The following essays were drafted in 2016 upon this writer’s exit from a research attorney position at the Kansas Court of Appeals. The Court had just read a supposed right to abortion into the Kansas Constitution. Although this writer did not perceive weapons or blood, the effect was as if he had witnessed a violent atrocity. The Court was participating in the slaughter of innocent children. The participation was not direct, of course, but it was formal cooperation, as the theologians would say, or aiding and abetting, as the lawyers would say.
Forward
“For many deceivers have gone forth into the world who do not confess Jesus as the Christ coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist.” 2 John 1:7. There are then only two choices—Christ or Antichrist.
Our existence in the world does not delay the choice. “For God did not send his Son into the world in order to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not judged; but he who does not believe is already judged, because he does not believe in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.” John 3:17-18.
Since this is so, any willful failure to choose Christ is a choice for Antichrist, taken here to include Satan and the other dark forces. “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the Principalities and the Powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness on high. Therefore take up the armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and stand in all things perfect.” Ephesians 6:12-13.
The following essays are an effort to work this out, relying on Scripture and a basic knowledge of the world. The essays are not academic with citations to other authors. Anyone who believes hopefully will find them of use.
I. The Beginning
Christ “was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing that has been made.” John 1:2-3. He is “the firstborn of every creature,” and “[a]ll things have been created through and unto him.” Colossians 1:15-17. He is “the image of the invisible God,” and “in him all things hold together.” Colossians 1:15,17.
Christ is thus the template for all reality. Reality for us means life and truth. The first is the condition of our existence in the world, and the second is the correspondence of our understanding with that existence.
Christ is Himself “the life” and “the truth.” John 14:6. In contrast, Antichrist “was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth because there was no truth in him.” John 8:44. When Antichrist “tells a lie he speaks from his very nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:44.
These are the marks of Antichrist, murder and lies. We should understand that Antichrist murders in order to lie and lies in order to murder. Murders and lies go together and further each other for the dark powers.
Antichrist wishes to annihilate reality because it comes from God. One of Antichrist’s lies after Christ’s victory over death was to claim that visible reality is evil. If people believe matter is evil, it will not lead them to God.
This view, known as metaphysical dualism, conceives of a good spiritual world and a bad material world. It has appeared as Manicheanism, Paulinism, Bogomilism, Albigensianism, Catharism, and is still not extinct today. The incarnation of Christ is impossible for a metaphysical dualist. By the incarnation Christ “appeared to us,” 1 John 1:2, and was “manifested in the flesh.” 1 Timothy 3:16. The first Christians could report “what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon and our hands have handled.” 1 John 1:1. This physical manifestation of God is entirely excluded if matter is evil.
Metaphysical dualists similarly reject their own bodies. Historically they did this either by abstaining as much as possible from natural functions, especially sexual intercourse, or by abandoning themselves to licentiousness. The first prevented the birth of yet more bodies, and the second demonstrated disregard for one’s own body. Metaphysical dualism is practiced today through contraception, which allows a person to do both things simultaneously.
Scripture rejects metaphysical dualism. “For every creature of God is good,” 1 Timothy 4:4, and “the Creator, from the beginning, made them male and female.” Matthew 19:4. Thus far from leading us astray, the material world leads us to Christ. “[W]hat may be known about God is manifest,” “[f]or since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen—his everlasting power also and divinity—being understood through the things that are made.” Romans 1:19-20. A married man and woman, for example, are “one flesh,” Matthew 19:6, and this union in the flesh is a “great mystery . . . in reference to Christ and to the Church.” Ephesians 5:32.
Antichrist is a better liar than to rely on metaphysical dualism, however. Since he could not convince all people that matter reflects himself rather than its Maker, he would turn matter into a dead end. He would expropriate God’s visible creation to “show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” Matthew, 24:24.
This lie changes the material world into a self-subsisting reality. Matter now creates itself and points to nothing else. The glorious universe and human intelligence are explained by . . . well, by the glorious universe and human intelligence.
This view, known as philosophical materialism, is not new. It is in a sense normal for fallen human beings to focus on the visible world, and many have concluded that nothing else exists. After the incarnation of Christ, however, philosophical materialism is especially dangerous. Because its adherents reject the sign value of matter, i.e., its ability to point beyond itself, they miss the greatest message of all time: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” John 1:14.
The world under philosophical materialism becomes neutral in the sense that we decide the course it should take. Government, business, the professions, and the arts are only stages for human activity. We, not Christ, are now the template for reality. Some even believe that we cause our perceptions of the universe, and not the other way around. No longer do “[t]he heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the firmament . . . his handiwork.” Psalm 18:2. Instead they proclaim our own glory.
Scripture again rejects philosophical materialism. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1. In addition, how can humans be glorious when we are “made from the dust, and to the dust [we shall] return?” Ecclesiastes 3:20. Our glory is a mere “vanity.” Ecclesiastes 1:2. “For what does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” Matthew 16:26.
This poor exchange, the trade of one’s soul for the world, is considered next.
II. The human person
The first mention of humans in Scripture specifies our creation in God’s “image and likeness.” Genesis 1:26. We were given “dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, over all the wild animals and every creature that crawls on the earth.” Genesis 1:27. God thus made humans “little less than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor.” Psalm 8:6.
Humans are sometimes “[r]ash, and self-willed,” however, and “deride what they do not understand.” 2 Peter 2:10, 12. Humans are then “like irrational animals created by nature for capture and destruction.” 2 Peter 2:12.
The distinction between humans and animals is thus primarily based in reason, which yet can be overborne by self-will. When we act willfully, we lack understanding and are reduced in some way to the level of animals. The reduction can never be total given our creation in God’s image and likeness. Nevertheless, self-willed humans “professing to be wise” may “become fools,” exchanging “the glory of the incorruptible God for an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things.” Romans 1:22-23. This is idolatry, a constant temptation.
The Psalmist contrasts the worship of God with the worship of idols:
“Not to us, O Lord, not to us but to your name give glory because of your kindness, because of your truth. Why should the pagans say, ‘Where is their God?’ Our God is in heaven; whatever he wills, he does. Their idols are silver and gold, the handiwork of men. They have mouths but speak not; they have eyes but see not; they have ears but hear not; they have noses but smell not; they have hands but feel not; they have feet but walk not; they utter no sound from their throat. Their makers shall be like them, everyone that trusts in them.” Psalm 113B:1-8.
Idolatry is a lie, obviously, but it is also murder. We can consider the many human sacrifices offered to pagan idols over time. We can also consider the proclamation of our own time, that God is dead.
Those who proclaim the death of God might believe they are ending religion, idols and all. They are instead fooled by another lie of Antichrist. Antichrist tells them that they have transcended worship by progressing beyond it. The very suggestion hints at the result of this lie.
Antichrist convinces humans to focus exclusively on themselves. Since doing so directly involves neither Christ nor Antichrist, worship apparently ends as well. God is dead, Antichrist is a figment, and all that remains are humans, somehow still little less than angels. This view is known as secular humanism.
The lie of secular humanism is contradicted by two facts. First, humans must worship. This is known primarily from experience. Humans cannot remain at the level of pure instinct like other animals. Reason permits us to know both the apparent limitlessness of reality and our own limited nature. This is possible because reason itself is apparently limitless, being a share in God’s image and likeness, and thus open to the reality made by God and to Himself as its source; yet, it is at the same time limited by contingencies of time, place, health, and cognitive ability. In other words, we can know there is a world and a God who made it, but we cannot comprehend the world as God does, nor God Himself. Intuiting that we are creatures, we cast about for the Creator. People sometime call this a search for “meaning,” again something unnecessary for non-rational animals.
Second, worship always has an object. Humans seek meaning in all sorts of things, and few of the world’s religions have posited the sort of transcendent yet personal deity Christians profess and secular humanists tend to consider the only possible object of worship. Secular humanists are wrong, as Scripture shows when it says regarding those who “mind the things of earth,” that their “god is their belly.” Philippians 3:19.
Whatever the object of worship, a willful refusal to worship Christ will end in worship of Antichrist. When Satan tempted Christ in the desert with “all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them,” he did not ask Christ to worship the kingdoms. Matthew 4:8. Satan asked Christ for worship personally: “‘All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.'” Matthew 4:9. Christ’s answer must be that of all Christians for all time: “‘Begone, Satan! for it is written, ‘The Lord thy God shalt thou worship, and him only shalt thou serve.”” Matthew 4:10.
An antidote to secular humanism is found in the supernatural virtues, “faith, hope and charity,” the three virtues which “abide.” 1 Corinthians 13:13. The natural virtues such as courage, temperance, and prudence are excellent and should be cultivated. The problem is that they do not necessarily point beyond this world. An atheist might show courage, for example, without thought of spiritual things.
In contrast, “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of thing that are not seen.” Hebrews 11:1. “By faith we understand that the world was fashioned by the word of God; and thus things visible were made out of thing invisible.” Hebrews 11:3. Unlike the natural virtues, faith is salvific—the “just man, because of his faith, shall live.” Habacuc 2:4. As Christ told the sinful woman: “Thy faith has saved thee; go in peace.” Luke 7:50.
With respect to “our hope,” it is in Christ. Timothy 1:1. “Christ is faithful as the Son over his own house,” and “[w]e are that house, if we hold fast our confidence and hope in which we glory unto the end.” Hebrews 3:6. Thus we hope for “life everlasting which God, who does not lie, promised before the ages began.” Titus 1:2.
Finally, the “greatest of these is charity.” 1 Corinthians 13:13. Faith will pass away because “[w]e see now through a mirror in an obscure manner, but then face to face.” 1 Corinthians 13:12. Hope will pass away because “how can a man hope for what he sees?” Romans 8:24. In both instances, “when that which is perfect has come, that which is imperfect will be done away with.” 1 Corinthians 13:10.
But charity or love “never fails.” 1 Corinthians 13:8. Unlike faith and hope, which are guides to that we do not yet possess, charity is a share in the life of God. “God is love, and he that abides in love abides in God, and God in him.” 1 John 4:16. As Christ taught:
“‘The first commandment of all is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one God; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind and with thy whole strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second is like it, ‘Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”” Mark 12:29-31.
Charity thus vivifies the other virtues:
“If I should speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have charity, I have become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. And if I have prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, yet do not have charity, I am nothing. And if I distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, yet do not have charity, it profits me nothing. Charity is patient, is kind; charity does not envy, is not pretentious, is not puffed up, is not ambitious, is not self-seeking, is not provoked; thinks no evil, does not rejoice over wickedness, but rejoices with the truth; bears with all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” 1 Corinthians 13:1-7.
The family, a school of charity, is discussed next.
III. The Family
With the family one moves into a distinct order of being. An individual person exists in a certain way and is called a human being. The family has its own sort of being, sometimes called social being, based on God’s creation of marriage: “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man is alone; I will make him a helper like himself.'” Genesis 2:18. After a marriage something exists which did not exist before and is more than the individuals involved: “For this reason a man leaves his father and mother, and clings to his wife, and two become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24.
Social being means the family, not the individual, is the building block of society. Only an entity with an inherently social character could be a suitable component part. Most individuals are of course social, but they are so precisely as part of a family. An individual lacking family in any sense of the word, perhaps someone raised from infancy in an isolation ward run by mechanical devices, could not interact with other humans. He or she would be unsocialized.
Antichrist wishes to unsocialize us all, thereby destroying part of God’s creation. The plan appears to be an attack on the family, especially at its root in marriage.
The original sin arguably was occasioned by an attack on marriage. Adam and Eve are described as “the man and his wife,” and though they “were naked . . . they felt no shame.” Genesis 2:25. Immediately after this, mention is made of the “serpent . . . more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” Genesis 3:1. Next, Adam and Eve are shown following the serpent’s direction rather than God’s, resulting in a division between them: “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig-leaves together and made themselves coverings.” Genesis 3:7.
The cascading effect of the original sin is obvious, with a murder in the first generation and Cain’s alienation “out from the presence of the Lord.” Genesis 4:16. The serpent’s first attack on marriage was successful, yet God promised another family, a Holy Family, who would vindicate His plan:
“Then the Lord God said to the serpent: ‘Because you have done this, cursed are you among all animals, and among the beasts of the field; on your belly shall you crawl, dust shall you eat, all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for his heel.'” Genesis 3:14-15.
God’s promise was fulfilled, but Antichrist still lies in wait. Those who willfully refuse to worship Christ act in the malice of Antichrist and serve him in the effort. The effort still includes destroying the family by cutting at the root of marriage.
The attack comes in many forms, including the individual failings so common to fallen humanity. But the attack also comes from another social being, the state, which is more complete than the family and thus a “perfect” society. This needs some explanation.
Authority within the family is necessary to maintain its cohesion. One cannot build a society with crumbling blocks. Since “there is no authority except from God,” Romans 13:1, the authority exercised within the family comes from God. Children must “obey your parents in the Lord, for that is right.” Ephesians 6:1. And “[l]et wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord; because a husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church.” Ephesians 5:22-23.
But authority within the family ends at the boundary of the family. No family considered as such, nor any individual within it, has authority by the nature of things over other families or individuals. Yet social life extends beyond the family.
Stated another way, the family is competent to handle domestic concerns, but it lacks competence over issues arising from social life generally. War and crime are two examples. The family lacks authority to draft soldiers and send them into battle, or to punish criminals with imprisonment or execution.
God’s creation of social being therefore extends to a complete or perfect entity, the state. This social entity is discussed in the next essay. Here it will suffice to show that the state, like the family, was created by God for a particular purpose. St. Paul teaches:
“Let everyone be subject to the higher authorities, for there exists no authority except from God, and those who exist have been appointed by God. Therefore he who resists the authority resists the ordinance of God; and they that resist bring on themselves condemnation. For rulers are a terror not to the good work but to the evil. Dost thou wish, then, not to fear the authority? Do what is good and thou wilt have praise from it. For it is God’s minister to thee for good. But if thou dost what is evil, fear, for not without reason does it carry the sword. For it is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who does evil. Wherefore you must needs be subject, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For this is also why you pay tribute, for they are the ministers of God, serving unto this very end. Render to all men whatever is their due; tribute to whom tribute is dues; taxes to whom taxes are due; fear to whom fear is due; honor to whom honor is due.” Romans 13:1-7.
It is difficult to imagine a more thorough approval of the state as a creature of God. The state is clearly a being, put here by God for the purpose of governance. It is also irreplaceable, which is shown by the fact that we owe it obedience in conscience. The state cannot fade from this world any more than God’s own authority could fade.
Antichrist will therefore attack the state, but that again is the subject of the next essay. The point here is Antichrist will also make use of the state to attack the family. One social entity will attack the other with all the irrationality of evil.
This attack is several centuries in the making, but the latest manifestation is the state’s attempt to redefine marriage. God created humans “male and female,” “blessed them,” and told them, “‘[b]e fruitful and multiply.'” Genesis 1:27-28. “[S]o it was,” and “God saw that all he had made was very good.” Genesis 1:30-31. God therefore constituted marriage, and Christ restored it as it was “‘from the beginning'” by forbidding divorce and remarriage. Matthew 19:8.
The state in certain places, however, has decreed that marriage is unrelated to the sex of the parties. It is immaterial for our purposes whether this was done through referendum, legislative action, or judicial decision. The sin, indeed the crime, is that severing marriage from the sex of the parties changes the definition of marriage, usurping the place of God.
Moreover, a so-called marriage between persons of the same sex institutionalizes sodomy, a “perversity . . . deserving of death.” Romans 1:27, 32. Since marriage is good, the unavoidable effect of calling sodomy marriage is to call it good. Here one sees a lie, a sure mark of Antichrist. Sodomy is further associated with “murder,” as St. Paul points out, along with a host of evils. Romans 1:29-31. This is the nature of the present attack on marriage.
Those who would choose Christ, and not Antichrist, must resist the lie of same-sex marriage. Under no circumstances may one call sodomy “marriage.” To do so is to approve of sodomy and demean marriage, something inadmissible for a Christian.
This could mean resisting the state, which brings us to the next essay.
IV. The State
St. Paul’s insistence on obedience to the state should give any Christian pause before considering resistance to it. St. Peter’s admonition is similar: “Be subject to every human creature for God’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors sent through him for vengeance on evildoers and for the praise of the good.” 1 Peter 2:13-14. But St. Peter also said: “‘We must obey God rather than men.'” Acts 5:29. So the question is the relationship between obedience to God and obedience to His creature, the state.
We could begin with the obedience humans owed to God before the state existed. The serpent promised Eve in part that, if she disobeyed God, she would “‘be like God, knowing good and evil.'” Genesis 3:5. The primordial temptation therefore included self-idolatry, and Scripture tells us that “‘God resists the proud.'” 1 Peter 5:5.
We could next allow ourselves to observe that self-idolatry has problems as a mode of temptation. Humans are small and weak, individually speaking, and thus an unsatisfactory object of worship. “Seventy is the sum of our years, or eighty, if we are strong, and most of them are fruitless toil, for they pass quickly and we drift away.” Psalm 89:10. Could not Antichrist suggest a more tempting path to self-idolatry?
Perhaps the family could be such a path. The self is social due to the family, so the family might seem an extension of the self. And since the family is larger and arguably more permanent than any member of it, it is a more plausible vehicle for self-idolatry.
The family is still relatively fragile, however, and it has no real authority over other families or individuals. It would be much better, from an idolatrous point of view, to identify the self with a larger, more permanent, and more powerful social being. The state is the obvious candidate.
But how could that be done in practice? Leaders of certain states in history have claimed divine status and demanded worship. Many Christians died in persecutions by such leaders. Cf. Apocalypse 13:15. This indicates the lie was not sufficiently subtle “‘to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.'” Mark 13:22.
Some modern leaders have attempted to embody the state. The Nazis, for example, asserted the Fuhrer was Germany and vice-versa, and communist parties have similarly conflated the party with the state. If these leaders could convince the people to identify with them, the people would in effect identify themselves with the state. Over time, however, few are really persuaded that one person or one political party can embody a state.
No, the lie must be better. What if a state were entirely neutral and administrative in character, leaving each person free to pursue his or her own desires, so long as those desires hurt no one else? The state would not ask if the desires were good or bad, true or false, but only whether they were chosen freely. The state would intervene when a choice harmed another, but only to ensure the person harmed could continue to pursue his or her own particular desires. So a person could do whatever he or she wanted within the limits of public order, enjoying freedom of religion, of speech, of association, and of movement. Each person might then identify the state with his or her own self because the state would putatively exist to further that person’s individual will. We may call this the “liberal” state, and the philosophy it expresses “liberalism.”
Could the liberal state acknowledge God? It depends on the state’s understanding of God. If God is a personal Being who knows and governs human affairs, the liberal state could not genuinely acknowledge Him. To do so would mean thinking about and then obeying His dictates, frustrating the state’s duty to the individual will. The liberal state could only acknowledge God if he were less distinct, perhaps an aloof figure who created the universe and set it in motion, or an object of mere opinion. Then the state could acknowledge God and still serve the individual will.
The liberal state, in any event, could never with full consideration acknowledge God as the source of its authority. To do so would oblige it to govern within His grant of authority, again frustrating the state’s duty to the individual will.
For a similar reason, the liberal state could not acknowledge the existence of social being, which would oblige it to act according to its God-given nature. The origin of the liberal state must be found in the governed, who constitute it by social compact.
Finally, the governed in the liberal state would express themselves as individuals in activities like voting, rather than as families. Lacking social being, the family becomes a collection of individuals. The individual, not the family, is the building block of the liberal state.
This would be a lie, of course, because the state does things no individual can do. An individual who cannot inflict capital punishment, wage war, or even levy taxes, can hardly transfer such powers to the state. The state must also decide between individuals who disagree on things like religion, speech, association, and movement. Thus the state will take sides, and taking sides means frustrating or stigmatizing the will of some in preference for the will of others. Liberalism is an illogical philosophy.
It is nevertheless a persuasive because it focuses on the self. Notice, in this respect, that liberalism does not require a particular means of choosing leaders. Universal suffrage is often identified with liberalism, but vast majorities can elect non-liberal regimes, as they do in the Middle East. Unelected officials like judges can rule in a liberal fashion. The point of liberalism is not the structure of government but its stated purpose, to empower the individual will. It is this connection between the purpose of government and the individual will that makes liberalism so attractive to self-idolaters.
Some Christians accept liberalism on the theory that it provides room for Christian belief. The theory is surprising because room implies empty space. Liberalism has its own belief system, and it unclear why some Christians fail to notice it.
The liberal state does not aim for the good and the true, but for individual choice. The state thus elevates choice over the good and the true. Since we choose with our will, and we perceive the good and the true with our reason, the liberal state elevates will over reason. The state’s resulting commitment to willfulness, which may be termed human voluntarism, is the belief system of liberalism.
Human voluntarism directly conflicts with belief in Christ as “‘the way, and the truth, and the life.'” John 14:6. A few of the conflicts are examined in the following essays.
V. Way
Way implies direction, which in turn implies a destination. What is the ultimate destination of the human person, meaning our lot after death? A liberal state says it will not address the question, leaving each person free to choose.
The liberal state is thus indifferent to the ultimate destination of the human person. Indifference regarding destination is rational in only two circumstances—no destination exists, or it is inevitably reached. In neither of these cases does direction matter.
By contrast, when Christ identified Himself as the way, the truth, and the life, He taught: “‘No one comes to the Father but through me.'” John 14:6. Later in the same discourse, Christ repeated the teaching with a warning:
“‘I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for without me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me, he shall be cast outside as the branch and wither; and they shall gather them up and cast them into the fire, and they shall burn.'” John 15:5-6.
So on the one hand, Christ proclaims He is the way to eternal life, and on the other hand, the liberal state proclaims the way does not matter. For the liberal state, either no destination after this life exists, or it is inevitably reached. Here is one belief of liberalism inimical to Christianity.
Is it not easy to see that Christians, who believe in the immortality of the soul and a final judgment, will have conflicts regarding the conduct of this life with those who deny such things? Is it not easy to see that the liberal state, if called upon to resolve such conflicts, will tend to rule against Christians? After all, the concerns of this world always tend to prevail for those who are indifferent about the next.
Some examples of the phenomenon are given later. Here it might be useful to consider a response sure to come from some defenders of liberalism. They will argue the state should be indifferent in matters of religion because the state is simply incompetent in such matters.
As is the case with liberalism generally, this argument sounds modest, even humble. But as is also the case with liberalism generally, it is actually totalitarian. The argument assumes that the liberal state’s competence and the common good are co-extensive; only in such a situation could the state remain indifferent to matters outside its competence and still protect the common good. All within the state, nothing outside the state, thus totalitarianism.
Assume for example that the Church announced an intent to conduct its mission with indifference towards civil law—zoning ordinances, building codes, contract law, etc.—because they were all outside its competence. The liberal state would undoubtedly inform the Church that another entity, the state itself, was competent in such matters, had decided them for the common good, and would impose its decision upon the Church. The same logic applies to areas outside the competence of the liberal state. Religion is important to the common good despite the state’s lack of competence over it. A believer might even insist that another entity, the Church, was competent in such matters, had decided them for the common good, and would impose its decision upon the state.[1]
A more sophisticated liberal will not so baldly assert that nothing of importance falls outside the state’s competence. This liberal will instead argue the state cannot use coercive force, a power peculiar to it, in an area outside its competence. So, even granting that religion is important for the common good, coercive force based on religion would be excluded by the state’s inherently limited nature. To hold anything else, the sophisticated liberal will insist, is totalitarian. Such a liberal will finally posit, as the flip side of the state’s limited nature, a civil right to be free from coercive force in religion.
The argument is only one step removed from the prior example. It shifts the focus to coercive force—certainly an unfortunate fact in our fallen world— but its premise remains the same: government may act only in areas within its particular competence. The argument further concedes that religion is important for the common good. Thus the argument, despite its greater sophistication, is more incoherent than the first. It posits a good society where coercive force is excluded in an area of importance to the common good, an obvious impossibility.
Having witnessed the horrors of internecine religious conflict, many Western thinkers after the Reformation nevertheless were willing to ignore such incoherence. They bought peace, for a time, by agreeing to disagree on the theological and moral points at issue in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Politics, however, is a practical art. Theoretical incoherence eventually reveals itself in practice. We therefore can ask whether the liberal state will refrain from coercive force in an area of importance like religion. That is the subject of the next two essays.
VI. Truth
The liberal state promises freedom though disregard of the truth. If we agree to disagree on religion and morality, the argument goes, we can all be free. Liberalism means more by this than toleration of evil for the sake of the common good, which is consistent with Christianity. The liberal state affirmatively refuses to govern according to truth, leaving individuals free to decide things for themselves.
The liberal state therefore cannot promise Christian freedom. Christ taught that freedom comes through truth: “‘If you abide in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.'” John 8:31-32. A Christian “can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth.” 2 Corinthians 13:8. Thus a Christian could never accept the view of the man who, when executing a solemn judgment of state, asked: “‘What is truth?'” John 18:38.
Christians who doubt this should consider whether the freedoms they have enjoyed in liberal states are attributable to the principles of liberalism or to the truth residual in those states from an era when the states were Christian. The progress of time indicates the latter.
Consider a married couple appearing before the liberal state, the branch or office of which is immaterial. One spouse does not want the public school to lead their children in prayer, the other wishes the prayers to continue. The liberal state will note that prayer implies religious truth. Since one spouse does not want the state to assert truth in such a fashion, the prayers will cease. Liberals believe this increases freedom because fewer assertions of religious truth by the state mean more freedom for individuals.
The spouses reappear when one wants to use contraception. The liberal state listens to the reasons for contraception, which probably relate to a desire for non-pregnancy over pregnancy. The liberal state also listens to the reasons against contraception, which might relate to its inherent immorality. The plea to use contraception will prevail because the freedom to do as one wants is more compelling to liberals than an appeal to an objective order of truth. Indeed, liberals will stigmatize obedience to objective truth as inherently oppressive of the sovereign will, the very basis for the state’s authority. Even if the spouse who opposes contraception argues for pregnancy on entirely pragmatic grounds, that spouse will still lose because the freedom of an individual not to have a child is more compelling to liberals than the freedom of a married person to have a child. Liberals do not recognize social being, so they do not recognize marriage as an entity with the specific purpose of bearing and raising children. It is only a contract between two individuals, and the freedom of an individual will prevail against the supposed purpose of a non-entity.
The couple appear again because one spouse wants a divorce with no proof of fault. This spouse’s assertion of will against the marriage contract appears more free to the liberal state than the alternative of enforcing the contract. Furthermore, there is no entity of marriage to protect. Appeals to Christ’s teaching on marriage will obviously fall on deaf ears. The liberal state grants the divorce.
The ex-wife was pregnant before the divorce, and she asks for an abortion because she does not want the fetus. The ex-husband contends the fetus is a human being, and that he as the father has standing to object to its death. The liberal state will devise a right to abortion because claims of objective truth are rejected generally, and because the father is not in possession of the fetus. His will does not seem as immediate to liberals as the mother’s. The mother wants to be rid of something she already has, but the father wants to keep something he does not yet have. The former seems like more of a burden on the individual human will, so abortion will be allowed in the name of freedom.
Finally, one ex-spouse wishes to marry someone of the same sex, and he or she appears before the liberal state for an order requiring the second ex-spouse, a caterer by profession, to serve the wedding. The second ex-spouse does not want to serve the wedding, so the liberal state is again confronted with conflicting wills. How to choose? Well, the first ex-spouse appeals directly to will. He or she wants to marry someone of the same sex in the same fashion and with the same rights as an opposite-sex couple. The second ex-spouse appeals to an objective order of truth perceivable by reason. He or she does not want to participate in something inherently evil.
Importantly, both ex-spouses identify liberty as their grounds to prevail, but the liberties differ. For the first ex-spouse, liberty is the ability to choose without reference to an objective order of truth. He or she wants sodomy to be treated like marriage, and any other result is an unjust restraint on that will. When the second ex-spouse argues liberty, however, it is not a liberty to do as one likes. The second ex-spouse means a liberty to live in the truth. He or she might even point out that living in the truth is the real purpose and fulfillment of liberty.
Is there any doubt over the outcome in a liberal state? Human voluntarism does not recognize a liberty to live in the truth. Human voluntarism recognizes a different sort of liberty. It distains the will which bends to reason’s perception of the objective order, and it favors the will which bends reason to the service of desire. License is liberty in the liberal state.
Reaching this point may take time; it may even take centuries if a liberal state were to succeed a state so focused on truth that it had named itself “Christendom.” But with sufficient time for liberal principles to assert themselves, the new liberty will replace the old liberty. The liberal state will enforce its view of things, and the Christian will no longer be free.
Some Christians attempt to defend their freedoms by repeating promises of long-dead liberals who lived in more Christian times and thus did not draw the conclusions of liberal principles. But there is no tradition in liberalism. To the extent possible, liberals interpret appeals to liberty based on human voluntarism. The past means nothing to them because it was compromised by all sorts of non-liberal beliefs. Liberals care only about the future, when the promise of perfect liberty will be achieved.
But what sort of future will it be? St. Paul tells us:
“[K]now this, that in the last days dangerous times will come. Men will be lovers of self, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, criminal, heartless, faithless, slanders, incontinent, merciless, unkind, treacherous, stubborn, puffed up with pride, loving pleasure more than God, having a semblance indeed of piety, but disowning its power.” 2 Timothy 3:1-5.
St. Paul’s advice to “avoid these” will be difficult for Christians accustomed to a residually Christian state. 2 Timothy 3:5. Yet Christians will have no choice when the liberal state demands cooperation with evil:
“What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what part has the believer with the unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God and idols? For you are the temple of the living God . . . . Wherefore, ‘Come out from among them, be separated, says the Lord, and touch not an unclean thing; and I will welcome you in, and will be a Father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord almighty.’” 2 Corinthians 6:15-18.
VII. Life
Life is hard for liberals. Without Christ and the objective order of truth established by Him, liberals sense the powerlessness of their own wills. Choice for the sake of choice is random.
Liberals nevertheless refuse to seek meaning with the light of reason. They insist on choosing in the dark. Willful choices are their only path forward, and they take that path as necessary to exercise the worship intrinsic to our nature. Liberals find meaning in changing the world, either from the way it was, or, after the change, from the way it would be absent liberal policies. They disregard warnings or complaints about consequences because the object of choice in human voluntarism is not the good and the true but the will itself. “‘[I]f the light that is in thee is darkness, how great is the darkness itself!'” Matthew 6:23.
The liberal state therefore hunts for dark choices, seeking increasingly pure expressions of will against the reality of God. The liberal state protests it is only deciding issues brought before it, but in reality liberals work together to further the agenda. All is presented as a disinterested unfolding of liberty against backward, ignorant forces.
And truthfully, few in positions of power are capable of making a serious defense of the objective order. Advancement in the liberal state requires at least some acceptance of liberal principles, and one cannot attack liberalism with liberal principles. Those who do not desire darkness are left confused and shiftless, without a defense other than on procedure—that a certain action is in defiance of the constitution, for example, or is supported by demagogic tactics.
But if liberals do not care about the objective order of truth, they certainly do not care about procedure. The overweening power of the courts in the United States is a perfect example. The courts have asserted jurisdiction over innocent human life with respect to abortion, over morality with respect to contraception and sodomy, and over nature itself with respect to same-sex marriage. It is laughable in this sense to complain the courts have overstepped the bounds laid down by the constitution. The courts have overstepped the bounds laid down by God. But of course the United States constitution, being a liberal document, does not mention God and forbids the state from establishing a religion. The liberal state was then left to make itself god, an establishment which does not appear to violate the constitution.
It is sad many Christians were in possession of a Christian state and yet drifted into a liberal one. It is alarming some Christians now confuse the two. The process has been long and involved, and it is not our task to judge the subjective disposition of those who accommodated the transition. Our task is to suffer the consequences with a “heart [that] is firm, trusting in the Lord.” Psalm 111:7.
“Oh, the depths of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways! For ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor? Or who has first given to him, that recompense should be made him?’ For from him and through him and unto him are all things. To him be the glory forever, amen.” Romans 11:33-36.
VIII. The end
The end of the world is described in St. John’s Apocalypse. The great saint saw “under the altar” of heaven “the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God, and for the witness that they bore.” Apocalypse 6:9. These souls “cried with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, O Lord (holy and true), dost thou refrain from judging and from avenging our blood on those who dwell on earth?'” Apocalypse 6:10. “And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told to rest a while longer, until the number of their fellow-servants and their brethren who are to be slain, even as they had been, should be complete.” Apocalypse 6:11.
St. John also saw “a great multitude which no man could number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and with palms in their hands.” Apocalypse 7:9. They had “‘come out of the great tribulation, and . . . washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.'” Apocalypse 7:14. The saint was assured that “‘the Lamb who is in the midst of throne will shepherd them, and will guide them to the fountains of the waters of life, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.'” Apocalypse 7:17.
At the end of his vision, St. John saw the final judgment itself:
“And I saw a great white throne and the one who sat upon it; from his face the earth and heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. And another scroll was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of those things that were written in the scrolls, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up the dead that were in them; and they were judged each one, according to their works.
And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death, the pool of fire. And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the pool of fire.
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and the sea is no more. And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. . . .
And he who was sitting on the throne said, ‘Behold, I make all things new!’ And he said, ‘Write, for these words are trustworthy and true.’ And he said to me, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To him who thirsts I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely. He who overcomes shall possess these things, and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But as for the cowardly and unbelieving, and abominable and murders, and fornicators and sorcerers, and idolaters and all liars, their portion shall be in the pool that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.'” Apocalypse, 20:11 – 21:3, 21:5-8.
This is the end of every human being, eternal life or everlasting death. The end extends backwards through time to the present, and our actions lead in turn to the end. To choose Christ under grace is to accept the Judge of all time, but to deny Him willfully is to accept with Antichrist the fate of the damned. The event will occur either at the close of one’s own life or finally with the appearance of Antichrist himself:
“Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I used to tell you these things? And now you know what restrains him, that he may be revealed in his proper time. . . . And then the wicked one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth and will destroy with the brightness of his coming.
And his coming is according to the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all wicked deception to those who are perishing. For they have not received the love of truth that they might be saved. Therefore God sends them a misleading influence that they may believe falsehood, that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have preferred wickedness.” 2 Thessalonians 2:3-6, 8-12.
These passages are difficult, but they indicate the final seduction to idolatry will focus on one man, the son of perdition. Antichrist is already tilling the field by focusing attention on one man or one woman, the individual self. Worship of self means ignoring Christ:
“‘Then he will say to those on his left hand, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you did not give me to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take me in; naked, and you did not clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit me.”” Matthew 25:41-43.
It is no answer for disciples of the liberal state to claim the state is doing these things for them. The state is not an extension of a person, but a social being created by God. A state acts mercifully when it does good works, but unless a person acts in some fashion through the state’s agency to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, etc., the works of state are not attributable to that person.
Moreover, the liberal state shows distain for the “least ones” Christ identifies with Himself. Matthew 25:45. Because the liberal state glorifies individual will, it glorifies power. The will is, after all, only the power to choose. Unrestrained by Christ and His objective order of truth, the liberal state will have its way with marriage, children, and the human conscience generally.
So the way is difficult, but this is precisely what Christ taught when asked, “‘Lord, are only a few to be saved?'” Luke 13:23. He answered:
“‘Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. But when the master of the house has entered and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and knock at the door saying, ‘Lord, open for us!’ And he shall say to you in answer, ‘I do not know where you are from.’ Then you shall begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and thou didst teach in our streets.’ And he shall say to you, ‘I do not know where you are from. Depart from me, all you workers of iniquity.’ . . . And behold, there are those last who will be first, and there are those first who will be last.'” Luke 13:24-27, 30.
We must choose Christ, so He knows where we are from. We must not choose Antichrist, even if it means we are last in this world. Christ or Antichrist is the narrow gate.
[1] 2023 note: A reader shocked by this assertion may consult Brian Tierney, The Crisis of Church & State 1050-1300 (Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1964), for a historical exposition of the thesis that Church opposition to the state produced the present constitutional limits on the state. See also: Issues with Integralism.