There are times in history when the pulse of religious life beats faintly; but there are times when its beat is pounding, and the latter was the case in the 16th century among the nations of Western Europe. The question of faith at that time dominated every activity in public life. New history starts out from this faith, even as the history of our times starts from the unbelief of the French Revolution.^[i]

These words were penned more than one hundred years ago by the redoubtable Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper. From his nineteenth-century perspective, the new history was the seventeenth-century development of the United States driven by religious zeal that waned and became lukewarm. By the eighteenth century, there were two competing philosophies: the revivalism of the Great Awakening and emerging atheism. Kuyper viewed the latter as more powerful in defining events and culture of the eighteenth century and beyond. And he viewed the genesis of the atheistic experiments to be the eighteenth-century French Revolution.

The French experiment was the first large-scale attempt to build a secular society. It failed miserably because the centering point was man not God. Seeking to build a society based on mankind being the focus is called humanism.

Notwithstanding the failure of the eighteenth-century French Revolution, other attempts to structure a society based on humanism continue. These attempts are always based on the same premise, namely, that finite mankind can redefine reality without an external, eternal reference point (i.e., a Creator).

Some examples of these attempts are the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia (early twentieth century), Hitler and Nazi Germany (mid twentieth century), and Mao Zedong in China (the latter half of the twentieth century). Like the French, all have failed to produce the promised utopia—freedom from human tyranny and the promotion of egalitarianism.

The political and economic system associated with these experiments is Marxism, which claims to address the problems of human inequality and tyrannical government. However, it deals with neither. Marxism separates people into two categories: the ruling class and everyone else. The ruling class (elite) flourishes while everyone else struggles under the oppression of the elite. Therefore, Marxism does not solve the problems of human inequality and tyrannical government; it simply repackages them. Marxism is then humanism, hypocrisy, and tyranny.

Seeking to build a society by exalting mankind and denigrating God—the Creator and sustainer of all—is doomed to failure. If you believe in a sovereign, transcendent Creator, how could you believe that exalting mankind and denigrating the Creator would be blessed?

To embrace Marxism is to reject the sovereign, transcendent, intentional, and strategic Creator and sustainer of the universe. For those who embrace Scripture as the Word of God and, therefore, a Christian view of reality, Marxism is a ruse.

Scripture attributes the existence of physical reality to a sovereign, transcendent Creator, who is the source and sustainer of the universe and the definer of all truth and reality for the universe.

The Creator chose to govern the physical world through a system of timeless universal principles (TUP). When mankind seeks to redefine any aspect of TUP contrary to God’s definitions, this is rebellion.

In the eighteenth century, those who opposed God’s system of truth and reality were called revolutionaries. And those who sought to support God’s system were called anti-revolutionaries.

The pillars of the eighteenth-century French revolutionaries were expressed through four concepts: convention, consent, coercion, and consensus as understood in the following ways.^[ii]

Convention meant that society—its structures and institutions—can be shaped any way men choose.
Consent meant that, to be valid, authority must have the approval of those under it.
Coercion meant that law and justice are decided by those who are in power.
Consensus meant that truth is determined by the public opinion of the day.

The anti-revolutionaries believed the opposite. They contended that there was:

a given (God-ordained) order anchored in the creation;
limited authority (ordained by God) but valid rights of a diversity of offices (i.e., authority is delegated by God to the jurisdictions of family, local church, workplace, and public policy);
an objective standard of justice rooted in the righteousness of a holy God; and
truth that is independent of human beings (transcendent) and ultimately derives from divine revelation.

The revolutionaries of the eighteenth century, and all those who followed them, failed in their experiments to bifurcate society from God. Their presumptive actions were an attempt to self-commission, that is, to define truth and reality as they wished without God; and, therefore, to self-define how and why they would live individually and as a society.

If, however, the universe is created, how can one expect to achieve long-term success by denying and defying the sovereign, transcendent Creator? Self-commissioning is doomed to failure. Perhaps this is another definition of insanity, the presumption that mankind can denigrate God and self-define truth and reality.

The only proper way to live in God’s universe is to align with him—his will and his ways. Proper alignment is seen, in part, through divinely directed commissioning. God creates each person with intent and purpose. When the Lord calls a person or persons to a work assignment, wisdom is to recognize the calling and support it by commissioning people to fulfill their assignments.

An example of proper alignment with God is given in Acts 13:1–3. The Lord revealed his calling on Barnabas and Saul to the leaders of the first-century Christian community at Antioch. The leaders responded by commissioning Barnabas and Saul and then sending them out to do the work. The commissioning included fasting, prayer, and laying-on of hands. It was clearly a public event executed by the leaders of the community who represented God and served as his human agents to commission Barnabas and Saul to their God-ordained work. And according to Acts 13:4, it was understood that the Holy Spirit was the ultimate commissioning agent of Barnabas and Saul. This means that Barnabas and Saul were not self-commissioned to a humanly defined assignment; they were commissioned—sent out by humans acting under the direction of God—to a divinely ordained assignment.

Divine commissioning can only happen when mankind humbles himself and exalts God. But the popular pattern of the day, particularly since the eighteenth century, was not and is not characterized by humility; rather, it is characterized by pride—exalting mankind and denigrating God. This will lead to the human presumption of self-commissioning—seeking to live according to the will and ways of man.

The divine response to self-commissioning is seen in the story of Adonijah—one of King David’s sons who sought to make himself king (1 Kings 1 and 2). When David was near the end of his life, Adonijah self-commissioned himself to succeed his father. However, this was not the king’s plan. Therefore, not only did Adonijah fail to succeed his father, but his foolish attempt to self-commission ended in his death.

Humanism leads to self-commissioning that leads to death. Self-commissioning is rooted in sin and will never go well.

May we all learn the importance of living aligned with divine commissioning and resist the humanistic desire to self-commission. The only way to live wisely in God’s universe is to live obedient to him.

And may we have the grace to return to a society that is governed by faith in the sovereign, transcendent God of the universe as revealed in the Bible. God who is the source and sustainer of all life sovereignly controls his universe and only blesses obedience to his will and ways (Psalm 1).

________________________________

i. Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, Kindle Edition, 24.

ii. Groen van Prinsterer, Unbelief and Revolution (Lexham Press, Kindle Edition), 14.