Boundless and Bare
In the Progressive world view, novelty is a prized achievement. The past is an impediment to progress. The new, the fresh, is immediately attractive. To be avant-garde is to command respect. Life and human progress is an unending new season fashion show. To be alive is to keep up with cutting edge couture. The Progressive ideology insists upon progress as its lifeblood.
In the Christian world view the past is all determinative. This contrast alone sets the Christian faith to be against Progressivism. It sets the Christian faith against modern Western culture. The God of all creation is a promise maker and a promise keeper. Every person, society, and nation is subject to God's promise making and promise keeping. These promises were all made in the past. We are shaped and conditioned, for example, by the promises and vows God made to the patriarch, Noah (Genesis 9).
Another way of expressing this is to say that God is a covenant making and a covenant keeping God. God takes oaths and vows. Moreover, he keeps his oaths and vows. His oath keeping shapes our entire existence. Ironically, this does not mean that things do not develop and change. On the contrary, God's vows include oaths taken to bring the creation to a glorious climax, when every tear will be wiped away and every caviller will be silenced.
These two radically contrary perspectives--Progressivism vs Christianity--necessarily involve very different views of human society and its progress.
Showing posts with label Burke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Burke. Show all posts
Wednesday, 8 November 2017
Thursday, 29 June 2017
Burke Vs Paine Part 6: Ticky-Tacky Houses That All Look Just the Same
Abstract Principles and The Tyrannies They Produce
In the matter of government and governing Thomas Paine had a simplistic, rationalistic approach. He took hold of some core philosophical principles (for example, the equality of all human beings) and insisted that a government reflect that abstract principle in all its operations. The consequence was a concentration of power in the hands of a governing elite. In other words, the paradox of Paine's simplistic nostrums was that government, ostensibly subject to the rights of all men, inevitably became a Leviathan subjugating all men to its will.
Burke's approach was far more moderate. Things came to be the way they were over a long time. Overnight, sudden change would inevitably destroy conventions, habits, practices--and the beliefs upon which they were based. An example of the difference between the two was the debate between Paine and Burke over the intent of the revolutionary assembly in France to divide that country into perfectly square districts, rather than govern according to Frances traditional, messy regions.
In the matter of government and governing Thomas Paine had a simplistic, rationalistic approach. He took hold of some core philosophical principles (for example, the equality of all human beings) and insisted that a government reflect that abstract principle in all its operations. The consequence was a concentration of power in the hands of a governing elite. In other words, the paradox of Paine's simplistic nostrums was that government, ostensibly subject to the rights of all men, inevitably became a Leviathan subjugating all men to its will.
Burke's approach was far more moderate. Things came to be the way they were over a long time. Overnight, sudden change would inevitably destroy conventions, habits, practices--and the beliefs upon which they were based. An example of the difference between the two was the debate between Paine and Burke over the intent of the revolutionary assembly in France to divide that country into perfectly square districts, rather than govern according to Frances traditional, messy regions.
The eradication of traditional attachments and practices that would follow such a move . . . would not eliminate prejudices and attach people to their national identity, as the revolutionaries hoped. Instead, Burke argues, it would crush all attachment to community and leave an unrestrained Paris government in charge of a greatly weakened nation. [Yuval Levin, The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left (New York: Basic Books, 2014), p.132.]The ancient Assyrians understood the implications of this basic idea.
Monday, 26 June 2017
Burke Vs Paine, Part V--The Triumph of Thomas Paine
How Thomas Paine Lost the Battle, but Won the War
One of the abiding failures of Thomas Paine has to do with his ardent support for the French Revolution. This was not the first revolution he championed. That sobriquet falls upon the American War for Independence or the American Revolution. But being on "the right side" of history with respect to America shaking off English imperialism was due to a deep sense of mistrust of government on the American side and the the need to keep a measure of control over those who rule. Hence the development of the "American system" of limited government, its division of powers, and being bound to a constitution.
When it came to the French Revolution a few years later, Tom Paine was, once again, in boots'n all. Human rights, human freedom--and the power of a just state to command both at will, justified by appealing to a "higher law", namely, "the will of the people". But without the checks and balances of American colonial society, the whole enterprise soon turned bloody.
Tom Paine was consequently discredited. Yet, now we find him resurrected and the ideological victor in our day. The West has largely followed in Paine's train. We do not mean that the West has descended into an orgy of totalitarian bloodletting, abortion notwithstanding; rather, we refer to Paine's latter day view of the state as a welfare institution. In later life, Paine developed the idea of a state with vastly expanded powers, existing to satisfy the "demand rights" of humans.
His old debating foe, Edmund Burke had a much more cautious position.
Tuesday, 20 June 2017
The Great Debate: Burke Vs Paine, Part IV
Human Freedom
Every political party, every social organization has a particular view of human nature and what is intrinsic to being human. Most of us never stop to think what those respective views might be--so we end up accepting a view without thought. Alternatively, we wander round in a confused haze.
Tom Paine represents the world view of human nature as atomised. We come into this world without obligations being foisted upon us, or imputed to us. We come into this world as tabula rasa, a blank slate. This, according to Paine, represents true human freedom.
Burke, on the other hand, argued that we come into this world as a slate upon which a great deal has already been written and laid down, long before we were born. Human nature is shaped and controlled by spiritual and societal and natural forces which, in effect, we inherit (for good or evil).
Every political party, every social organization has a particular view of human nature and what is intrinsic to being human. Most of us never stop to think what those respective views might be--so we end up accepting a view without thought. Alternatively, we wander round in a confused haze.
Tom Paine represents the world view of human nature as atomised. We come into this world without obligations being foisted upon us, or imputed to us. We come into this world as tabula rasa, a blank slate. This, according to Paine, represents true human freedom.
Burke, on the other hand, argued that we come into this world as a slate upon which a great deal has already been written and laid down, long before we were born. Human nature is shaped and controlled by spiritual and societal and natural forces which, in effect, we inherit (for good or evil).
The role of consent in this view of society is secondary at best. Social relations flow out of natural relations, and consent is assumed where it cannot be expressed, not because the individual chooses to accept his obligations, but because the consent of every rational creature is assumed to be in line with "the predisposed order of things." This vision of society begins with the family--not the individual--and moves up toward society. [Yuval Levin, The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine and the Birth of Right and Left (New York: Basic Books, 2014), p. 103.]It's worthwhile pausing and addressing a question to you, dear reader: Which view do you believe is right?
Saturday, 17 June 2017
The Great Debate: Burke Versus Paine, Part III
The Enlightenment and Its Tyranny
Most Western political philosophers from the Greeks through to Enlightenment liberals and their successors have a view that the origin of a state or nation is critical. There is an emphasis upon the founding of a nation: whether it be in the form of a "Declaration of Independence" or a Constitutional Convention producing founding constitutional documents.
This emphasis upon the beginnings of a nation is a reflection of what is found in Scripture. In the Bible, it becomes apparent that God is a covenant making and a covenant keeping God. A covenant in Scripture is a solemn, formal agreement between parties which provides the foundation, the "basic law" or "higher law" of how the nation will cohere together. It sets the goals, the motivation, and the standards which will govern the various parties.
Thus, when God called Abram and his household from Ur of the Chaldees, He made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants. [Genesis 17: 1-2] After God delivered Israel out of Egypt, He re-made His covenant with Abraham's descendants [Exodus 19:5]. Then, again, at the end of the wilderness wanderings over 40 years, He remade the covenant again with Israel, as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy.
Thus, when nations make covenants to define the fundamental structures, processes and laws of their nation, they are reaching back to a biblical construct. The creation itself and the world of mankind are made to operate within covenantal structures.
Most Western political philosophers from the Greeks through to Enlightenment liberals and their successors have a view that the origin of a state or nation is critical. There is an emphasis upon the founding of a nation: whether it be in the form of a "Declaration of Independence" or a Constitutional Convention producing founding constitutional documents.
This emphasis upon the beginnings of a nation is a reflection of what is found in Scripture. In the Bible, it becomes apparent that God is a covenant making and a covenant keeping God. A covenant in Scripture is a solemn, formal agreement between parties which provides the foundation, the "basic law" or "higher law" of how the nation will cohere together. It sets the goals, the motivation, and the standards which will govern the various parties.
Thus, when God called Abram and his household from Ur of the Chaldees, He made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants. [Genesis 17: 1-2] After God delivered Israel out of Egypt, He re-made His covenant with Abraham's descendants [Exodus 19:5]. Then, again, at the end of the wilderness wanderings over 40 years, He remade the covenant again with Israel, as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy.
Thus, when nations make covenants to define the fundamental structures, processes and laws of their nation, they are reaching back to a biblical construct. The creation itself and the world of mankind are made to operate within covenantal structures.
Tuesday, 13 June 2017
The Great Debate: Burke Versus Paine, Part I
Victory Does Not Mean The Winner is Right
In our view every civics class in High School should be made familiar with the works of Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke. Both were actively writing and debating during the time of the American and French Revolutions, in the late eighteenth century. They took diametrically opposite sides in the debate.
The issues swirled around a just government and the constitution of freedom. Paine and Burke are intellectual fathers of very modern arguments over the nature, role, and place of the State. Neither's views were explicitly Christian--more Deist in many ways. But Paine was the radical democrat; Burke was the conservative. Their argument has continued down to our present day.
One of the things which immediately confronts the student of this debate is how history and events of the day "disproved" Paine's position. Yet, ironically, it is Paine's views, positions, and arguments which have held sway over time and are more widely followed today. Paine argued that the "Rights of Man" trumped all political arrangements, constitutions, laws, and governments. The European establishments of his day were ruled by elites and vested interests. Governments were oppressive and stripped freedoms and powers from ordinary citizens.
Paine was, thus, a fierce supporter of the American Revolution. Ordinary people, exercising fundamental human rights, threw off the yoke of the English crown. This narrative would be familiar to most Americans. Paine wanted to see a similar revolution within England itself. Burke, on the other hand, warned repeatedly that such struggles could (and likely would) lead to the substitution of one form of oppression by a tyranny far worse.
In our view every civics class in High School should be made familiar with the works of Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke. Both were actively writing and debating during the time of the American and French Revolutions, in the late eighteenth century. They took diametrically opposite sides in the debate.
The issues swirled around a just government and the constitution of freedom. Paine and Burke are intellectual fathers of very modern arguments over the nature, role, and place of the State. Neither's views were explicitly Christian--more Deist in many ways. But Paine was the radical democrat; Burke was the conservative. Their argument has continued down to our present day.
One of the things which immediately confronts the student of this debate is how history and events of the day "disproved" Paine's position. Yet, ironically, it is Paine's views, positions, and arguments which have held sway over time and are more widely followed today. Paine argued that the "Rights of Man" trumped all political arrangements, constitutions, laws, and governments. The European establishments of his day were ruled by elites and vested interests. Governments were oppressive and stripped freedoms and powers from ordinary citizens.
Paine was, thus, a fierce supporter of the American Revolution. Ordinary people, exercising fundamental human rights, threw off the yoke of the English crown. This narrative would be familiar to most Americans. Paine wanted to see a similar revolution within England itself. Burke, on the other hand, warned repeatedly that such struggles could (and likely would) lead to the substitution of one form of oppression by a tyranny far worse.
Thursday, 6 April 2017
The Great Debate: Burke vs Paine
Thomas Paine and Angela Merkel
One of the more interesting aspects of the "great debate" between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine (which played out in the late eighteenth century) is the currency of the issues to this day. Of course, Paine and Burke have long since shuffled off their mortal coils, as it were. But the clash of political ideologies personified by these two continues. To that extent, little has changed.
We acknowledge that these days Paine's corner has the upper hand. The characteristics of his ideology relied upon abstract principles such as liberty, equality, and fraternity which were to be pressed down upon all men. Often they had to be "pressed down"--that is, forced--because people do not know what's best for them. But once they got a taste of the pudding, they would love it, and would never go back to meat and three vege.
Thomas Paine had a black and white, simplistic approach to human existence. Historian Robert Tombs describes him:
One of the more interesting aspects of the "great debate" between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine (which played out in the late eighteenth century) is the currency of the issues to this day. Of course, Paine and Burke have long since shuffled off their mortal coils, as it were. But the clash of political ideologies personified by these two continues. To that extent, little has changed.
We acknowledge that these days Paine's corner has the upper hand. The characteristics of his ideology relied upon abstract principles such as liberty, equality, and fraternity which were to be pressed down upon all men. Often they had to be "pressed down"--that is, forced--because people do not know what's best for them. But once they got a taste of the pudding, they would love it, and would never go back to meat and three vege.
Thomas Paine had a black and white, simplistic approach to human existence. Historian Robert Tombs describes him:
Wednesday, 17 July 2013
The Ugly Leftist
How Happy is That Man . . .
Chris Trotter, arguably New Zealand's most prominent left wing columnist/theoretician, has recently written the following:
Chris Trotter, arguably New Zealand's most prominent left wing columnist/theoretician, has recently written the following:
I once concluded an editorial in the NZ Political Review with the following observation:Apart from Chris's continuing quest for the Holy Grail--for which we wish him bon chance--what are we to make of his observations?
“There is a paradox here. Conservative political culture, whose raison d’etre is the preservation of social inequality and economic exploitation (not to mention the institutional violence these things create and upon which ruling class power rests) tends to produce individuals of considerable personal charm and genuine liberality. While radical culture, which sets its face against the violence and injustice of entrenched privilege, all too often produces individuals who are aggressive, intolerant and utterly indifferent to the suffering which their relentless quest for justice causes.
“In short, the Right treats humanity like cattle and individual human-beings like princes, while the Left loves humanity with a passion but treats individuals like shit.”
Somewhere there must be an algorithm that delivers the best of both worlds.
I’m still looking. (H/T Kiwiblog)
Saturday, 30 June 2012
In Memory of Edmund Burke
The Soaring Falcon
An excellent essay on Edmund Burke has appeared in The American Scholar. Written by Brian Doyle (editor of Portland Magazine at the University of Portland. He is the author most recently of the novel Mink River.)
One of the frustrations surrounding Burke is that so little of his output was on the printed page. Most consisted of powerful rhetoric in the House of Commons. So he is hard for modern readers to access. However, Reflections on the Revolution in France remains a tour de force in Western political philosophy. It is a work written out of a thoroughly Christian world view. It can teach the Church a great deal. Burke was one of the last great political philosophers and politicians of the First Christendom.
Some choice excerpts from Doyle's essay are reproduced below:
An excellent essay on Edmund Burke has appeared in The American Scholar. Written by Brian Doyle (editor of Portland Magazine at the University of Portland. He is the author most recently of the novel Mink River.)
One of the frustrations surrounding Burke is that so little of his output was on the printed page. Most consisted of powerful rhetoric in the House of Commons. So he is hard for modern readers to access. However, Reflections on the Revolution in France remains a tour de force in Western political philosophy. It is a work written out of a thoroughly Christian world view. It can teach the Church a great deal. Burke was one of the last great political philosophers and politicians of the First Christendom.
Some choice excerpts from Doyle's essay are reproduced below:
Monday, 28 February 2011
Douglas Wilson's Letter From America
My Kayak of Consistency
Political Dualism - Mere Christendom
Written by Douglas Wilson
Saturday, February 26, 2011
There are two basic streams of conservatism, and I have the misfortunate to belong to both of them. This means that as I am going down this particular river, whenever I get to the rapids, my kayak of consistency gets bounced around a bit. It can be done, but it requires some fancy paddle work, just a-going.
Those two types of conservatism are the Burkean and the libertarian, with the guiding principles of tradition and liberty. Tradition in the Burkean sense is consistent with liberty because in the West many of our traditions were shaped by the gospel. And because God of providence has a sense of humor, the second stream of conservatism is the older form of classical liberalism.
No human arrangement is absolute. Only God's Word is absolute. So what does this mean?
If someone takes human choices in the marketplace as his absolute, the end result will be a market in which the fundamental commodity will be the souls of men. But if someone takes the law of God as his direction, the end result will be a market in which a man can buy and sell his cabbages or cabinets or cars without getting permission from some functionary at the the Department of Hubris.
If someone takes human tradition as absolute, the end result will be a stifling and oppressive regime, and way too many bishops. But if someone takes the law of God for his guide, the end result will be deep respect for the established authorities, including even some of the bishops.
So take it from me -- you can't have the fruit without the tree.
If you take God's law as absolute, you will not take it upon yourself to act coercively without warrant from Him. This will result in an enormous amount of economic liberty. If you restrict only those transactions that you have biblical warrant for restricting, then the result will be far more freedom than we currently have. This is why accusations that a "mere Christendom" would result in "oppression" are so risible. Are you joking me?
In our current system, a contractor on a building site can't scratch his rear end without talking to the building inspector about it first. Tell me more about this free society you are so anxious to preserve. Are we dropping bombs in the Middle East to protect our right to be groped in a TSA line? Being lectured on our potential "oppressions" from today's statists is like being lectured on public hygiene by Typhoid Mary. I can never make it through even one lecture without fidgeting in my seat. And they never seem to allow time for Q&A.
Liberty is not the standard. Respect for authority is not the standard. Both of those things are the fruit, resulting from faithful acceptance of what God says to do. When a society ignores what God says to do, and the grace in Christ enabling us to do it, the end result is what we see around us -- the erosion of both our liberties and our traditions. As Lewis put it so aptly, we laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings to be fruitful. We remove the organ and demand the function.
Both forms of conservatism have been great blessings from God. But without Jesus, we won't have either for very much longer.
Political Dualism - Mere Christendom
Written by Douglas Wilson
Saturday, February 26, 2011
There are two basic streams of conservatism, and I have the misfortunate to belong to both of them. This means that as I am going down this particular river, whenever I get to the rapids, my kayak of consistency gets bounced around a bit. It can be done, but it requires some fancy paddle work, just a-going.
Those two types of conservatism are the Burkean and the libertarian, with the guiding principles of tradition and liberty. Tradition in the Burkean sense is consistent with liberty because in the West many of our traditions were shaped by the gospel. And because God of providence has a sense of humor, the second stream of conservatism is the older form of classical liberalism.
No human arrangement is absolute. Only God's Word is absolute. So what does this mean?
If someone takes human choices in the marketplace as his absolute, the end result will be a market in which the fundamental commodity will be the souls of men. But if someone takes the law of God as his direction, the end result will be a market in which a man can buy and sell his cabbages or cabinets or cars without getting permission from some functionary at the the Department of Hubris.
If someone takes human tradition as absolute, the end result will be a stifling and oppressive regime, and way too many bishops. But if someone takes the law of God for his guide, the end result will be deep respect for the established authorities, including even some of the bishops.
So take it from me -- you can't have the fruit without the tree.
If you take God's law as absolute, you will not take it upon yourself to act coercively without warrant from Him. This will result in an enormous amount of economic liberty. If you restrict only those transactions that you have biblical warrant for restricting, then the result will be far more freedom than we currently have. This is why accusations that a "mere Christendom" would result in "oppression" are so risible. Are you joking me?
In our current system, a contractor on a building site can't scratch his rear end without talking to the building inspector about it first. Tell me more about this free society you are so anxious to preserve. Are we dropping bombs in the Middle East to protect our right to be groped in a TSA line? Being lectured on our potential "oppressions" from today's statists is like being lectured on public hygiene by Typhoid Mary. I can never make it through even one lecture without fidgeting in my seat. And they never seem to allow time for Q&A.
Liberty is not the standard. Respect for authority is not the standard. Both of those things are the fruit, resulting from faithful acceptance of what God says to do. When a society ignores what God says to do, and the grace in Christ enabling us to do it, the end result is what we see around us -- the erosion of both our liberties and our traditions. As Lewis put it so aptly, we laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings to be fruitful. We remove the organ and demand the function.
Both forms of conservatism have been great blessings from God. But without Jesus, we won't have either for very much longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)