Category: Essays

In 2008, President Obama famously said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”  8 years later,  in a speech given in South Africa, President Obama reiterated the virtue of redistribution of wealth (hereinafter called Redistribution).  “There’s only so much you can eat. There’s only so big a house you can have. There’s only so many nice trips you can take.  I mean, it’s enough…You don’t have to take a vow of poverty… rich people are still rich, but they’re giving a little bit back to make sure that everybody else has something to pay for universal health care and retirement security, and invest in infrastructure and scientific research that builds platforms for innovation.”¹  Progressive politicians like President Obama tout Redistribution as simple, pro-growth and democratic.  Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Progressive, advanced the same message in her 2-Cent Wealth Tax Plan during her 2020 presidential campaign.²

Joseph Goebbels is alleged to have said: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”  The evidence for the assertion that Redistribution is simple, pro-growth and democratic is non-existent, and in other cases the available evidence points in the opposite direction: Redistribution is complex, anti-growth and oppressive.   In a populous society where material suffering is a scandal, Redistribution will only result in chaos, poverty and oppression.   

Redistribution Is Complex

Redistribution, like any economic policy in a complex society,  produces a series of effects,  some seen and others unseen.  Frederic Bastiat, a French economist and politician, writes, “In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects.  Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause–it is seen. The others unfold in succession–they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen.  Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference — the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee.”³  Senator Warren’s “simple” 2-Cent Tax Plan is an excellent illustration of “That Which is Seen, and that Which is Not Seen.” 

According to Senator Warren, “only” 76,000 households will be slightly inconvenienced by her plan but millions will be benefited by it.  Among the 76,000 households, the ones with less than $1 billion in net assets, they “only have to contribute 2 cents on every dollar over $50 million.”  Those with net assets over $1 billion, they “only have to contribute 2 cents on every dollar over $50 million and 6 cents on every dollar over $1 billion.”   According to Senator Warren, “[t]his small new tax on the tiny sliver of ultra-rich families will bring in $3.75 trillion over the next ten years.”

The unseen but foreseeable effects of the Plan are many and here are two of them:

1) The 76,000 households are not the only households which are inconvenienced by the Plan.  Most people do not keep their  money under the mattress.  They spend it, donate it,  or invest it.  The Plan will take resources from the private sector.  There will be less private spending, donation and investment.   This will have a significant negative economic impact on people who would have benefited from these lost economic activities. 

2) Another group of people who are negatively impacted by the Plan are unseen because they are either not old enough to vote or they are not even born yet.  The $3.75 trillion tax revenue will unlikely be realized because the billionaires and half billionaires will move their assets to some tax havens.  On the other side of the equation, the actual cost of funding those “common goods” under the Plan will be far greater than the estimated.  When a good is free, the demand for it will increase.  In the end, the Plan will contribute to a further increase in our national debt($22 trillion as of 2019) and the nation’s unfunded liabilities($125 trillion as of 2019).⁴    Instead of leaving a heritage to our posterity, we  straddle them with a crushing financial burden.  Instead of being remembered as the Greatest Generation or the Compassionate Generation, the current generation will likely be remembered as the Narcissistic Generation.  

The cost and benefit analysis for any Redistribution plan is never simple.  Progressive politicians, like President Obama and Senator Warren, are either inept or purposely misleading when they tell you otherwise. 

Redistribution is Socialism

Many supporters of Redistribution envision production and distribution as two distinct events that follow one another.  You bake the cake, then you decide how to slice it.  They believe production is governed by the laws of economics, but distribution is for society to decide.  Since Redistribution only affects the slicing of the cake, it will not cause the kind of  economic catastrophes facing socialist countries.  

The following example illustrates the fallacy of this Production/Distribution Nexus.⁵   In her Race and Gender Equity mid-term test, Student Jane got an A and her fellow student John got a C while the class average was B.  Suppose the Professor believes that there should be a more equitable distribution of grades and assigns everyone a B.  This second distribution of grades will affect how hard John and Jane will study for the Final examination.  This is the same with Redistribution.   Redistribution is a secondary distribution which the government uses its coercive power to modify the primary distribution.   The secondary distribution will destroy  incentives for individuals to perform the best he/she could.   The aggregate production of wealth will suffer as a result.  

When an individual does not own the fruit of his/her labor, he/she has no incentive to work hard.  Violation of property rights can happen in the production or the distribution aspect of the economic process.   The right to private property, whether it be a toothbrush or a dollar, gives  individuals the right to use what they own as they see fit.  It gives individuals the right to  possess, to control, to exclude, to derive income, and to dispose of what they own.  Redistribution infringes upon individuals’ property rights.  Redistribution fundamentally moves the economic process from a system based on private property toward collectivism (community of property).  If the government has the right to take 2 cents out of every dollar from one person and give it to someone else,  the logical conclusion will be that the government has the right to take from “each according to his ability” and to give “each according to his needs.”

What makes socialism, a form of collectivism,  an economic disaster is the fact that it violates the institution of private property.  Collectivism destroys the incentive for people to do their best work.   This translates to reduction in quantity and quality of material wealth in a society.   The economic ramifications of collectivism are well-documented.  Venezuela, an oil rich country, is a good example of what happens when a society adopts socialism.  Venezuela’s GDP per capita in the 1950s was about the same as West Germany.  By 2015, under the socialist regime, 76% of Venezuelans were in poverty.  The inflation rate was 9,585.5%  at the end of 2019.⁶  Today, Venezuelans queuing for food at the state-run supermarkets is not an uncommon sight.  

President Reagan reminds us that  “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” It is also true that countries, like families, can go as the Scots say “from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations: father buys, son builds, grandson sells, and great grandson begs.”  

Redistribution Destroys the Rule of Law

The word Redistribution conceals a gross sophism as it is made to believe, similar to a donation to the United Way, that money flows from one group/groups to another group/groups.  The following is a more accurate description of Redistribution.   Taxpayers, under the penalty of fine or imprisonment, relinquish the amount of money that the government deems right to confiscate from them.   Then the government distributes the money to the “deserved” group/groups. The implicit assumption is that the government has the right to impose its value on the merits between the needs of different people.   It has the right to determine how well off particular people shall be and what different people are to be allowed to have and do. 

With Redistribution, we are moving away from a society of rule of law to a society of the rule of men.  Under the Rule of law, the government in its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced before-hand, and the rules are applied in the same manner to all.  Rule of law is about treating people equally.   A sports competition with impartial referees is an example where the rule of law is practiced in private activities.   The practice of affirmative action in public universities is a well-known example of arbitrary rule which gives preferential treatment to a particular group/groups in order to create equal outcomes.  As the saying “life is not fair” becomes less and less acceptable, we see the rule of men become more and more acceptable.

 It is well for us to bear in mind that:

(1) Government is a monopoly operating ultimately by threat or actual use of violence. 

(2) Government is not composed of disinterested, wise, prudent, and all around virtuous individuals.  As Madison writes in Federalist 51, ”But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?  If men were angels, no government would be necessary.  If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”⁷ 

(3)Government garners more power as it confiscates more resources from individuals.   

2015 was the 800 anniversary of the Magna Carta, which has been described as the signal document in the move from the “law of the ruler” to the “rule of law.”  Rule of law is the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the ruling class.   It is the bedrock of a free society.  With Redistribution, a staggering political inequality is created in the name of economic equality.  We do not have a limited government anymore.  In effect,  Redistribution reduces everyone to the level of a supplicant of politicians.  As Friedrich Hayek said, “A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.”

The Moral Temptation of Redistribution

It is understandable that Progressives believe in Redistribution.  They believe government is the engine to progress.  Christians who support Redistribution believe this policy will create a more just society.  They abhor the materialism of the rich and lament the suffering of the poor.   They found the inequality of material conditions in a land of plenty unjust.  Pastor Timothy Keller, in Generous Justice, writes, “… the laws of social justice that have to do with the forgiving of debts, the freeing of slaves, and the redistribution of wealth…”⁸  Pope Francis,  the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, called for “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State.”⁹

Their moral indignation resonates with human moral intuition and their message has a tremendous impact on the Christian communities.  Unfortunately, people on moral high ground often see no need for complex cost and benefit analysis for policy choices.  For them, intention is all that matters, results are not relevant.   Reducing the complex economic process into a zero sum game fits neatly into their moral worldview of the rich robbing the poor, whether in a given society or among nations.  But the devil is in the details.  As the zero sum game representation of the US economy is erroneous,  economic policy based on it may sound good, but it will not work as intended.  In their zeal to help the “seen” neighbors,  they fail to be critical of the unintended consequences of the policies they advocate.    

Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and Leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990, said, ”No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.”  Christians should resist the temptation to leap from a biblical truth, that what belongs to an individual belongs to God, to the conclusion that what belongs to an individual belongs to some abstract entity like the Society or State.  Fuzzy concepts like “relativization of private property” are not harmless,  they undermine the institution of private property.  The fact is that the Society/State, unlike God,  does not produce wealth.  Unlike manna from the sky, the amount of material goods that are available depends on how hard each individual works and how best each individual utilizes the limited resources.   Unlike the City of God, the City of Man is populated by fallen human beings whose behaviors are guided by narrow self-interest and whose needs are unlimited.   Upholding the institution of private property is not about protecting the rich.  It does not say that Governor Pritzker deserves $4.3 billion.  But it does say that it is not up to the Society/State to determine how much of the 4.3 billion Pritzker can keep.  It is about protecting an institution that is vital to the order of a society and the material well-being of millions of people.   Human nature and scarcity of resources, like the law of gravity, are stubborn facts of this side of heaven.   

In their desire to “immanentize the eschaton” so that there will be no more poor, many Christians put their faith in the ability and integrity of the government.  Their faith in the existence of such an omniscient and ethical government not only is incongruous with what the Bible says about the fallibility of human nature,  but also blinds them to the many evils of an unlimited government.   Christians, like everyone else, are not immune to the Progressive Movement.  Progressive ideas such as distributive justice are taught in universities, seminaries and Christian ministries (I have a few of these Christian organizations in mind.  If you are interested, email me for more information).  The Progressive idea of making people equal(distributive justice) is confounded with Christian’s precept of  treating people equally as each individual bears the image of God.   The former justice is the antithesis of Christian freedom and should be soundly reputed.  

Conclusion

Redistribution is never a good idea because it does not work as intended.  Redistribution only works in small communities where the members disavow material comfort.  Redistribution is complex, causes disincentive to produce wealth and leads to unlimited government.  It will only result in economic, social and political disasters.   The experience of previous generations teaches us that, given human nature, the principle of private property and rule of law are the best principles of social order for alleviating human suffering.   It is an unfortunate fact that these principles affect different people differently because people are different.   Anatole France observed that “The law,…, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread.”¹⁰  But the alternative is an arbitrary government which will only lead to tyranny.    

By Brock Brockway, June 29, 2021

The Western world is becoming increasingly religiously diverse as a result of technological innovations that have increased mobility and communication.  Perhaps more than any time in recent history, the West is experiencing mass migration and globalization that places religiously diverse persons in close proximity and continuous engagement with one another.  Don Carson has called this development empirical pluralism.  In light of this reality, is it really legitimate for any religion to make a claim to particularity?  Should any faith be able to assert that it has a corner on spiritual truth?  Is it actually possible to differentiate truth and falsehood within spiritual beliefs and determine which position most closely adheres to the nature of reality?  Can an intelligent Christian insist on the exclusive claims of the biblical message?  John Hick doesn’t think so, or at least that’s what he would tell you as he prepares to present his religious views to you.  John Hick is one of the leading thinkers within contemporary religious pluralism and has been verify influential. Pluralists like Hick insist that all, or at least most, religions are equally valid forms of human religious expression that should not be compared or pit against one another in search of spiritual truth.

This article will attempt to engage with the thought of John Hick in order to demonstrate the inconsistency and the erroneous nature of religious pluralism from an evangelical Christian perspective.  I will start by outlining the basics of Hick’s view and present four general lines of argumentation that he lays out in support of his position in order to give him a fair and faithful hearing.  I will then briefly respond to each of the four lines of argumentation with appropriate rebuttals.  Finally, I will attempt to provide a worldview critique of Hick’s pluralist position by setting it over against the biblical Christian worldview.  This will demonstrate the inconsistency of Hick’s position, while also demonstrating the consistency and truthfulness of the Christian gospel.

John Hick’s Religious Pluralism

Hick was initially converted to conservative Christianity when he was a young man in England.  He was subsequently involved in a variety of evangelical institutions including leadership as a pastor within a Presbyterian church when he began to move away from orthodox Christianity into Protestant liberalism as he began to question Christian doctrine and embrace a modernist mindset.  Once he was within this liberal worldview, Hick was exposed to seemingly sincere and ethically upstanding members of other theistic faiths.  While in this new experience of working alongside other faiths, he determined to take a more inclusive and pluralistic approach to his understanding of non-Christian theistic religions like Islam.  Along the way, he has made room for impersonal, non-theistic religions like Therevada Buddhism within his belief system as well.  He claims that all of the post-axial major world religions are essentially responding to the same ultimate reality, or “the Real” on the basis of their religious experiences.  He defines the goal of all of these religions in terms of a salvation/liberation concept that centers around ethical transformation, moving from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness.

In order to accomplish his pluralistic goal of uniting all religions into an inclusive category that glosses over their major and mutually exclusive difference, Hick employs a Kantian distinction between the spiritual world as experienced by humans, similar to the phenomenal realm, and the Real as it is in itself, parallel to the noumenal realm.  This ultimate reality is the great thing that defies all human categories but explains all human religious longings and experiences.  Although Hick employs the Kantian categories, he does not claim to adhere to the rest of Kant’s philosophy, and instead insists that his position is based on a critical realist epistemology.  Hick generally puts forth what can be identified as four categories of propositions that support the new belief system he promulgates in his writings.  These propositions are the unknowable nature of ultimate reality, the inadequacy of outdated particularism, a comparative ethical pragmatism, and an outright rejection of orthodox Christian theology.  I will treat each of these ideas briefly below.

Unknowable Ultimate Reality

In order to justify his claim that there is such a thing as an unknowable Reality, Hick cites religious precedent for this concept.  He claims that such a distinction between the positive statements about the Real and claim of ineffability can be perceived in some manner in all major religious traditions.  From the Christian tradition, Hick cites theologians as diverse as Gregory of Nyssa, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Karl Barth, and Meister Eckhart expounding the ineffability of the divine nature.  He follows this by citing from a variety of non-Christians traditions, including Taoism, Hinduism, and Buddhism to demonstrate the presence of the concept of the unknowable nature of the ultimate Reality.  Thus, he claims, his position is supported by all religions.  He then goes even further to insist that nothing meaningful or certain can actually be said about the Real.  Thus it is not necessary to debate or even address the obvious differences in assertions and goals of all of the world religions.  With his distinction between the Real as it is in itself and the Real as it is perceived by humans, Hick maintains that he has found an effective means of drawing together all of these divergent viewpoints.

Outdated Particularity

Hick realizes that he has to justify his attempts to harmonize all world religions, and he is quick to give his motivation.  As a typical Protestant liberal, he analyzes recent history and the development of progressive Western thought through the past couple of centuries and asserts that it is only intelligent and consistent with progress to move from absolutism, through inclusivism, all the way to the ultimate endpoint of religious pluralism.   He goes on to proclaim that absolutism in all of its forms, Christian or non-Christian, has not been able to address the problems of the human condition.  He identifies Western imperialism and all other Western sins as impervious to Christian absolutism at best, and at worst, the result of Christianity’s perceived superiority.  He claims that in light of our new context in a globalized world filled with religiously diverse populations, we must jettison fundamentalist absolutism and embrace religious pluralism in order to move forward in interfaith dialog. Modern travel and communication will not allow for an insistence on knowledge of absolute and exclusive truth.  Such views are simply implausible in our modern world.  A movement to religious pluralism is not only natural, it is inevitable.  Hick seems to view the liberal movement of religious development as being necessary and good.  A positive evolutionary view of intellectual progress drives much of his thought.  

Ethical Pragmatism

In addition to his view that humans have moved beyond particularism, Hick also employs a form of ethical pragmatism as a defense of his position.  He argues that from his perspective, Christianity has not produced more saints per capita than any other religion.  In fact, he argues that there are both valuable and harmful elements present in all religious system.  Since he is applying a pragmatic test for truth based on ethical outcomes to a pragmatic definition of saintliness, he asserts that there is not sufficient evidence to determine which religion is actually superior on the basis of objective comparison.  Therefore, since Christianity does not have a better history of producing positive fruit, we cannot say that it is in any way manifestly superior.   

In making this line of argument, Hick refuses to credit Christianity with the progress he cherishes in the Western liberal ideals of human equality and freedom.  Rather, he credits these to the Enlightenment and the development of modern thought that is presumably an independent outworking of Western evolution. He also applauds the Western development of technology and increased standards of living, but he credits these to the development of the modern science and the industrial revolution.  Neither of which should be considered anything but incidental correlatives to the Christian faith.  In both of these areas, he demonstrates that he is a committed modernist, but he also cedes that these technological developments have resulted in other historic and current evils like excessive consumerism, powerful technology employed in brutal warfare, massive urban decay, environmental abuse, and oppressive economics resulting in extreme poverty.

Rejection of Christian Theology

Clearly, in order for Hick to espouse his pluralistic view of world religions, he has to apply major revisions to historical Christian orthodoxy.  In order to square some form of Christianity with his shifting liberal ideas and his pluralistic assumptions, he admits that he has to remove any of the exclusive and definitive elements from Christianity.  The most basic of these revisions is the elimination of the idea that God can make himself known in any definitive and meaningful way.  Hick denies any form of direct divine revelation, and he insists on an experiential, non-authoritative view of inspiration with regard to the Christian Bible.  

Having dispatched with the difficulties proposed by the teachings of Scripture, Hick moves on to remove any basis for Christianity’s exclusive claim that God himself taught and established the faith through the incarnation of the Son of God in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  He makes the claim that Jesus did not believe or teach that he himself was divine.  He cites a variety of radical liberal biblical scholars to undermine the teachings of the Jesus in John’s gospel, and then cites other scholars who agree that Jesus didn’t explicitly claim divinity in the synoptic tradition.  Once the teachings of the gospels and the rest of the New Testament are set aside, Hick proposes a metaphorical incarnation and an inspired view of Christology as more compatible with pluralism.  In addition to the benefits of this form of Christology being more compatible with pluralism, Hick also argues that the traditional orthodox view of Christology as articulated at Chalcedon is overly complicated and confusing.  A more simplified version is preferred.  

Hick’s revised Christology then requires a revision to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, which Hick is happy to replace with a modal way of relating to God not as three distinct personalities in eternal relationship with one another, but in terms of three distinct ways that God is experienced by humans, as creator, redeemer, and inspirer.  He also moves forward with a rejection of any form of atonement that requires anything other than simple forgiveness for sin on God’s part.  He then concludes his revision of Christianity by highlighting the importance of the insights uncovered by liberation and feminist theology with regard to God’s concern for the oppressed and his active participation in supporting justice and equality in human life.  As is apparent, Hick spends most of his time engaging with the Christian tradition, and he follows typical liberal approaches to dealing with doctrine as he promotes a more panentheistic vision of God than the Scriptures or Christian orthodoxy will allow.  This was not a comprehensive treatment of Hick’s arguments, but I hope that it does provide a faithful account of the broad contours of his pluralist system.   

Brief Response to Hick’s Points

Space will not allow for a complete and thorough engagement with Hick’s arguments in this article, but I will now attempt to respond to each of them in turn.  My responses will briefly critique each of the four categories discussed above in terms of philosophical and theological arguments.  I will follow this with a high-level worldview critique of Hick that summarizes some of the individual arguments before presenting a brief presentation of the historic orthodox Christian view. 

Unknowable Ultimate Reality

There are many problems with Hick’s insistence on an unknowable ultimate reality that is in some manner adequately perceived and represented by each religion.  Hick insists that he is attempting to save religion from the onslaught of secularity, but J. Andrew Kirk argues that Hick is essentially proposing a lot of nothing that can’t be tested, proven, or disproven.  Such an ontological being doesn’t have the ability to exist in any form as he describes it.  Kirk then insists that he is making the same fatal mistake of many of his predecessor in dividing the empirically verifiable world from the world of belief in God.  By trying to protect religions by making them unknowable, Hick is undermining their importance and validity in the world, thus giving way to the secular, atheistic agenda.  Kirk goes on to say that it is only a logical step to include atheistic materialism into Hick’s scheme as a potential option for human experience of the Real.  At that point the believer is just agreeing that the ineffable, indescribable Real is simply an unexplainable projection of their natural religious consciousness upon a religious category with no substance.  Something as conceptually empty as Hick’s Real is not essentially different than nothing.  Robert Cooks agrees with Kirk on this point and sees Hick’s omni-acceptance of religious thought with no defining characteristics as logically inclusive of materialism, even if Hick doesn’t think so. 

 It must also be pointed out that Hick’s citations of Christian theologians and many of the other religious teachers are weak and misrepresentative of their actual belief systems.  None of the Christian theologians anywhere close to historic orthodoxy would agree with Hick’s usage of their words in the slightest.  A Christian insistence on the ineffability of God does not automatically go hand-in-hand with a denial of all positive assertions or exclusive statements about the nature of God or his relationship to his creation.  These citations are deceptive and can easily be seen through if the reader has any exposure to historical theology.  In addition to the Christian quotes, no devout Muslim would agree that their conception of God could be squared with a Christian or Hindu definition of the divine, and no religion insistent on the essential need for meditation to properly and fully experience reality would allow for Hick’s insistence that other faiths don’t need to make use of any of these practices.  As Cook argues, Hick may be able to tell all other faiths that he agrees with them, but most all of them will be quick to insist that they do not agree with him.  Hick is clearly not respectful of the words he hears in his interreligious dialogs, and he is also insensitive to the actual beliefs and devotion of his religious counterparts when he tells them that the particularities of their systems don’t matter.

In reality, Hick’s belief system is only compatible with a very liberal, post-Christian Western mindset that has been infused with some features of pantheistic or panentheistic spirituality.  His supposedly inclusive pluralism alienates nearly all faiths and functions as a newly invented religion that effectively denies the truth claims of all other religions.  Don Carson points out the irony that in attempting to be inclusive by accepting all faiths, Hick has created his own modern or postmodern “anti-metanarrative metanarrative.”  Alister McGrath wisely asserts that Hick should treat other belief systems with integrity rather than attempting to modify them to fit within his framework.  Hick’s metanarrative is not as inclusive as it appears at first glance.  In attempting to include all religions, he excludes all religions as they are and only accepts them within his own pluralistic terms, as he wishes them to be.  We see this clearly in his treatment of Christianity, which is even the religion with which he is most familiar and ethically compatible.  

Outdated Particularity

With regard to his insistence that progress is in the direction of pluralism, and absolutism is on the wrong side of history, it’s hard to say that he’s consistent.  Hick’s position has developed over time, so it is difficult to pin down which religious systems he finally accepted within his views.  At one point, it seemed as though he was only accepting of what he calls post-axial religions, those formed after the 8^th century B.C., which means that he is excluding pagan animism and other forms of primal religion.  He is most interested in engaging otherworldly types of religions, which also seems to exclude Confucianism with its this-worldly focus.  However, it is difficult to say since he made at least one inclusive statement regarding African primal religions.  Now, if he is exclusive of these other forms of religious expression in addition to his opposition to materialism, it is hard to see how he has not exercised some small version of his despised and outdated particularity.  

Aside from his inconsistencies with accepting all parts of all other religions, his argument that a pluralistic society will not allow for exclusive spiritual truth claims is simply wrong.  He has stated that Christians can’t consciously continue to maintain their particularity while effectively engaging a diverse society.  This idea ignores most of church history.  Christianity is always born as a minority in a society, thrives in a pluralistic society, and converts vast numbers within a pluralistic society.  It has done this from its inception in the Roman Empire to our modern day when multitudes are converting to Christianity in East Asian and the Global South.  Even in the Middle Ages when Western Christianity was arguably most isolated, the church was actively converting pagan nations to the Christian faith throughout the far reaches of Europe, and Christian writers were engaging with classical Greek thought and the ideas of Jewish and Muslim theologians and philosophers.  Further back, the biblical authors are constantly engaging with and decrying the false pagan religions that surrounded and plagued the nation of Israel, all the while insisting in particularity.  Eckhard Schabel provides a masterful summary of the Apostle Paul’s effective engagement with his pluralistic society in the New Testament writings.  Closer to our day,  David Wells references multiple examples of particularity best engaging and retaining adherence in our pluralistic society.  He appeals to recent historical evidence to show that churches who maintain cognitive distinction from their cultures generally thrive in contrast to those that harmonizing with their cultures.

Ethical Pragmatism

The weakness of Hick’s comparative ethics argument in favor of pluralism is quite obvious in a number of ways.  First, it is clear that the truth of a fact is not objectively proven or disproven by the character of a witness to that fact.  As Pinnock states, there are better tests for the truth available to us, but Hick is not interested in historical truth and seems to hold to some form of Lessing’s ugly ditch with regard to historical matters.  Geivett and Phillips similarly point out that the comparisons of virtue between faith traditions is irrelevant for determining truth claims in a rational manner, and McGrath agrees that moral superiority is a very different question than determining which theory better fits the data.  

It is true in legal matters that a witness’s testimony is often judged by the character of a witness, but the character of the witness is not even applied consistently by Hick.  He seems to appeal to the sins of Western civilization in general as evidence against Christianity, but, as mentioned above, he then refuses to credit what he believes to be the great positives of Western culture to Christianity.   This is clearly a double standard, and he can’t have it both ways.  He doesn’t even bother to consider whether the ills he is condemning are a fruit of the Christian faith he is judging or whether they are the result of human sin or anti-Christian philosophical movements in the West.  As Pinnock points out, the substance of one’s faith truly does affect how one acts if one is a devout follower.  The teachings of Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity do have substantially different ethical teachings, and they do have an effect in the lives of their devout adherents.  Ethical systems must be judged by their essential teachings, not by the highly subjective and anecdotal comparisons between the lives of some of their nominal adherents.  

Finally, and most importantly, Hick’s ethical argument absolutely fails when one considers that it is completely arbitrary.  He is obviously applying his preferred ethical standard to all belief systems and all world religions to determine how they shape up.  What gives him the authority to determine the ethical standard he applies to everyone else?  As Hick himself points out, everything that he views as beautiful and right about the world could easily be defined in terms of Western liberal ideals.  This is why he is so intent on separating those ideals from orthodox Christian ethics.  But, as Cook says, it is not clear how he can apply this ethical standard to all world religions, since he is advocating an unknown Real with no moral categories who is beyond all good and evil such that he contains all religious system.  Hick’s choice and application of a pragmatic ethical standard based on his personal cultural preferences is clearly arbitrary and contradicts the pluralism he is espousing.

Rejection of Christian Theology

With regard to Hick’s theology, he clearly rejects nearly all orthodox Christian theology, not on the basis of facts or theological arguments, but because he has to in order to embrace his preferred pluralism.  Pinnock points out that Hick admits to changing his theological views to pluralism on the basis of personal experience prior to finalizing his theological revisions.  From Hick’s position, the Bible cannot be true, and Jesus cannot be God incarnate.  Hick clearly rejects any doctrine of Scripture that allows the Bible to be authoritative truth despite great evidence that this has been the belief of the church since it’s inceptions.    Despite Hick’s challenge to Jesus’ personal claims to deity outside of the Gospel of John, Tom Wright argues that Jesus does implicitly make claims to be the God of Israel in the Synoptics with his exertion of personal authority and his use of Old Testament language to describe himself and his ministry.  But Hick is not concerned with what the Bible says, and he gives his theological speculations and classic heresies the same weight as historically orthodox and biblical doctrine.  His modern, materialist presuppositions will not allow it any other way because they deprive him of all data.   

In his system, he strips the Christian faith of any foundation in revelation and proclaims it as an ethical system that adheres to his Western liberal ideology.  Jesus is no longer God incarnate.  He is just some sort of spiritualized man with insight into the morality of a generic, modal deity that can be experienced in at least three ways.  It is ironic that Hick argues against classic Christian doctrines like the hypostatic union and the trinity because they are too mysterious and impossible to understand while insisting on an ineffable Real that defies all categories of human reason and analogy.  Geivett and Phillips suggest that the mysteriousness of Christian doctrines like the divinity of Christ should signal the plausibility of the Christian faith for Hick, and Carson sees this as evidence that pluralists are not following the evidence where it leads because of their commitment to pluralism.  

Worldview Critique and Theological Response

From a worldview perspective, it is apparent that Hick is intent on embracing an inclusive religious pluralism that stems from his modernist assumptions regarding the positive nature of progress and the autonomy of the human mind to determine and define its own truth apart from divine revelation and authority.  The problem is that Hick is borrowing much of the capital of the Christian worldview that has shaped his ethical assumptions.  His borrowing is necessary because his modernist and pluralist assumptions do not provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility.  

His arguments for ethical comparisons have no basis in his reality.  According to his position all individuals should be able to define their own metanarratives with their embedded goals and regulations based on their own experience of the divine.  Any attempt to apply an ethical framework is inconsistent because it contradicts his premise.  Hick’s divorce of the spiritual world of the Real from the intelligible material world creates a non-starter that makes all discussion of religious topics meaningless and empty.  His selection of acceptable doctrines is arbitrary since they are merely handpicked to support his foregone conclusions.  Since Hick’s Real can’t definitively express itself and can’t truly be known in any meaningful way, he is incapable of having any sort of interreligious dialog that doesn’t end up espousing the religion he has created.  It seems like Hick has done exactly what he says he set out to avoid.

In contrast, the Christian view embraces a God who speaks.  The God of the Bible spoke the world into existence and created humans in his image with the capacity to know him truly, if not comprehensively.  He created an orderly world that fit the observational capacities and conceptual abilities of his creatures.  Although there is still mystery, the Christian worldview can account for the problems we see in the world and the problems we detect in ourselves.  The Christian understands the stain of the heart and the conflict of life to be an outworking of human rebellion against the Creator.  According to the Christian position, suffering is the result of this rebellion, and apart from the redeeming work of God, humans actively blind themselves in their sin by misinterpreting reality.  The Christian position allows for a loving and personal God who is relational.  This God reveals himself through his Son, through the internal testimony of the Spirit, and the external testimony of the Scripture that God breathed out.  Apart from this personal and relational God, humans are left with their culturally informed conjectures about the nature of the Real.  Fortunately, the Christian doesn’t need to resort to such speculation.  God has made himself known.  He provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility.  He also provides the meaning for everything.

Conclusion

By rejecting the Christian God who speaks and comes into the world as revealer and redeemer, John Hick places himself and every other human being in the place of the divine authority.  He attempts to provide a philosophical and theological framework that is accepting of all religions, but in doing so, he contradicts himself and shuts out nearly all religions as they are.  Hick cut’s himself off from divine revelation and any standard for ethical judgment.  He also cuts himself off from the grace available in God’s self-expression, his incarnate Son.  

The Word was in the beginning.  The Word was God.  The Word has become flesh.  The Word has revealed the glory of the Father, full of grace and truth.  Through God’s gracious revelation, the Christian is able to the know God truly and make intelligible statements about him.  In turn, the Christian is then able to make intelligible statements about the world that God has created. The Christian can make meaningful progress in living the way that God intended in his world.  Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift.

Bibliography

Allison, Gregg R. Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011. Kindle.

Carson, D. A. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. Kindle.

Cook, Robert R. “Postmodernism, pluralism and John Hick.” Themelios 19, no. 1 (Oct 1993): 10-12. Accessed July 19, 2019. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/ehost/detail/ detail?vid=0&sid=1eff8550-a682-465d-89a4-e68d93b8d1a1%40sdc-v-sessmgr02&bdata =#AN=ATLA0000870639&db=rfh.

Geivett, R. Douglas, John Hick, Alister E. McGrath, W. Gary Phillips, Clark H. Pinnock. Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Kindle.

Hick, John. “A Response to Robert Cook.” Themelios 19, no. 3 (May 1994): 20. Accessed July 19, 2019. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/ehost/ detail/detail?vid=12&sid=f61610a2-afd8-4404-8103-8afa13dbc9f0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03 &bdata=#AN=ATLA0000882299&db=rfh.

Hick, John. “A Response to Andrew Kirk On Religious Pluralism.” Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 12, no. 2 (2002): 226-231. Accessed July 19, 2019. http://web.a.ebscohost.com. ezproxy.sbts.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=10&sid=f61610a2-afd8-4404-8103-8afa13dbc9f 0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=#AN=ATLA0001325042&db=rfh.

Hick, John and Paul Knitter, eds. The Myth of Christian Uniqueness. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1987.

Kirk, J. Andrew. “John Hick’s Kantian Theory of Religious Pluralism and the Challenge of Secular Thinking.” Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 12, no. 1 (2002): 23-36. Accessed July 19, 2019. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid= f61610a2-afd8-4404-8103-8afa13dbc9f0%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=#AN=ATLA000132 4890&db=rfh.

Peterson, Robert and Christopher Morgan, eds. Faith Comes by Hearing. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008. Kindle.

Wells, David F. Above All Earthly Pow’rs: Christ in a Postmodern World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Kindle.

Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

By the President of the United States of America, President George Washington.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor– and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be– That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions– to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Washington issued a proclamation on October 3, 1789, designating Thursday, November 26 as a national day of thanks. In his proclamation, Washington declared that the necessity for such a day sprung from the Almighty’s care of Americans prior to the Revolution, assistance to them in achieving independence, and help in establishing the constitutional government.

Relativism, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,  is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and framework of assessment and their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.  Relativists claim that all “universal” truths are bound by historical or social conditions.  Relativism, though not a new concept, has gained recently more  acceptance among many intellectuals due to Progressives in higher education.  Students are being proselytized that prejudice breeds apathy, division,  and oppression.  Children are being taught that respect and tolerance for other people’s reality are the virtues necessary for securing a free and democratic society and the primary mission of our public education system is to purge prejudice from the human consciousness.   Anthony Lewis, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and a NYT journalist, said, “Certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity in people who are sure they are right.”  A modern American intellectual prides himself on being empathic and non-judgmental as much as an ancient Roman prided himself  on being honorable and courageous.  Progressives believe that Relativism and its moral corollaries, tolerance and compassion,  will put an end to oppression and bring about lasting peace and harmony.  In this essay,  I will critique the three essential claims of Relativism.  I hope by the end of the essay, you will come to see that Relativism is, in fact, an insidious worldview that will destroy civilization and humanity. 

Claim 1: Relativists claim truth and falsity are products of differing conventions and framework of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.

Relativists believe there is no objective truth that applies to all times, places, or social and cultural frameworks.  Therefore, truths and lies are obsolete concepts.  There are only perceptions, narratives, viewpoints and perspectives.   Cross out the 9th commandment . Forget  Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle; they were just fools chasing a ghost.  Dismiss scientists like Issac Newton who believed his greatest friend was the Truth.

https://babylonbee.com/news/sat-now-features-5-answer-bubbles-a-b-c-d-and-my-truth

Jesus says, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”  For a modern intellectual, his (his/her, he/she interchangeable) own truth sets himself free.  Free from what?  Free from the obligation to pursue, recognize, accept and tell the truth. It does not matter if his truth is half-true or untrue.  He feels no obligation to ontological imperative.  The difference between “everybody lies” and “nobody lies” is that the latter erases the concept of falsehood in human consciousness. When there is no objective truth, any claim can be true.

Relativism also frees humans from pursuing knowledge.  In order for someone to know something, there must be something one knows about.  Truth is a condition of knowledge.  If there are no facts of the matter, then there is nothing to know (or to fail to know) . ¹   This raises an interesting question; what is the purpose of education.  Allen Bloom, in Closing of the American Mind-How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students, ² writes, “The purpose of  education is not to make them scholars but to provide them with a moral virtue-openness; openness to all kinds of men, all kinds of life-style, all ideologies… They are taught that the worst enemy of a free and democratic society is the man who is not open to everything.”  Universities, instead of competing on scholarly excellence, compete on the number of diversity officers,  the number of  grievance studies courses,  and the number of safe spaces.   Bloom concludes, ”Great opening is a great closing.”  G.K. Chesterton expressed a similar view on the demerit of an open mind.  Chesterton said, “An open mind is really a mark of foolishness, like an open mouth.  Mouths and minds were made to shut; they were made to open only in order to shut.” ³   When wisdom is not pursued, people stay ignorant. 

Relativism replaces truth with internal consistency, but being consistent is bad if the starting assumptions are not good.  Only a fool goes 1 mile east by going 14,000 miles west first.  Relativism avoids any judgment based on First Principles.  The rest of the essay will touch on this idea further.

Claim 2: Relativists claim the view that standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and framework of assessment, and their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.

Relativism, besides freeing humans from pursuing knowledge, also unburdens them from being rational and the obligation to make sound judgment.  Relativists claim that there are no universal laws of reason and logic.   What is irrational for one group of people may be perfectly rational for another.    When ‘my reason’ is sufficient to justify a claim or an action, there is no need for anyone to outgrow his terrible twos stage.  Instead of being tamed by reason, instinct and emotion are given free rein.

Reason is the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments logically.  The capability to reason is one of the faculties which separate humans from beasts.  Like speech, the ability to reason well does not come naturally.    Logical concepts and laws are tools to help us to think well.  They help us to make rational assessments of the validity of statements, claims, and beliefs.    With well developed reasoning skills, we are able to think rationally, judge correctly, and choose wisely.  But when reason is considered to be just a product of convention, there is no reason for supposing that it yields truth. ⁴  As reason is being dethroned in academia, critical thinking is not being taught and practised.

The following is a statement put out by a group of evangelical intellectuals laying out their reasons for supporting the democratic party’s agenda and why other evangelicals should vote for Joe Biden.   Many critics question the intellectual honesty of the authors of the statement. ⁵   I, on the other hand, think it is entirely possible the authors sincerely believe they are saving lives by voting and endorsing Joe Biden.  It is not their intellectual honesty I question, it is their intellectual competency that I question.

“AS PRO-LIFE EVANGELICALS, WE DISAGREE WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM ON THE ISSUE OF ABORTION. BUT WE BELIEVE A BIBLICALLY SHAPED COMMITMENT TO THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE COMPELS US TO A CONSISTENT ETHIC OF LIFE THAT AFFIRMS THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE FROM BEGINNING TO END.

Many things that good political decisions could change destroy persons created in the image of God and violate the sanctity of human life. Poverty kills millions every year. So does lack of healthcare and smoking. Racism kills. Unless we quickly make major changes, devastating climate change will kill tens of millions. Poverty, lack of accessible health care services, smoking, racism and climate change are all pro-life issues. As the National Association of Evangelicals’ official public policy document (FOR THE HEALTH OF THE NATION) insists, “Faithful evangelical civic engagement and witness must champion a biblically balanced agenda.“  Therefore we oppose “one issue” political thinking because it lacks biblical balance.

Knowing that the most common reason women give for abortion is the financial difficulty of another child, we appreciate a number of Democratic proposals that would significantly alleviate that financial burden: accessible health services for all citizens, affordable childcare, a minimum wage that lifts workers out of poverty.

For these reasons, we believe that on balance, Joe Biden’s policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump. Therefore, even as we continue to urge different policies on abortion, we urge evangelicals to elect Joe Biden as president.”

Their propositional argument basically consists of three statements:

1. Poverty, racism, lack of access to health care, drastic climate change, and smoking kill tens of millions of people.
2. Biden’s policy is effective in solving the problems listed in (1). 
3. Therefore, voting Biden will save tens of millions of lives.

In order for (3) to be true, both (1) and (2) have to be true.  One of the intellectual standards for assessing someone’s reasoning is clarity.  Words used in (1):  poverty, access to healthcare, drastic climate change, and racism are vague and ambiguous.  Does poverty mean global poverty or US poverty? Does poverty mean relative poverty or absolute poverty? Does access to health care mean access to insurance or  access to health care? What does “racism kills” mean? How “drastic” has the climate changed? Equivocal terms may be useful for rhetorical purposes to elicit instinctive and emotional responses, but they are useless in formulating sound judgment.

As for (2), the authors claim that Biden’s socialist policy of wealth redistribution and government regulation is effective in solving societal problems.  But can they name one socialist country that is prosperous?  By the way, Sweden is not a socialist country. ⁶

Without clarity and evidence, Proposition (3), the conclusion drawn, is precarious.  Without good reasoning skill,  erroneous judgment ensues.

Even if all three statements are true, a judicious thinker may still choose differently.  The number of lives saved is a criterion, but it is not the only criterion.  If the number of lives saved were the criterion, Britain would not have gone to war with Nazi Germany. ⁷   As Churchill explained in Their Finest Hour speech, ⁸ there were other considerations.

“Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. “

Most political decisions are moral in nature.  It requires the discernment of the moral order.  In a culture where moral order and hierarchy are repugnant and quantitative equality is the absolute standard, it is no surprise that a simple numerical criterion is chosen.  That leads us to the third claim of Relativism.

Claim 3: Relativists claim right and wrong are products of differing conventions and framework of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.

Moral Relativism is the view that beliefs about right and wrong, good and bad, and moral judgment, not only vary greatly across time and context, but that their correctness is dependent on or relative to individual or cultural perspectives and frameworks. ⁹  In other words, there is no transcendent moral standard to discern right from wrong, and good from bad behavior.  To think otherwise is judgmental, bigoted, hard-hearted, ethnocentric or imperialistic.   The fact that moral leaders, who are called to save souls, accept financial difficulty as a reason for destroying a defenseless human life goes to show how pervasive Moral Relativism is.

According to Moral Relativism, the inner voice we call conscience is simply a product of convention. Therefore, conscience is subject to change.  Hitler, a true moral relativist, once said, ”I free Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality.” In contrast, George Washington regarded conscience as the spark of celestial fire.

Under Moral Relativism,  there is no immoral person, law,  or society.  Any action can be justified.   Without transcendent moral norms,  the end justifies the means.

I hope by now you will agree with me on the danger of Relativism.  

When people who are taught:

• There is no objective reality.
• There is nothing to be learned from the past and others.
• Personal feeling and conviction trump reason.
• End justifies means.

You have a society in which: 

• Opposition to allowing a biological male to compete in women’s sports is bigotry.
• Infanticide is a woman’s right.
• Bringing toddlers to drag queen story hours in the library is educational. ¹⁰

It never occurs to people that when they are free from those pesky conventional restraints –  reality, reason, and conscience –  they become mere creatures.  Now the question is: why do so many of our educators indoctrinate our youth with this self-destructive worldview?

The story of New History in the United States has its origin in the Progressive Movement.  During the Progressive Era(1890s -1920s), there was a wholesale rejection of the traditional understanding of truth, knowledge, liberty, human nature and the role of the government among the intellectual elites.  Many progressives held prominent positions in the nation’s most prestigious universities, such as Johns Hopkins University, Princeton University, and Columbia University.  In the humanities and social science departments, progressive theories were developed and taught. Through their writings and speeches, influential progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey established a stronghold in our intellectual, cultural, and political institutions.  Educational philosophy and practices, as well as social reforms and government policies based on these progressive ideas were championed and embraced.  Familiarity with these thinkers’ ideas and their standing among the elites helps us to better understand the fundamental principles of New History and the reason it rose to dominance.

History is truly the witness of times past, the light of truth, the life of memory, the teacher of life, the messenger of antiquity.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Cicero (106 – 43 BC), the Roman philosopher, statesman, and orator conferred the title “The Father of History” to Herodotus (c. 484 – c. 425 BC), a Greek writer, for his magnum opus: The Histories, an account of the Greco-Persian Wars (c. 492 – c. 448 BC).   Prior to Herodotus, the writing of history was almost indistinguishable from the composition of myth and fable.  Herodotus systematically collected his materials and arranged them in a well-constructed narrative.  In the prologue of The Histories, Herodotus imparted the purpose of The Histories. (The Greek word “historie” means “inquiry.”) He wrote,  “Here are presented the results of the enquiry carried out by Herodotus of Halicarnassus.  The purpose is to prevent the traces of human events from being erased by time, and to preserve the fame of the important and remarkable achievements by both Greeks and non-Greeks; among the matters covered is, in particular, the cause of the hostilities between Greeks and non-Greeks.”

In its August 2019 issue, The New York Times Magazine published a series of essays about slavery, race, and American politics under the heading “The 1619 Project”.  These essays cover a wide array of subjects: music, constitutional theory, economics, management, ethnic identity, and more.  Jake Silverstein, editor of The 1619 Project, states that the goal is “to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nations’s birth year.”

A conservative seeks to  defend, maintain and preserve “the spiritual, intellectual and political tradition of the western culture.” (Kirk Russell)

What is this spiritual, intellectual and political tradition that we want to conserve?  The following is a sketch of this tradition. Material for this essay is largely taken from  Russell Kirk’s The Roots of American Order, Hillsdale College’s Online Course: The Western Heritage

Thanksgiving Day, an American tradition, is becoming problematic for Millennials and Gen Z.  Many of them are taught that Thanksgiving is a celebration of imperialism, oppression, racism, exploitation, and genocide of indigenous people.   According to Professor Robert Jenson of the University of Texas at Austi: