The Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes gives us a relevant perspective for today's world. There is hope, but it's not to be found in the collectivized, materialistic political state.
Our minister at the Long Ridge Congregational Church delivered a sermon last month, on Fathers' Day, that was both a cold shower of reality and a realistic promise of human satisfaction as we toil here under the sun.
The message is that we should look to our Heavenly Father, not to the Great White Father in Washington, DC, to find true satisfaction.
Ecclesiastes, who many believe to have been King Solomon in his old age reflecting on the vagaries of human existence, presents initially a bleak picture of human life. His opening statement is:
Meaningless! Meaningless! says the Teacher. Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless. What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun? Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises…. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:2-9)
He contrasts this with seeking wisdom from all that is done under heaven.
I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! (Ecclesiastes 1:12-13)
With apologies to our minister, I interpret this to mean that the atheistic materialism of our present-day society (under the sun) is meaningless in the larger scheme of things and will provide no lasting satisfaction. The handiwork of liberal-socialist state-planners, like a sandcastle on the beach, will be washed away by the next tide.
I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees. I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me. I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired men and women singers, and a harem as well — the delights of the heart of man. I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me . . . Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 2: 4-11)
There is more to human existence than a full stomach, clothing, housing, and satisfaction of sensual urges. Nothing that the political state does can fill the spiritual void that even a quintessential liberal materialist like Hillary Clinton bemoaned early in her husband's first term as President.
Despite Al Gore's pretensions to save the planet by forcing us to conform to the Kyoto Treaty, God controls the universe. The sun will rise and set on God's schedule. Sun spot activity cycles will continue, as they have for the past several thousand years, to govern global cooling and global warming on roughly a 100-year cycle, no matter what humans do.
A second lesson from Ecclesiastes is that life is full of tribulations, that despite the promises of the atheistic and materialistic political state, the minds of intellectual planners are no match for the awesome power of God. No matter what we humans do, we will always be vulnerable to varying degrees of trouble, because that is the inherent and unchangeable nature of God's creation, the world under the sun.
The presumption of liberal-socialists to perfect humanity and remove all its ills through regulations and the materialistic benefits of the welfare-state is like a gnat fluttering its wings in the expectation of redirecting the course of a hurricane.
Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed — and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors – and they have no comforter. And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive. But better than both is he who has not yet been, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun. And I saw that all labor and all achievement spring from man's envy of his neighbor. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. (Ecclesiastes 4: 1-4)
What then are we to do?
What does the worker gain from his toil? I have seen the burden God has laid on men. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil — this is the gift of God. I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him. (Ecclesiastes 3: 9-14)
Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. (Ecclesiastes 12: 13-14)
I will begin with a secondary point: the author slips in a comment about sunspots governing the earth’s climate. The science behind this is weak, much weaker than the science supporting the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
There are two main points I want to challenge:
1. The futility of human attempts to better themselves. The author claims that God rules everything and that human efforts are without issue. I should think that you need only to look around you to see how utterly wrong the author is. The natural condition of man, before man began to attempt to better himself, was living as a hunter-gatherer, with a life expectancy of less than 30 years. Nowadays life expectancies have more than doubled; few people in this society face starvation; and we can get in air-conditioned cars to drive to church on Sunday morning. Yes, there are plenty of problems with modernity, but I really don’t think that anybody — even the author — would choose the hunter-gatherer lifestyle over the modern lifestyle. For all its vicissitudes, the modern lifestyle shows that man has accomplished something with all those efforts at self-improvement.
2. The notion that “atheistic materialism … is meaningless in the larger scheme of things and will provide no lasting satisfaction.” The mistake here lies in the conflation of atheism with materialism, and some sloppiness with the notion of materialism. Yes, materialism as “the pursuit of material well-being as the ONLY source of human happiness” fails to deliver satisfaction. But the author’s use of the term “materialism” extends far beyond that definition. He uses it to mean “the pursuit of material well-being as ONE source of human happiness”. And in this he is totally wrong. I don’t like to be naked; I am happier wearing some clothing to protect me against the cold. I don’t need expensive clothes; a pair of jeans and a plain shirt are perfectly adequate to my needs. The author declares that my desire for simple clothing is futile. I (and I think the vast majority of humanity) disagree. And I very much doubt that our author has cast off all material existence and gone to the desert to live as a hermit.
The author associates materialism with atheism, an association devoid of any truth whatsoever. He assumes that materialism is the opposite of religious belief, and therefore the absence of religious belief is identical with materialism. But again, the most cursory examination of the world will show how totally incorrect this assumption is. Look in the parking lot of the church — do you see beat-up old junkers or shiny new cars? Look at the people in the church — are they wearing rags or clean new clothes? Religion and the desire for material well-being are compatible. And there is simply no evidence that atheists are in any way more materialistic than believers. I’d be happy to carry out a line-by-line comparison of my atheistic lifestyle against the author’s God-fearing lifestyle. I know that my atheistic lifestyle is less materialistic than that of the average American, and so it is likely that my clothing is less gaudy than his, my car is older than his, my house less grandiose than his, and so on. That’s just one data point, I realize, but he offers nothing in the way of substantiation of his wild claim.
A time for everything under the sun. Well written, well said.
Love all the quotes, plus the truth in them all.
What do you call the liberal’s belief that a secular “heaven on earth” can be created here below? Ah…yes…Utopian.
We all have a God. The wise seek out His wisdom, mercy, and providence. The fools make themselves the sole arbiter of good and evil seeking sophistry, arrogance, and power. The Lord says be careful not to throw pearls to pigs or what is holy to dogs. They have divined their own gods and with itchy ears go chasing after myths . Their marvelous concoctions have sand as a foundation. Say nothing, but merely dust off your sandles at them as a warning. For it will go better with the people of Sodom and Gemmorah, than for these. Thanks to Mr. Brewton.
James G. Allen, I myself do not believe that a heaven on earth can be created here — but I would like to reduce the hellishness of life for so many people, and I think it a worthy and achievable goal.
By the way, you shouldn’t use Utopia as an example of liberal thinking. Utopia was written by Thomas More, a devout Catholic who was definitely one of the more conservative members of English society, at least in terms of the rule of law. As a magistrate, he was definitely a “hanging judge”, doling out stiff sentences to anybody who ran afoul of the law.
J. Muscoreil, I would never call you a fool because you disagree with me. While I do not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, I try to live by the moral code he championed.
Eat, drink, and make merry, for tomorrow we die.
One who lives believing that this life is all there is, or ever will be, has no other option.
That person lives a life of utter futility, and utter despair. Regardless if they ever achieve anything, or achieve nothing at all, they suffer the belief in the same end – absolute and utter eternal despair, oblivion. As one follows the logic, there is no reason to have a moral code at all. After all, regardless of whether one does good, or one does evil, the consequences are just as meaningless and purposeless for others as it is for oneself. So whether one murders, fornicates, adulterates, lusts, steals, tortures, terrorizes, or heals, gives, builds, creates, and encourages, the end is the same, for others to whom one helps or hurts, and to oneself. The end is the same, regardless, and it is a meaningless end. Thus one’s existence is meaningless, and futile. All is vanity and a striving after the wind.
I tried to live that life, and it drove me to my knees in despair. Is it any reason I chose to believe in something more? Yes, it was a choice. Hounded by the dogs of hell, I found no solace except in the cleft of the Rock.
I have learned that only fools say there is no God. I have learned that every person has a God ordained undeniable awareness of eternity in their hearts. Every person knows that God exists. There are no true atheists in this life, never have been, never will be. In this life, one can lie to others, even try to convince oneself that there is no consequences, there is no Holy Judge. One can live that lie, and do so convincingly, even to oneself. However, after one’s death, one will not be able to lie, for in death there is only the absolute truth. While alive, one might try to convince oneself of alternatives to eternity, but in death, one has no choice. There will be none in Hell who claim to be atheists. They will be experiencing the utter despair of irrevocable, timeless separation from God.
I adjure you, be ye reconciled to God. Eternity is the absence of time. Don’t spend it apart from your Creator.
Mr. Brewton used the term “atheistic materialism” in the above article. As I understand the term, it is broadly used to describe a mindset that places value only on the material world around us.
I do not think Mr. Brewton was encouraging any of us to: 1) give up working, 2) trying to better ourselves, 3) to ignore the needs of our families or others, 4) or to ignore the material world as we engage in the pursuit of spiritual ideals. If I am wrong on this, then I invite correction. The use of the material world to pursue the above points is, in my opinion, a very scriptural, spiritual thing to do. These are things we can and must pursue.
However, the writer of Ecclisastes reminds us repeatedly that the material world will fail us if we make that our only source of satisfaction. Hence, he points us to our creator as our only source of lasting hope and comfort.
Admittedly there are many Christians who take the viewpoint that the material world – and all that if affords – is evil. It is an old idea; ie., the physical life is evil, while the spiritual life is the only good that can be obtained. Classic Christian theology teaches that our existence is both physical and spiritual. The resurrection of Jesus is one the best examples. His body was renewed and re-united with his spirit. He did not become an ephemeral being, but a living, breathing, human being with a body renewed from the ravages of the crucifixion….and I might add, from the ravages of this fallen world. Those who believe in the evils of materialism find this idea revolting. We were made with senses to enjoy the world around us. We do so with gusto. And we should. But for many of us, this is not the focus of our existence.
We should be involved with our governments and with our civic duties; but again, governmental systems eventually fail only to be replaced with others. I believe Mr. Brewtons’ minister is correct when he encourages his people to look to the Lord first. One of the most neglected Christian doctrines is that of the fall of mankind. Most of us, including many Christians, think we are pretty good people. However, the doctrine of the fall puts that to rest. Our governments and nations fail because we are fallen. They will continue to fail as long as we are over-confident about our ability to be good.
My thanks to Mr. Brewton for this article.
The Lord’s Prayer is more a Divine Instruction than something to be repeated carelessly. Adore the Name and Will of God. (Our Father who art in Heaven…) Beg His Will be done perfectly here. ( Thy Kingdom come…) Pray for the day’s sustenance and the Bread from Heaven noone can live without. (Give us this day…) We offend God often. We commit sins and ommit good we could have done. We have to be perfect in his sight. How can we be? Only thru His Grace and Mercies and The Instruments we have to attain His Favor. What is His condition for this kindness? We forgive others. (Give us this day…) Listen to the next part of The Prayer. If we do not repent for the evil we do The Justice of God acts in this way. We are lead into even greater evil because of our stubborness and hard-heartedness. (Lead us NOT into temptation..) When we realize, like The Prodigal Son, we are among pigs and filling ourselves with slop, Our Heavenly Father waits for us and rejoices in our contrition, adorning us with beautiful garments and throwing all of Heaven into ecstasy. For there is greater joy in heaven in one soul who is converted than in a 100 Saints forever adoring The Lord . God Bless You.
Materialism is the belief that the universe and mankind are just that…material…nothing more. So materialism in that sense is necessarily atheistic. It is somewhat of a stretch to suggest that these passages only apply to liberals only. As a conservative, I have noticed that most conservatives are very materialistic in the sense that their values revolve a great deal around their material possesions. This is a different kind of materialism. It is a materialism that does not assign the ultimate ground of being to material but as a matter of course allows for the unlimited pursuit of material goods. In other words, if you drive a Hummer to church from your oversized McMansion you are living a contridiction. Plain and simple. Yes we should benefit from our “toils” but this does not mean living lives of luxury. The bible and other ancient sources of wisdom unequivocally speak out against extravagant living. From Plato to Christ this holds true.
J.C.H. , you write, “I have learned that only fools say there is no God.” Well, I am an atheist, so I suppose that you consider me a fool. I do not consider you a fool. Doesn’t this difference in our attitudes in any way bother you?
Chris, you are an atheist. Are you then, by default, a materialist? Can you conceive of an ultimate ground of being? Something that has a nature and gives everything it’s nature? You do not have to believe in anthropomorphic being to believe these things.
Am I a materialist? Of course not! Believers assume that atheists are materialists in the same way that some people assume that Russians are dour, Germans are efficient, Britons have stiff upper lips, and so forth. It’s just a matter of lack of familiarity.
As to your other questions:
“Can you conceive of an ultimate ground of being?”
Ground of being? Soil of being? Foundation of being? I don’t understand your terminology here.
“Something that has a nature and gives everything it’s nature?”
That doesn’t make much sense to me.
Chris, you say you don’t accept Christ’s divinity, but you try to live by the moral code he championed. I am always baffled when I hear non-believers say this. In the Bible, when Jesus was being questioned by the Sanhedrin authorities,(Luke 22:70) they all asked,”Are you then the Son of God?” And he said to them,”You rightly say that I am.” Christ had no problem claiming divinity for himself. Therefore, one of two things must be true. Either Christ is divine God, or he’s nothing but a fraud and a liar. Since you do not accept Christ’s divinity then you must believe the latter to be true. So why is it then that you,and many others like you want to live by the moral code of a fraud and a liar. You can’t have it both ways Chris, but more importantly, you can’t get to heaven by trying to live the moral code Christ championed. The only way to get to heaven is by believing in the only one who could live up to that moral code, and that was Christ himself. Get on your knees today and thank him for paying the price for your sins.
“For God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God
in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
This article is the biggest load of crap I have ever read.
sdk, you argue a black and white position. Either I accept absolutely everything that Christ said, or I reject absolutely everything he said. That’s absurd. I can’t think of anybody who is infallible, nor can I think of anybody who is completely wrong on all counts.
You warn me that I won’t get to heaven if I don’t believe in Christ. My morality is not self-interested. I don’t do the right thing because I expect to get paid for doing it. I do the right thing because it’s the right thing.
Chris,
Your views are very close to mine. I’d like to know something. If you are not a materialist then how would you classify yourself in an ontological sense? The ultimate ground of being is the same as Aristotles unmoved first mover or Heraclitus’ logos. Here is my email bf71. As a non-Christian conservative I always interested in the views of the same. Anyone who wishes to correspond with me should feel welcome.
How do you decide what’s “right”? Where did you get your 10 Commandments? Maybe you have 6? 13? John Henry Cardinal Neumann spoke of “Invincible Ignorance” among some people who have eyes, but see not, ears ,but here not. Today is the feast day of St. Benedict. If it were not for him and his monks, we would have lost all the accumulated wisdom of Western Civilization until that time. Imagine a man of Faith making it possible for ssholarship to exist. Reason is the friend of Faith.
SDLK, we are rewarded for giving a reason for our Faith, in season or out, whatever the outcome. Keep trying, praying, and fasting and watch the miracles happen. God’s speed.
J. Muscoreil asks, “How do you decide what’s “right”? Where did you get your 10 Commandments?”
This is a common misconception — that atheism is amoral, that without a god to declare what is right and wrong, there is no right and wrong. My own answer to this question is that, for me, morality is a matter of taste. I want to be a good person. De gustibus non est disputandem — it’s a matter of personal taste for me just as your faith is a personal matter to you. You choose to believe in a God who tells you what is right and wrong. I choose to cut out the middleman and decide what is right and wrong for myself.
At this point, believers often dismiss this kind of morality as fickle and arbitrary. What’s to stop my ethical standards from shifting? My answer is to throw the same question back at the believers: what’s to stop your faith from disappearing? You stick to your faith, and I’ll stick to my ethics.
Another objection often raised is that this approach permits a person to adopt any ethical standard whatever. If Joe over there decides that murdering people for their coffee cup is a good idea, then what are we to do?
My answer to this objection is simple: law. The objection confuses sin with crime. In theocratic societies, such as ancient Israel and modern Iran, sin and crime are one and the same. But this identification works only when everybody conforms to the same religion — a notion that we in the West have rejected. Sin and crime are completely different matters. We use criminal law, not the Ten Commandments, to control crime.
The Lord made a covenant with His People. That covenant are the 10 Commandments. God sent His Son to save souls from the consequences of having broke His covenant. He gave us a Church in which the Spiritu Sancti dwells to refresh souls for work in this world so we can be with Him in the next. If the whole world, a past could be conjured up, a future could be looked into and opinions harvested, if every world that has ever existed said in unison that Chris Crawford be silenced, destroyed, and utterly destroyed. My Faith would would say no and I would help you live. Why? The Lord has said that He loves you so much that He lay down His Life for your sake. In fact, if you were the only one that needed to be redeemed, Jesus would have suffered all he did, and 1000x more, such is the love and value He sees in your soul. Quo Vadis?
I think you would be alarmed to find out where the ‘genesis’ of the law, as you know it, comes from..:)
Actually, J. Muscoreil, the “genesis” of American law is NOT the Ten Commandments. Indeed, almost nothing of our political system is derived from the Bible. The Bible says nothing about democracy, freedom, or the notion of individual rights. These ideas derive from Greek thought, which Christianity adopted long after Jesus Christ. Our own legal heritage is derived from two primary sources: Roman law and old Germanic law. A goodly amount of our legal terminology can be traced back to the Justinian Code. The Ten Commandments have no expression in our legal code, and were not the source of any of our laws.
Truth be told it was the Babylonians Hammurabi that first attempted a universal law and order system to the great benefit of his people. The ignorance of theology is to examine a body paying no mind to the head. If one has a functional head then one clearly sees how studying God frames the other lesser sciences. Even if one pretends it’s a grand poem, one cannot deny the truth, power, and insight of the most widely read book ever. Scripture makes clear that “The Law” is written on every heart. It takes invincible ignorance to deny as much. Hammurabi’s law was what we now know as “The Golden Rule”. Greeks, as you suggest, were unquestionably the model The Foundeers had in mind when delineating rights. There is a picture of the 10 commadments behind the Supreme Court when hearing a case. Oath’s are taken on a bible. Law, order, and consequences get their authority and acuity from The Good Book. I’m almost sure you know as much. You are very well read. It takes intellectual veracity to see the truth not so much as a universe we gaze upon, but rather an ocean whose depth we must plunge.
Chris, you come across as real intelligent, and I’m sure that you are. However, wisdom comes from the knowledge of the Lord. Hence, “The fool says in his heart there is no God.” That’s straight out of the Bible. I’m not judging you, God is.
Joseph, forgive some pendantry on my part, but Hammurabi’s code was not the first legal code — we believe that he gathered together bits and pieces of previous codes and put them into one body. That’s why some of the laws in the code contradict other laws. There are something like 200 of them, as I recall. And there’s nothing whatever in them that approximates the Golden Rule. Mostly they’re a long list of “If X, then Y” statements. If somebody rents a boat and sinks it, then they have to pay the cost of the boat to the owner — that kind of thing.
You write that “the Law” is written in every heart. If that’s true, then why do we need lawmakers? And why would we disagree about laws if we all know the same law?
I am particularly suprised by your claim that “Law, order, and consequences get their authority and acuity from The Good Book. I’m almost sure you know as much.” You may be sure that I know as much, but you’re wrong, because I disagree with your first statement. I don’t think that law gets its authority from the Bible. If it did, then anybody who does not revere the Bible would deny the authority of the law. That would mean that all atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc would deny that the law has any authority. The fact that there are so many law-abiding atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc, shows otherwise.
Sue, if you’re not judging me, then don’t. If God wants to tell me something, he will. He doesn’t need you to speak for him. Wait a moment… I’m listening… no, still nothing from on high. But I’ll keep an open mind. ;-)
Perhaps your a conscience-less robot. The conscience, that still, small voice , is the unanimity most people agree on with regards to matters of justice. We should not steal, kill, etc..Most cultures and religions, no matter how removed from each other, seem to agree on as much. There are always exceptions. Liberals love exceptions. Both our observations about Hammurabi are not irreconcilable. You may not like that Western Civilization has been formed by the tenants of biblical insights, but that’s your difficulty. Hospitals, schools, Higher Education (I’d be willing to wager your well-paid at some instituition or other), and the idea of looking out for the least of our brothers all owe their existence to Christianity. We have all benefitted from the same. Your non-sequitar with regards to other Faiths is not reasonable. Such a conclusion is born out of a stereotype that suggests that Christianity equals inquisition. It is instead an invitation. Wisdom sees the kernel of truth in anything. That is why Christianity can compliment any Faith and be only a hinderance to the most fundamental. With regards to the Tempting of God you do in your last paragraph. I would refrain if I were you. I know you know where you can read the Early Fathers of the Church. There is Aquinas, Augustine, and a litany of others I’ve provided you as well. We are not to judge a person. We are required to judge behavior. God’s Blessings.
Joseph, I implore you to refrain from getting personal. Calling me a conscience-less robot does not add to the discussion. Speculating as to my employment and income adds nothing to the discussion.
Also, be assured that I do not condemn Christianity or equate it to the Inquisition. Yes, that was one dark moment in the history of Christianity. There were other dark moments, but there are also lots of moments of brilliance. I have no disrespect for Christianity or its practitioners. I have know a few genuine followers of Christ and I hold such people in high esteem. Would that all people were so good.
You assert that Western Civilization has been formed by the tenets of Biblical insights. I agree that Christianity played a huge role in the development of Western Civilization. I prefer to be more specific in my attributions. Take democracy, for example. The notion is completely alien to Christianity. There’s nothing whatsoever in the Bible promulgating democracy. We owe the idea of democracy to the Greeks. The idea of secular law (as opposed to theocracy) is most definitely NOT a Christian idea; on this matter, Christianity is much closer to Islam. Western Civilization rejected such notions and instead embraced the Greco-Roman concepts of secular law.
You attribute hospitals, schools, and higher education to Christianity. I agree about hospitals — that’s a specifically Western notion whose origins can certainly be traced to Christian groups. Schools: there were schools in Greece, Rome, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China long before Christ was born. Higher education: well, that depends on your definition. There were unquestionably institutions devoted to advanced learning in medieval Islam, and in fact the scholarly associations of Islamic Spain could well be regarded as precursors to the later Christian universities. I agree that, by the fifteenth century the West was building more universities than everybody else put together — but I’m uncomfortable with assigning all the credit to the Church. There were other forces at work.
Lastly, you write, “With regards to the Tempting of God you do in your last paragraph. I would refrain if I were you.” Yes, I know you would. But since I don’t believe in God, that reasoning doesn’t have much traction with me. I don’t advise you about your beliefs — why do you advise me about mine?
It may be as simple as this. People of God prefer to learn from the great minds of history. Others believe they are the great minds presently. There’s the adage about there being two kinds of people: Those who know they don’t know everything and those who believe they do. You always want to be in the former group. The other breeds pride, contempt, and ignorance. “You have thrown the mighty from their thrones and had exalted the humble…He had shown strength with His Arm and scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart..”
Joseph, do the great minds of history include Socrates, Confucius, the Buddha, Erasmus, Thoreau, or Ghandi?
Chris wrote “We use criminal law, not the Ten Commandments, to control crime.”
Where exactly do you think those laws came from?
At any rate your works of man are but dirty rags.