Pentecost and Globalism

On this Sunday, Christians celebrate Pentecost. This highlight of the church calendar commemorates the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, in fulfillment of prophecy, as recorded in the second chapter of the book of Acts. Jesus had promised His disciples that He would bring this about; He said it would happen upon His ascension into heaven – “It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you” (John 16: 7).

And now, during the Jewish Feast of Weeks when the city was filled with people from all parts of the known world, the time had come, and the Spirit was poured out.

How did this manifest itself? By the disciples communicating directly with all those visitors, speaking in foreign tongues, or, as eyewitnesses put it, “How hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God” (Acts 2: 8—11).

What is the significance of this? Peter’s explanation speaks for itself. But there is something else, which in our day is of great significance. The very fact that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit manifested itself in, of all things, the proclamation of the mighty works of God in foreign tongues, is not coincidental. It points to the plan for the ages that at this point took a new step forward.

According to the biblical testimony, which stretches back to the very origins of civilization, there was an event which indicates how foreign tongues came into existence in the first place. This is key to understanding the significance of that speech-making in foreign tongues.

The incident to which we refer is the building of the Tower of Babel, which took place at a time when mankind was already unified: “And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech” (Gen. 11: 1). And people wanted to keep it that way, so, of course, they decided to build “a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven” in order to make for themselves “a name,” to keep from being “scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” (v. 4).

A name for themselves…

In man’s eyes, a necessity; in God’s eyes, not really a good idea. “Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do” (v. 6). The implication is that they will be doing bad things, just like they did before the Flood. God had promised no more floods, so He betook Himself to a different strategy.

For this urge to maintain unity was done by mankind in its own name, to “make a name,” to establish a self-contained kingdom of man which, with its tower reaching to heaven, constituted a challenge and an affront to someone else’s kingdom, namely, God’s.

And so the effort was thwarted. The means to accomplish this was by scattering mankind through the confusion of languages: “let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech” (v. 7). Mankind dispersed, and stopped building the city. Significantly, the place was Babel, in Hebrew meaning confusion, in Aramaic “gate of God,” a double-entendre of which the Bible is rich; the name would live on as the “code name” for illicit efforts at playing God, as we shall note.

Here is what makes Pentecost so significant. What it means is that the kingdom of God has arrived to achieve the reunification of mankind. What once upon a time was lost in the illicit power grab surrounding the Tower of Babel is now restored – but only on God’s terms. It is through the ministry of Word and Sacrament (Acts 2: 41) that that unity is restored, not through holding high a banner with the word “HUMANITY” inscribed on it.

A name for themselves…

This is the danger of the times we now live in. This urge toward global unification is occurring precisely in the name of humanity, precisely in the way, the Bible warns us, that we should not be pursuing it. There is a struggle going on between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan, the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness, the Prince of Peace and the Prince of this world. For what did Jesus say on the eve of His crucifixion? “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12: 31—32). It is in Him that men will be drawn together; but that will occur only through the judgment of the world, through the casting out of the ruler of this world.

How will that unification manifest itself? Jesus Himself spoke of it just prior to the crucifixion, in His high-priestly prayer. “Neither pray I for [My disciples] alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” This unification is of the Spirit, in the name of Christ, as a testimony to the world.

What about the world itself being unified? The Book of Revelation warns of a renewed attempt to establish this unified world. It will manifest itself as a global kingdom of man. Significantly, the center of this empire, once again, will be Babel – Babylon – “Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” (Revelation 17: 5), “that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth” (v. 18), whose “merchants were the great men of the earth,” by whose sorceries “were all nations deceived,” in whom was found “the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth” (18: 23—24).

This is globalism, but the wrong kind. The globalism of Pentecost restores unity in in the name of God. The globalism of man asserts unity in the name of man. Choose carefully.

“Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24: 14–15).

Deconstructing the Declaration Breaking down the mechanism of inalienable rights

(updated July 4th, 2019)

A meme making the rounds on Facebook (shared by the ever-provocative Dominic Foo) poses an interesting question: either “our rights come from God not government” or “Immigrants don’t have the same rights as Americans.”


It would seem that one or the other applies: if our rights come from God, then why do the citizens of one country see less or fewer of them than the citizens of another country? Are we supposed to believe that God endows one people with more rights than another, and that all government does is respect those rights? That would allow us to make choice #2. Or, if our rights come from God not government without respect of persons, hence choice #1, then that entails that we allow people to flee from one jurisdiction, where those rights are not respected or even recognized, to another jurisdiction which acknowledges these rights from God.

In other words, on this 242nd anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we are once again faced with the conundrum the Declaration poses. For if it says anything clearly, it says that “all men are created equal.” So then, if we are to believe that its portentious phrases apply to all human beings equally, then indeed, immigration restrictions, among other things, stand in the way of their fulfillment. Just as in 1776, if those phrases had really been believed and taken literally, the slaves would have to have been freed immediately. But they weren’t.

The same thing is true regarding the restrictions on sexuality in favor of traditional marriage and the family. Say what you will about Anthony Kennedy, in his jurisprudence regarding homosexuality and marriage culminating in Obergefell v. Hodges, he was simply being faithful to these same portentious phrases.

For some time now, the jurisprudence has been catching up with the text of the Declaration. This explains the lack of push-back on the part of the political opposition. There is indeed opposition among the so-called “deplorables,” the grass roots, but this opposition is not receiving the representation one would expect it to. Not only electorally, but also in the institutions of public life, ranging from government to the schools, academia, the news and entertainment media, etc.

The reason is precisely the jurisprudence catching up with the text. Which is why such issues are characterized as inevitable. So to be in favor of gay marriage is to be “on the right side of history.” To be opposed is to be as retrograde as it is to be opposed to human rights generally. It is no good to refer to thousands of years of contradictory human history, to self-evident laws of nature, to the teaching of all religions everywhere, to the teaching of the Christian church, to which the majority of persons in the United States still professes to adhere, to the teaching of the Bible. None of that matters, because “history” is on the side of gay marriage.

On the face of it, stated as baldly as that, it seems astounding that this kind of argument could gain the ascendancy. Nevertheless, this decision is now “the law of the land.” And at this point, it would appear that it will be groups opposing this newly minted institution who will be fighting to survive. Because the entire machinery of federal, state, and local civil-rights legislation and policy, when the party in power favors it, will be brought to bear upon those recalcitrants. Caveat ecclesia.

What explains this inevitability? Quite simply, the natural rights paradigm that is enshrined in the Declaration, and which was placed at the heart of Western legal and political institutions beginning in the 17th century. That’s right: the document signed 241 years ago ratified the state of affairs that would eventually produce, e.g., same-sex marriage.

Of course, the Founders would be rolling in their graves if they had known that this would be the end-result of their work. Which would seem to be prima facie evidence against my thesis. “Balderdash!” they would exclaim. But a short explanation of the mechanics will elucidate my meaning and confirm the thesis.

Time and again, the justification for all of these jurisprudential “advances” is found in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. On the face of it, it seems odd that the rights-ore that the Court has mined from the Constitution, it has mined from this text. The language is standard Lockean phraseology: rights to life, liberty, and property, along with a right to due process of law in adjudicating those rights; and that these rights accrue to every American citizen, either naturalized or born on US soil. How is it that rights of such divergent import (e.g., privacy justifying a right to abortion, same-sex marriage, non-citizen welfare benefits), having nothing to do with the ones here enumerated, have nevertheless been teased out of this?

It is because an enumeration of rights presupposes a mechanism of rights from which the enumerated rights have been derived; it is the mechanism which matters, standing as it does, over and above any listed enumeration and any law which might presume to contradict it. And this is what generation after generation of Supreme Court justices has divined.

What is this mechanism? The mechanism of subjective right, not in its proper place as a subordinate component of the legal order, but elevated to the status of sovereignty: the individual will is supreme, sovereign; it shapes and determines its environment according to its wishes, for its ends; and it is entitled to these fruits of its will. Entitlement, rather than virtue, becomes the point of the exercise. This becomes the ultimate source of law. The proper relationship of law and rights, expressed in the primacy of objective over subjective right, so laboriously elaborated in the centuries of Christian-Roman jurisprudence, was reversed in the 17th century, in order to supersede the requirement of appeal to the law of God. Instead, the appeal is made to a common humanity. This enabled our stalwart forefathers to supersede religious conflict, but it also gave birth to the jurisprudence which in straight-line trajectory has brought us to the point we are at today, and is poised to take us far beyond. At least, until the supporting framework – a functioning social order – collapses. After all, only so much of this subjectivism can be borne.

We all, wittingly or unwittingly, think in terms of this mechanism. The only difference between conservatives and progressives is the use to which they wish to put it. Historically, classical liberals put it at the service of property rights; nowadays, progressive liberals put it at the service of the pursuit of happiness. But at the end of the day, we are all liberals – we all believe in this project, the primacy of the sovereign individual. Which is why classical  liberals continuously get their clocks cleaned by progressive liberals: the inner logic of the mechanism favors progressivism.

Jefferson’s formulation already lifts the veil on this aspect of the mechanism: instead of the Lockean triad of life, liberty, and property, he put forward life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – this latter being an utterly unjurisprudential goal because amenable to a range of interpretations. Nevertheless, quite understandable and even necessitated in terms of the mechanism – how could it remain restricted to mere property? The final paragraph of the majority’s opinion justifying its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges reads as a further elaboration of this pursuit of happiness, a paean to the Jeffersonian platitude, notwithstanding the dissenting opinion by Judge Scalia that it sounded more like “the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

Fortune cookies tell the future, and this jurisprudence is rife with predictive capacity. We are headed towards a world not only in which the family as traditionally construed is doomed, but also in which the church is doomed. For the teaching of the church with regard to homosexuality is now ipso facto discrimination, soon to be classified as hate speech. Canada has already started implementing this reality, as has the State of California.

But there is much more in store for our country and our world. Nationhood itself is being obliterated before our very eyes, and by the same mechanism. What else could possibly be the rationale behind the importation of entire populations of underclass citizens of foreign countries (e.g., 25% of the Mexican population)? It is more than just “cheap labor” (that panacea of our latest iteration of corporate capitalist exploiters), for with the wonders of modern trade deals, that labor can be accessed just as easily and at just as permanently low wages in their countries of origin. No, it wasn’t enough that a demographic ticking time bomb is set to go off as the baby-boom generation retires and transitions into a giant mass of non-working dependents; no, we need to import millions more of low-wage, unskilled workers better fitted to serve as a voting bloc for entitlements, forming yet another mass of insufficiently productive dependents. Just how many entitlements can our system bear? We will soon find out.

We have our rights mechanism to thank for this, because the rationale for these kinds of otherwise irrational policy choices lies precisely in the putative entitlement perceived to accrue to each individual person regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever other criterion strikes the fancy. This entitlement is what government can guarantee, what gives it its raison d’être, until of course it runs out of the wherewithal to furnish the entitled with what they are entitled to according to the latest bulletin of abruptly, blindingly, obvious self-evident, ungainsayable, inalienable rights.

This is what has happened with one group who have been promised so much in terms of entitlement – the African American population. They have been promised everything, and how much do they have to show for it? But no worry, any blame can be attached squarely to, well, Republicans, or the rich, or white people generally, or the police. Let it never be made known that their champions in the public square, the Democratic party, are the same ones who are allowing the importation of mass quantities of cheap labor competing precisely for the same jobs in the same labor market as many African Americans do, making it even more difficult for said African Americans to break out of the spiral of poverty and dependency. If they knew it was the Democratic party and its policy of open borders that ensured an unemployment rate for black youths far in excess of other ethnicities, would they care? Who knows? And if they knew that all the fomenting of racial discord and antagonism that has taken place in recent years was done precisely to cover up for this other policy, to divert attention from it, so as to keep the voting coalition afloat – would they care? Who knows? After all, the mechanism has us all in its thrall.

What we do know is that America as we know it is on life support. Nationhood itself is on life support. The end game for the people behind these developments is the drastic curtailment of national sovereignty in favor of world government and universal jurisdiction, the better to implement universal entitlement. America – the world’s last superpower – stands in the way of this.

It also entails the right to be free from preaching about sin. Here, it directly confronts the church. Stalin once asked derisively, “The Pope! How many divisions has he got?” Our contemporary politicians and academics and members of the power elite ask themselves a similar question. “Christians! How many votes have they got? How many teachers in the public schools? How many professors? How many judges? How many CEOs? How many journalists? How many media moguls?”

The trajectory should by now be clear, and it applies just as well to the question of immigration. The forces for open borders, which thus oppose restrictions on immigration, especially on the most disadvantaged, may seem now to be in the minority, but in terms of the inner logic of the mechanism enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and further developed in the 14th amendment and subsequent court decisions, they have “history” on their side. Unless and until the mechanism itself is combated and defeated in the halls of jurisprudence and the pillared shrines of justice, we can already project where this too will end. After all, by now we’ve seen this movie.

Yes, Virginia, There Is Freedom of Speech

(originally posted on the Calvinist International, January 16, 2015)

The terrorist attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo bring into sharp relief a major contradiction in the intellectual framework of modern democracy. In fact, it highlights a fault line. Freedom of speech is one of the supposedly unshakeable pillars of liberal social order. But the way liberals have dealt with the issue brings into question whether it is a pillar or a facade.

Of course there were the massive demonstrations in favor of Charlie Hebdo, the cries of solidarity with Charlie Hebdo, the self-identification with Charlie Hebdo (“Je suis…”). The Parisian march of unity comprised a million-plus souls, and that was not the only such demonstration. More than forty world leaders participated in the Parisian rally, including both Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas.

Other voices were to be heard, though. There were those who refused the identification “Je ne suis pas… “), citing e.g. the cartoons blaspheming the Trinity, promoting racism, and the like. In their minds, freedom of speech is not an absolute value but one that must be balanced with other freedoms. But this then begs the question of the standard to which appeal must be made in order to strike such a balance. It stands to reason that any norm that is to balance freedom of speech with the right to a good name, the rights of religion, and the like, must stand over the various freedoms and rights that are to be balanced against each other.

This is an issue of long-standing debate. One thing all participants in that debate agree upon: these things are not deserving of death, as it were, and they certainly do not permit any group’s taking the law into their own hands to mete out justice in terms of their own lights. Which, in a nutshell, is what Islamic terrorists do.

Freedom of speech is problematic. But not for real liberals. For them, freedom of speech is an absolute value, a categorical imperative. A liberal is one who announces without qualms, “je suis Charlie Hebdo,” who says, while I adamantly oppose what you say, I adamantly support your right to say it…. [continued here].