Christianity is the yeast, and it has a leavening effect on pagan, satanic cultures around it. It permeates the whole of culture, causing it to rise. The bread which is produced by this leaven is the preferred bread. In ancient times – indeed, right up until the advent of late-nineteenth century industrialism and modern agricultural methods – leavened bread was considered the staff of life, the symbol of God’s sustaining hand. ‘Give us this day our daily bread,’ Christians have prayed for centuries, and they have eaten leavened bread at their tables. So did the ancient Hebrews. The kingdom of God is the force that produces the fine quality bread which all men seek. The symbolism should be obvious: Christianity makes life a joy for godly men. It provides men with the very best.

Leaven takes time to produce its product. It takes time for the leaven-laden dough to rise. Leaven is a symbol of historical continuity, just as unleavened bread was Israel’s symbol of historical discontinuity. Men can wait for the yeast to do its work. God gives man time for the working of His spiritual leaven. Men may not understand exactly how the leaven works – how the spiritual power of God’s kingdom spreads throughout their culture and makes it rise – but they can see and taste its effects. If we really push the analogy (pound it, even), we can point to the fact that dough is pounded down several times by the baker before the final baking, almost as God, through the agents of Satan in the world, pounds His kingdom in history.

Nevertheless, the yeast does its marvellous work, just so long as the fires of the oven are not lit prematurely. If the full heat of the oven is applied to the dough before the yeast has done its work, both the yeast and the dough perish in the flames… What a marvellous description of God’s kingdom! Christians work inside the cultural material available in any given culture, seeking to refine it, permeate it, and make it into something fine. They know they will be successful, just as yeast is eventually successful in the dough, if it is given sufficient time to do its work. This is what God implicitly promises us in the analogy of the leaven: enough time to accomplish our individual and collective assignments. He tells us that His kingdom will produce the desirable bread of life. It will take time. It may take several poundings, as God, through the hostility of the world, kneads the yeast-filled dough of men’s cultures. But the end result is guaranteed. God does not intend to burn His bread to a useless crisp by prematurely placing it in the oven. He is a better baker than that.” [1]

So, the history of the Jews is like a scratched CD, stuck on and perpetually repeating the last second of the last track. Every year they celebrate the death of Adam, and remain stagnant, a sacrifice on an Altar with no fire of Ascension.

But the history of the church is one of miraculous growth. Every week we celebrate the New Adam. No matter how much is taken away, He continues to spread and bring the best to the world, with more leftovers than we can cope with. Jesus’ vision of the kingdom is distinctly postmillennial.

The church must not measure its history in a fictional Catholic “apostolic succession”. This ended at the first resurrection in AD70, with the induction of a human government into heaven.[2] And the supposed “Trail of Blood”, which pits Baptists/Anabaptists against Rome/Protestants as the true church is just as guilty of this.[3]  Neither of these is what gives the church its historical continuity. The connection is the Spirit of Life, the Mortar of God as the unifying relationship between the living stones.

The true yeast always transcends human institutions and traditions. It spills out all over the place, despite the embarrassment this causes to our careful confessions and denominational delineations and political pretensions. Currently, the once Christian west is eating dry crackers and bitter herbs, while China, Mongolia and the global south are just beginning to rise. [4]

“Behold, I make all things new.”

___________________________

[1] Gary North, Moses and Pharaoh: Dominion Religion Versus Power Religion, p. 169f. 
[2] See Jesus’ New Broom. 
[3] Both these “true church” traditions are guilty of messing with the communion elements. The Catholic church commands unleavened bread for communion (wherever possible). So much for historical continuity! And the modern baptists refuse to use wine. So much for a trail of blood!
[4] See Blood and Soil and The Coming of Global Christianity (PDF). It amazes me how many conservative Christians think modern postmillennialism is an attempt to build a political City of God on earth. This is certainly an error we are prone to, but the kingdom will always break out of our man-made structures as it did with Holy Rome. It spreads not by politics but by worshipping in spirit and truth.

I’m currently reading Gary North’s commentary on Genesis, “The Dominion Covenant.”  It is probably one of the most enlightening books I’ve ever read, especially in terms of economics.

Anyway, I ran across some ideas that might serve to savage any and all attempts to intertwine the Genesis account with modern theories of evolution. (Gary North doesn’t apply these conclusions in this way. This speculation is all Shotgun.)

Gary North says this:

Under covenantal dominion, cursed nature’s restraints are progressively lifted. (Pg. 84)

He claims earlier that the “Earth was never designed to be autonomous.” 

It seems to me that those who would posit long periods of time before man arose (as man) are implying that the Earth (and nature without man) has some sort of autonomous purpose apart from man. Implicit then, in systems like those of Hugh Ross, is the assumption of an autonomous sphere of sovereignty allocated to nature. 

This cannot be true since there is no neutrality. In seeking to critique theistic evolutionary models, then, we should be on the lookout for any implications of an autonomous wilderness.

But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

The motivation here is clear: “More for me in history.” 

Charles Darwin took this view of man, which was based on competitive self-interest, and applied it to all of nature: the survival of the fittest. Darwin’s view of the biological world was consistent. Out of individual competition for scarce resources, Darwin argued, comes the order of nature. There is no creator God. There is no providential decree. There is no grand design. There is only individual competition for resources. The supreme motivation of every competitor, from the amoeba to mankind, is this: “More for me in history.”

Christianity denies Darwin’s premise, beginning with Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” It continues this denial until Revelation 22:21. “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.”

The goal of statist Darwinism is autonomous power. The goal of Christianity is covenantal dominion. The goal of free market Darwinism is autonomous economic growth. The goal of Christianity is to inherit the earth.

What is the difference? Grace. Autonomous man seeks the whole earth and loses his soul in the attempt. Covenant-keeping man seeks obedient subordination to God through His grace and thereby inherits his share of the whole earth as God’s confirmation of His covenant.

“But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day” (Deuteronomy 8:18).

- Gary North, The Five Pillars of Biblical Success. Available fromhttp://www.americanvision.org/downloads/fivepillars.pdf