W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New
IS LIFE FOR ?
Removing the Pollution of Confusion
A Trilogy comprising:
of the Fittest not Surviving...
B. Survival of the Fittest and the Superior Strength of Reality, and
C. The Drunkenness of Parti-Time, and the Sobriety of the All-Sufficient God
A. SURVIVAL OF
WHAT IS WRONG
This term is much politicised. Technically it is vapid. It is in fact not merely tautologous, but anomalous and irrelevant. In addition, it is misleading and obfuscatory. Much could be said; but this may suffice.
If a thing is fit, it may survive. More precisely, if it is fit to survive, then with its descendants over a protracted and perhaps highly diversified period, it may survive... provided fitness is sufficiently broadly defined to cover ALL advents and difficulties from whatever source, depth, height or dimension. Then the statement has unbecomingly become an exercise in tautology. Moreover, the trouble is firstly, to define 'fit'.
Fit for what ? Fit as an ancestor of ever more complex and extraordinarily progressed creatures ? That is irrelevant. It has only to 'survive', and any thought of technical advance is wholly diverse in kind.
Then, of course, we do not know WHY it survives, since considerations could be astronomical and combine in kaleidoscopic manners. It just... does. It does not even necessarily adapt better to its environment, since the undoubted realities of major and repeated catastrophes makes adaptation about as relevant to 'coping' as an extra-terrestrial intruder would be. There is nothing necessarily inherent or competent in the consideration. Even if you mean 'NET population contribution, competitively considered', one of the more sophisticated formulations, that also is quite irrelevant to creation, or arrival of the more 'advanced', which after all, is the thing to be explained, for which the hypothesis exists and has its being. NET population contribution is wholly unrelated to net technical advance.
The term is in the area of our operation, technically tautologous. It is also anomalous. Thus we are for the purposes in hand, not even interested in relative multitudes managing to stay around for a while, in sometimes radically changing conditions. A human baby for that matter would not be a prime object. Fragility and advance may often go together. This simplistic phrase-mongering is unacceptable; but it is its anomalous character which is perhaps worse. After all, if
then what has continuation to do with the primary question ?
It is like saying to a dunce: If you achieve the highest marks, then this is how to influence your teacher not to find ways of downgrading you because of favouritism! The QUESTION first and foremost is how to get the prima facie marks.
In short, endurance does not even arise as a question, until arrival has arrived. Keeping your job in competition with others is not an issue (except theoretically) until you have it. The ACTUAL topic which needs to be addressed, when searching for mechanism, is ARRIVAL of the MORE ADVANCED. As to that, the death of the less ably contentious (which may be horrendously unprogressed in a given case), is hardly a draughtsman's bench for the birth of the more technically advanced.
The cases are horribly mixed, utterly confused and the affair is frankly disreputable. At that, the case is not over. The problem has yet another facet. BECAUSE the provision of the HOW-TO-STAY-AROUND-kit concept (or the virtual assumption of the possession of one), is 'the next question' in terms of the articulation of the new and more advanced thing, therefore the phrase-making technocrats are irrelevant. They not merely mar the point; they also miss it.
What in fact is to the point is this: first, the operation of the machinery, intelligence, methods, procedures and so forth, necessary for the articulation of the advanced designs, their formulation, their information content, their execution; and after that, the provision of a method to secure that those which are more advanced, are preserved. We need a sort of combination of genius and mothercraft nursing, the latter at least in many cases. At the outset however, in order to be able to use the nurse's powers, we need... the baby itself!
The term 'GOD' is often used to relate to the provider and source of power - which we humans reflect in diminutive but still impressive measure. It is power to institute what we so often (in our own children) seek to preserve; to present IN the world what was not there before, and then to ensure that the total PACKAGE is adequate: whether parent-child relationship, instincts, situation and capacity to utilise it and so forth. Death does not create these things. Non-death does not do it. Creation does it; as we know from our endless use of this very feature in our own equipment.
If there is one thing which is not fit to survive, it is this naive and old-fashioned use of the concept of 'survival of the fittest' as if it had some relevant to the actual enormous technical advance shown between the lowliest creatures and the most advanced; or, for that matter, to the enormous complexity and wonder of the earliest or the apparently simplest living creatures.
In the market, by way of illustration, we note that some computers may live longer than others; but this by no means puts them up for sale at the first. What then might be said with some effort at covering the case for this earth's inhabitants ?
The descriptively correct terminology in this affair would be of this order: the institution of the wonderful, and its maintenance. THAT is what the evidence requires. That it is wonderful is acknowledged on virtually all sides. Its arrival and substantial capacity to be automatically maintained, often by astoundingly technical and apt devices, is the datum before us. It is of course in the latter connection, when despite this, there is destruction: that inability and inadequacy to continue has a bearing on maintenance of species in their more robust state. Indeed, even this is merely part of a highly diversified series of considerations which may operate, of what are at times innumerable occurrences, unpredicted and of vast impact, aiding in ways to which no internal competence of the species relates.
In fact, whole masses of this or that nation, tribe, animal may be carried forth on a wave of events by no means engendered from within; or dashed to disaster despite sophisticated technology, courage or even foresight. The results may be cumulative. Such considerations add to the anomaly of 'fittest', to its tautology, or to both. They reinforce the fact that the use of the 'survival of the fittest' magic-word wizardry, in terms of how things arrived, is a wonder of verbal manipulation. We are however only to aware of how this 'wonder' was created!
Nor did the phrase-mongering substitutes for logical necessities cease with Darwin; for as shown in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, we have them in punctuated equilibrium, saltation, hopeful monster, life force, libido and the like, and Phillip Johnson in his Darwin on Trial, exposes more endeavours of the kind on the part of others.
Such verbal substitutes for the power of wit and performance are a delusive and anti-scientific confusion of plans for performance, when even the plans for institution are neither available, nor seen, nor even observed in operation; while even if they were, they would require the input source for genesis. These leisurely but impotent verbalisms are a procedural hazard for those who wish to develop from an extant system, its own grounds of genesis; and this, when no evidence of any naturalistic kind is kind enough to validate any such process; and when indeed, all evidence is unkind enough to require the mind that has the capacities to do the job. To that mind, for execution, power must be supplied, and what the Bible aptly calls the function of -
'finding out knowledge by witty inventions' (Proverbs 8).
WHAT NEEDS DOING
It is of course, to my mind, one of the greatest of the many gifts to humanity that there is another book than that composed in the nucleated cells of our bodies; and that is the Bible, the propositional speech of the One who gave to us the power to formulate propositions. The validated, evidentially perfect 'fit' of this evidence with the necessity for His existence, by scientifically assessable demonstrations, is a most kind contribution to the peace of man, who, however, seems set on ignoring it and hence ending up the generation with the induced perplexities and complexities of what then become profoundly unanswerable questions.
The poignant irony is that this 'hopeless case' scenario is worked out in the face of implacable resolution not to accept what stares us quietly in the face. As there is no other answer but the truth, the poor prevaricators (who often are too confused to know what they do), are in for a long haul... Actually, the Bible has a word for the first step in the arrival of wisdom - this, if absent, leads to the Book of judgment:
Repent! (Luke 13:1-3, Acts 2:37ff.; Revelation 20:12).
B. SURVIVAL OF
THE FITTEST AND THE
SUPERIOR STRENGTH OF REALITY
You may say, Look, the nation with the better technology, in education and industry, this one will win, survive, its people continue to populate the earth. Will they ?
To say that this proposition is simplistic is to flatter it to oiliness. Look at Hitler. Even at the time of the Second Front in 1944, there was a question which in that phase, was no mere insignificance. WOULD Hitler manage to have his available divisions where it counted to:
If LOVE had its place, then that would have been remedied. It did not however have this place; nor was the failure remedied. Further, there was acute division, because Hitler was categorically and flamboyantly WRONG. Hence many STRONG SCIENTISTS, not because they were strong, but because of their love of liberty and hatred of the STRONG ENSLAVING THE WEAK, left Europe, and many more gave their lives (a practice which is not high in survival ratings, in the sense relevant to our current purpose).
Is dying surviving ? Is freedom strong technology ? Is sensitive concern for other human beings a special fitness, even when it leads to one's own early death ? CERTAINLY NOT, when the topic is this: HOW LONG will a given man, nation or people continue on this earth. That is merely an identity proposition, and hence not subject to argument.
Hence we begin to leave the simplistic follies of that Darwin who began in his own life to deplore the loss of feeling for beauty, and whose theories had no place for it, or for the beauty of rightness, of morality, of sensitivity and concern for others, of love and sacrificial offering for what one values. These things were far OTHER THAN STRENGTH TO CONTINUE (including, incidentally, will to continue) living on this earth.
Darwin was simply sealing life with a depraved and inhuman conception which is not the operative continuum. Some approximate the surviving rat complex, it is true, Mafia bosses may seek to imitate the genre, and Hitlers may ponder the ... sheer wonder of brutality (and even he had his dreams): but this is not life. It is a corner, a fungal corner of it.
On top of that, there is the point that people will not only, being themselves both brilliant and capable of throwing their selfish strength about if they so chose, freely sacrifice their whole opportunity to continue in this world in their generation, and this in no small number; but a whole civilisation may become concerned (and World War II gave some good examples) at virtually any cost, to be free from the obsessive dictates of the strong.
For many, personal biological survival on this earth becomes incomparably less important than the principle; or that true God who does not favour oppression (Isaiah 58 is filled with this consideration). It is not too much to say that it sometimes becomes almost an irrelevancy. A Christian 'Lord', like the Earl of Shaftesbury may give himself, or a people, a movement may do so, to improve what others have in their lives, either materially, or morally or in life texture and in spirit.
The realities are so. Some will. Some will not. Any generalisation which is oblivious of the whole truth is merely fanaticism. We should in passing clear up this point. Often religion is spoken of as fanaticism (if it happens to collide with the other ideas/ideals of some other group who do not like to bring their UNDOUBTEDLY PRESENT RELIGION into the open). This however is merely verbal abuse; it is a short cut to avoid reasoning and reality. It is unworthy of serious thought. Like personal abuse, it is not relevant to reasoning, any more than a mistake in arithmetic is relevant to the correct result (except, of course, in its annihilation; but then it is not there..).
Back then to reality and goodbye to fanaticism... On top of this (we are ascending in layers, you may observe), there is the fact that many incidents in history (and geography for that matter, if you think in terms of the well-attested catastrophes on which some of the world's greatest geologists have dealt at length) determine things beyond any ordinary powers. It is sheer verbal confusion to talk of 'fitness' in the sense that it is an upward movement towards man that is being accounted for, as a criterion when major events can make it irrelevant. The most lowly and unsatisfactory exhibits may survive because enormous events favoured them, despite their weakness, which then takes the floor, with all the poor development or unspecialised unaccomplishment involved.
There can be no question that the real proposition, the one that is to the point which for 3 generations has been in biological view, is simply this: What survives, survives. That however says precisely nothing about organic evolution. That in turn is precisely what ought to be said about it. It does not exist, hence defies all efforts to elaborate a methodology. Insane-seeming expense is incurred while scholars constantly exhibit their total incompetence; and that includes brilliant men. You cannot change the universe by talk. You cannot put hyper-links on its substantive biological structure, by imagination. They might be philosophically convenient to some; but they are not there.
Except - yes, you cannot do this, except you should be God. What however did He do? Both His book and the book of nature exhibit one thing in concord. It is 'kinds' that are on issue... discretely.
When He speaks in power, there is no ability in anything to do otherwise. That however is not the general case, as some humans may now be coming to realise, as they self-corrupt in defiance of their creation mode and message. He is God; we are not. That is the significant definitional point. Abuse of one's properties, other things equal, will hasten one's demise, and good use of them will assist one's non-demise in this world: except of course one has a heart, and uses it for the good of the world. That often happens. One is tempted to think that if all the sacrifices made by fighters against evil in the last 100 years, to the point of death, were to be undone, and the splendid people who loved God more than life were to come back, the world would be incomparably better.
THAT of course brings us to the next point. There is in our human race an inveterate tendency to VALUE what is good. It does not by any means always implement this value. It does however tend in the long run to resist its total dismemberment. It has nostalgia for it, longings, aspirations which the rats do not understand, and the mice may not have stomach for; but it is there.
The Romans went almost mad on their various religions, as their surfeited bodies sought something WORTH WHILE. GOD of course is the reason for man, and the goal of man, when he is aware of it; and to some extent, when he is not. Man will often act to rename God in this or that ideology, which falls because it does not meet the truth, he will philosophise about the obvious and earn large professorial salaries in the process, while avoiding the requirements of reason like sheep wandering from the gate to which the sheep dog is directing them. Yet in the end, the instability and unreality, not to say selfish brutality which man exhibits without God, in various syndromes, or parallel ones, limits man.
He cannot escape either what he is or what God is.
Reality tends to survive even in the midst of man, even amidst the murder of Jesus Christ (who took good care to be resurrected, for sacrifice is one thing, and non-existence of what is good is another). On top of that of course, God may act, as He did in raising His Son, a distinctly disconcerting phenomenon for the power brokers of the day, and one from which they have never recovered.
He may in a sense BLOW AWAY the Spanish Armada with timely winds, heal some dying person whose continued life will change the world: indeed, there ARE more things wrought by prayer than this world dreams of. There are principles and propositions, promises and actions which surpass the creation. The God who made the creation stage, made a system; but He did not abdicate.
He also made man who is able to make systems, but not de novo; they have to be IN this universe, as it is already constituted. God is not so limited.
Survival ? Whatever is of God will survive; but this is not its object. God is love, and sacrifice is part of its signature. This world is a test, and good competence and application is de rigueur; but this is not the security for survival. It is rather the testimony of health. Let us then return to reality and forget the banal trumpetings of debased philosophy, whether it comes in biology, economics, psychology or religion.
Let us return to the Lord (whose word may be deemed 'metareligion'); and leaving aside the foolish biological philosophy which has tended to ruin 3 generations of 'moral' violence in the name of selfhood, nationhood*1and other hoods, return to loving one another, IN THE LORD.
That, you remember, is crucial. GOD is what He is, who He is, and we are what we are. INVENTING our own goodness is neither successful nor impressive. Ask Himmler. He had a wonderful world in view, with slaves to help out. If man does not become free in God, he asks for the slavery of the fitness fanatics, who are fit for nothing.
C. THE DRUNKENNESS
AND THE SOBRIETY
OF THE ALL-SUFFICIENT GOD
The wild sprees, drunken frenzies, capricious splendours of party-time with many, allied with the lights and colours of pantomime and the gaiety ... can have an exuberant effect. That however should not influence sober judgment about parties or indeed anything else.
The obsessive naturalist, as Phillip E. Johnson points out in his works, Reason in the Balance and Darwin on Trial, suffers from a blindness so total, that his parameters are pre-drawn. It is rather like a computer replacing a human being. The possibility of rising above the constraints is not there. With human beings, however, this can occur because, though the computer analogy can be unhappily pregnant with meaning, it fails on two counts. First, man can survey his parameters to a point, and second, God can survey man's surveying.
The orderly examination of the diverse phases of man's capacity, of course, has nothing at all to do with the preference for a naturalistic enigma as the model for life. It is mere philosophy, and totally illogical philosophy at that. As Johnson points out, many scientists illicitly but blindly avail themselves of this imposition.
Thus there is evident more and more in this century, a sort of philosophic spree, a parti-time wildness, reaching its due and fascinating climax in Paul Davies' nonsense about nothing as the originating basis for the universe. Logician and scientist alike point out that this is a simple contradiction in terms. It does however, as in all reductio ad absurdum, show clearly the false principle on which so much has been feyly working, and doing so for so long.
Parti-time, time playing its part as in a party: bringing out all sorts of wonderful results, time as participant and creator, this is the philosophy for such gala sprees as youth (and at times age too) can indulge in physically. This is the intellectual inebriation-party. However, for the intellectual champagne, as for the physical, many still do not seem to realise that when the party is over, then sober reality must be faced once more. The worship of a part is now as evident as it was in the days of the early Greek philosophers: the part as essence of the whole. THEY had it as air, water, fire, change, constancy: as inept then as now.
1. The Universe and Little Things
Take now the construction of the universe. But first consider a car. If we should (in some way, as for example by paying for it) possess a Jaguar car engine, and the chassis, together with a neat little package of body parts, with another assembly of wheels, tyres and gearing, it might not be too hard to assemble ... why, a car! In general, parts, and design and preparation of parts and overall synthesised specifications provide a fairly easy recipe for adequate power, intelligence and nous... to handle. Good mechanic, good parts, good design!
The car, with such help, might be forthcoming.
But the origin of these packages, parts, of this engine ? and of the design by which they fit together in concerted and active co-ordination to a designable purpose, in terms of action potential of a specialised kind ? Thought (by a thinker, really), work, consideration of criteria, inter-relating of equations, idiosyncrasies well-understood of design integrals with their environmental occasions, knowledge of materials, exploitation of their potentials to the end in view, with the concurrence of other sub-designs: that in the universe as elsewhere is the work of the preparer, manufacturer, maker, designer. It is the product of the knowledgeable one with apt access to all aspects of the case. The relevant powers and purpose produce the result.
2. Let's Take the Universe Itself
You could wish to introduce an assembly + assembler (as in a factory), whose origin as a system requires the designer; and so for any system sub-performers, they themselves always need prior construction in order to be around to be operative. And the evidence for any sub-performer (other than man) ? And for the knowledge banks, helpfully kept in the memory banks of the universe (for intelligence is not the same as storage) ? and for the purposer or proposer ? or any other parti-coloured components ? We are, you will recall, NOT here speaking of the CREATED state, as if to beg the question; but of reason applied to the QUESTION: WHERE is the originating capacity for what is!
Any subordinate assembler, at that originating level, lacks the visible and invisible evidence which we find commonplace, because it has been placed beside us, like a computer bought by a parent. Man however has more: he has the evidence within himself, being both derivative and imaginative, provocatively incompetent for the creation, but evocatively competent to evidence creative performance within his own capacities! The ULTIMATE systematiser and creator of all parts, components and intra-systematic schemas is not a simple logical option, amid all our purposeful constructions and the synthesised options: it is stringently required past all the verbal romancing, party- buffoonery and imaginative exploration of the fantasy arena of the fey. Past all the clouds of nugatory and intoxicated imagination is the stringency of necessity.
3. But not Take it Too Far
You can imagine what you will: beings (?) with outstretched arms beckoning the universe to get along with it (as Hoyle appears to do); or rollicking forces pushing it along (as Bergson appears to do): kick the thing or draw it, it is the same. (Cf. SMR pp. 225-226, 305-311, 332D-E; and W.R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Vol.II, p. 235.)
Alas for the escapists, imagination and metaphor will never substitute for power and capacity. System will always require the systematiser. Integrated systems will always require their multi-task synthesiser, code its contriver, command its source of expression. Indeed, existence will ever demand the conveyor of the same, while logic breathes. (And when it does not, the power to negate these points will be gone also, except in the realms of fantasy.)
The SELF-SUFFICIENT God (who evidences no powers non-resident) requires no explanation: the concept is not of a derivative kind. His products show ability, not debility. Nor is it, like matter, in sharp contradiction with any known fact: in the case of matter, default arises in its operating and constitutive laws in the face of its lack of any evidence of power to make them; let alone to make 'mistakes', a phenomenon of the universe without which no discussion would be meaningful. Such a condition for a 'creation candidate' is somewhat worse than inadequate. The production, potential and power of all these components requires a positive marvel of creation. The diverse components require a source of diversity and a composer of synthesis.
The cryptic words and romancing images of scientific (or other) philosophers beg the question and supply the answer under the darkness of nuance. The necessities are lacking. In my Supplement 1996 (SMR pp. S1-S34 cf. pp. 422Eff. ) , I supply a broad coverage of a much vaster listing of those necessities, intellectually, semantically and analytically. There are worlds within worlds. All cannot come from nowhere; each must have its genesis protected by resource.
4. The Creator of All
The Creator of all - for each sub-system is synthesised, all are compatible, and the capacity for the system as a whole requires a maker of the composition as well as of its components, as surely as does the system of any require its own basis - this Creator has His programs for His products. He also has His programs for His persons whom He has constructed. These include propositions, for His people. The interesting fact is that we, the human race, have been synthesised and spiritualised to the point we can listen with understanding to these propositions, rather than merely execute them like computers.
It is in the strictest and deepest sense a miracle that the One who made our hardware and our software, left room for personality as an operator, and then left it with grounds for an operation which has no compulsion. Its omission however is the ultimate folly of man, in marked contrast to the ultimate wisdom of God.
5. The Redeemer of Some
This operation is the result of the Gospel, occurring when it is believed: that of the Remedy, the Redeemer. (See Ch. 1, The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, pp. 47ff., 59ff.. Practically, see Ch. 3 infra, "Creating Waves".) It has no counterpart on earth or in heaven: John 14:6 advises us that Christ is THE WAY, THE LIFE AND THE TRUTH. If truth were not personal it could never be known: for it would then be the product of minds that had no access to objectivity; objectivity would not even exist.
As Peter put it (Acts 4:12): There
is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be saved.
And that ? You have guessed, it is of course that of the only character in all history whose attainments and conquests are unimpugnable, glorious and enduring, and this on the basis of words which, as He said would be the case, do not pass away, even when our earth is coming to precipice of its own demise. Jesus Christ is God's last word to man. (Cf. I Corinthians 1:17,30, II Corinthians 5:19-21, Galatians 1:6-9, 3:10-13, John 14:6, Revelation 22:17-21 - Jesus Christ is both the first word and the last word: John 1:1, Revelation 1:17, I John 1:1-4, Hebrews 1.)
Without Him, man's wisdom is folly, as is evidenced in clouds and volcanoes of facts, facts from without, and from within, irreparable facts, irredeemable facts, facts which have but one answer from God, costly to Him, challenging to all, but which like an operation for cancer, must be taken if eternal life is to replace deserved judgment.
WHERE IS THE WISE ? WHERE IS THE SCRIBE ? WHERE IS THE DISPUTER OF THIS WORLD ... FOR THE FOOLISHNESS OF GOD IS WISER THAN MEN; AND THE WEAKNESS OF GOD IS STRONGER THAN MEN (I COR. 1:20,25).
We, said Paul: PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED, TO THE JEWS A STUMBLINGBLOCK, AND TO THE GREEKS FOOLISHNESS, BUT TO THOSE WHO ARE CALLED, BOTH JEWS AND GREEKS, CHRIST, THE POWER OF GOD, AND THE WISDOM OF GOD.
As to living, there is a prescription as far from the sanctified Satanism of survival, and it has the wonderful advantage that it accords with the divine prescription for which man is made, that of His Creator:
WE THAT ARE STRONG OUGHT TO BEAR THE INFIRMITIES OF THE WEAK, AND NOT TO PLEASE OURSELVES (ROMANS 15:1).
THAT touches the life of Christ, who restores life but ONLY IN HIMSELF, where strength is given, sins are forgiven and love is in bonds of peace with truth. While, as Amos declares,
FLIGHT shall perish from the strong... and he that is courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day, says the Lord (2:15-16);
attesting the increasingly evident bankruptcy of self-trust, impenitently in the presence of the Almighty: the place of spiritual and functional power is unchanged. Everlasting strength of the Creator is available on His terms and in His close affinity. Those who wait upon the Lord through His Good Shepherd, Redeemer, rejected but unsurpassable because deity (Ezekiel 34:11-20,23, Isaiah 40:10, 49:7, 44:6, 49:6, 53:3-4, 42:1-7, 43:11, Zechariah 12:10, Daniel 7:13-14), these find the incomparable resources without which the puniness of the world parallels its punishments. The Lord alone will be exalted in that day" - Isaiah 2:12-22):
He gives power to the faint; and to those who have no might He increases strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: but they who wait upon the Lord will renew their strength; they will mount up with wings as eagles; they will run, and not be weary; and they shall walk and not faint (Isaiah 40:29-31 cf. 11:10-12:6).
Strength is found where it was first given, in the Lord; and with it comes quality that relates to Him who gave it, not the quality of curse, but of consecration, spirituality and godliness. It does not end, and His is the kingdom which shall not end. The desideratum is also the fact. The "desire of all nations" has come and "His resting place is glorious"... (Haggai 2:7, Isaiah 11:10).
*1 'Self-interest' and 'national interest', through narrow and mean devices, have long left vacant the pursuit of good, righteousness and understanding; or even given some verbal emphasis on these, allied with neglect of the Lord. It is as if a sell-out, discreet or blatant, of the MAIN premises of life, its quality and source, its principles and principal, can make atonement for the oblivion of sensual comfort, political power, personal prestige, subversion of spirituality, or some other infantility, defaming manhood, nationhood and the race. Atonement, however, is not made by pollution, but by purity; and what that requires is not found but in Jesus Christ, the sinless. Indeed, this sell-out merely accentuates sin, intensifies the justice of judgment and brings it nearer.
Constantly the powers-that-be wonder that life is so hard, that such explosive violences of mind and body affront the atmosphere, and wilt the earth; and as constantly, they invite these results through self-aggrandisement, national precocity, spiritual debasement, moral outrage, amoral power-broking, the spoliation of vision, the dispersal of righteousness, and indeed, war on truth in terms of ... convenience. For many, a craven craving for peace at any price, for prosperity at any cost, at any loss, so long as the skies do not fall - and perhaps even if they do - has made reality an indulgence and escapism a labour, promoted by many tools.
Increasingly, to speak the truth is a vast fault, or even the one thing that is unforgivable on this earth. As when Christ lived here, so now, it is more apt for the purpose (whatever today's definition, or confused substitute for it may be), to crucify the truth and live for the moment, which justly and rapidly is coming to the point of being... the last.
Jerusalem crucified Christ, and it has become perhaps history's most embattled city. It must repent, and many in it will do so, as the Bible predicts (SMR Ch.9). But now the world crucifies Him, more broadly, through endless 'adaptations' and foci of the rays of anti-faith, despising His righteous alternative to its dismal throes. Therefore there is no place to go, no other part of this world in which to find rest.
Now it is only to the kingdom of heaven
that man may escape (Hebrews 2:3, Acts 17:31); and to its King in repentance,
Jew or Gentile, bond or free. It is He, as His word exposes, who died for
those who will come to Him, the just for the unjust, that He might bring
us to God (II Peter 3:18). For those He says, "Because I live, you will
live also" (John 14:19). He
is wonderful to know.
Go to Next Chapter