Dominion and Common Grace - Reviewing Gary North's publication 5

 Hijacking Christian Mercy 

One interesting idea of North is Satan’s use of an ‘inside man’. This kind of person has been raised in a church (or Christianized community) and he then uses the things he learned there to work for the devil.1  He mentions Judas as example; this disciple did not follow Jesus wholeheartedly. Apparently, he was attracted to Jesus for his personal benefits.2  While he seemed to care most for the poor, he actually stole from the ‘deaconal fund’ for his own benefit. And, when it became quite clear that Jesus’ kingdom was not going to give him any status or privilege (as minister of finance, for instance), he decided to share inside information with the enemies, which sought to destroy him. The enemies of God effectively rebel against Christianity by borrowing from it.3  They do not realize or they refuse to see the great inconsistency in their approach. Gandhi became familiar with the teachings of Jesus when he studied in Britain. While Britain -as a country and culture- no longer embraced the Word of God, its citizens were yet appalled to learn about the violent attack on peacefully protesting Indians under the direction of Gandhi. The Word of God had given great blessings to the British, yet these were also abused through the idolatry of greed and pride. Then the lingering morality was instrumental to undo the blessings: dominion was lost and the British Empire began to fall apart. 

Why are Social Justice warriors, the Whiteness-haters, and the pushers for the gender rainbow so strong in Western countries and not in South East Asia? Why do we hear demands of restitution about black slavery by whites in America while we never hear about similar demands for white slavery by blacks in North Africa in earlier times. Pre-Christian societies have no mercy for the oppressed, like women, slaves, the sickly, or the handicapped. They ‘know’ that caring for the weak makes the whole nation weaker, so nobody endorses such silly notions. That’s why Jesus’ way of achieving power and dominion through humility and weakness was rejected by Jews and Greeks alike. Although the historian Tom Holland is not a Christian, he acknowledges that without Christianity the world would be much worse than it is. 

Why would the Communists care for the peasants or the factory workers? Because they wanted to mobilize them for the revolution against the successful groups, which were called ‘oppressive’. And then, after the revolution, they lost interest in those whom they used for their own advancement, and they themselves became the oppressors. They lied, by suggesting that they acted from love, for they acted out of jealousy, hatred, and revenge. 

So, why is the West becoming Woke? Because it is a post-Christian culture. Like Tom Holland, they rejected God and the Truth, yet they cling to the biblical idea of caring for the oppressed. And, because they left the faith, they now turn against God, his Word, and his church, by jumping onto the bandwagon of so-called ‘Social Justice’. The God-given privileges for the nations that respected the Bible are now seen as oppressive, white, and evil. The blessings of God in a day of rest, in morality, in sexuality, marriages, and discipline are now seen as the root of all evil.   

And so, the biblical model for ‘the last will be first’ is hijacked by the Social Justice warriors and their allies to destroy the source of all blessings. And, many of their greatest allies are liberal churches and their members. They no longer want to make disciples of Jesus, who submit to his teaching. Rather, they only want to show ‘warm-fuzzy’ love which supports people of other religions in their idolatries, not believing this will lead to greater judgment. And so, they have become a major catalyst of moral, cultural, and economic destruction. If the sun will continue to set on the west, the moment of truth will come when the world will realize the lie. For it is then that people will realize and acknowledge that ‘caring for the oppressed’ was a Christian idea that should have been rejected in the first place. Perhaps then the end will come.

1 Dominion, p.220.

2 He was not the only one who thought like this. Matthew 20:20-28, Mark 10:35-45.

3 Dominion, p.219.

Dominion and Common Grace - Reviewing Gary North's publication 4

Postmillennialism

As newcomer into Gary North’s thinking, I know fairly little about Postmillennialism and I had never heard of the Dominion Covenant. I grew up in a mostly amillennial church climate that took the Cultural Mandate seriously made serious attempts to bring the Christian worldview to bear on all areas of life. 

Looking at Bible history and church history I see a series of waves with times of (spiritual) growth as well as times of (spiritual) decline. In different geographic regions, such waves are usually not synchronized, although waves in some areas often trigger later waves in others. 

Matthew 1 seems to show Israel’s history on a macro-scale as one major wave, representing the rise and fall of God’s Kingdom, followed by a time of anticipation for a whole new beginning with the coming of the Christ. Within this macro-wave, we find many secondary waves, more limited in space and/or time. The book of Judges, for instance, reveals a series of relatively short waves, where God refused to let his Kingdom deconstruct all the way. Every successive judge brought a revival, even though these were often local and certainly short-lived. 

Possibly, the flow of Church history has a similar pattern. As the Gospel spread across the world, it was followed by blessings in many areas of life. The secular world refuses to acknowledge this, but men like Vishal Mangalwadi have tried to set the record straight on this.1

Now large parts of the human world are turning against their Provider-God, his Word, and his Church, two things can happen. Either God will let them give a taste of life without (the blessings of) God, so that there will be a reformation and revival. Or, God has decided that the end has come altogether, that is: the end of Satan’s resistance. In that case we should expect that God would intervene in a decisive way to bring judgment and full and permanent restoration of his Kingdom. 

Certainly, there are certain theories, built on selective passages, that argue for an overarching trend of (spiritual) growth or decline, but I do not see how we can have absolute certainty that the model of our preference must be the only true or permissible perspective. So, I am not convinced that God’s elect will be on-masse raptured from this wicked world or that there is or will be a literal thousand-year period where Christ and his followers will rule the world, while evil perhaps continues to spoil the earth. 

Will the ultimate victory, with or without a physical presence of the returning Christ, happen before the end of times? Postmillenials seem to be convinced of this. In Gary North’s book I have not found much if any substantial evidence for this scenario. 

North refers to passages from prophecies, parable, and proverbs to underscore his thesis. Are all prophecies, like Isaiah 65:17-20, referring to literal truth in historical times? Are parables illustrating a specific point, or may we derive all kinds of ‘truths’ from them? Regarding the parable of the wheat and tares,2 North writes, “We must deal with the historical development of the wheat and tares.” We must see that this process leads to … Christian victory in history.3  ‘We must see’? Is that really so evident from this parable, or only so for those who look with postmillennial eyes? 

Progress and Dominion 

North insists that “Christians will someday possess cultural, economic, and political power through their adherence to biblical law.”4  Where did God promise this or Jesus teach this? We are warned for persecution and called to suffering! Jesus says, “Take up your cross”, not “Take up your scepter”. 

North claims that “Only a fool or a heretic would deny theological progress.”5  Elsewhere, he argues that “Christianity’s influence is spreading and beginning to affect every area of life. Why should it be spreading? Because more Christians are living more consistently (in their walk and talk) with the biblical principles of dominion.” 6

It may have convinced the churches in 1987, but does this convince the church today, when many of not most churches are more concerned about the oppression of women, people of color, fat folks, handicapped people, and the alphabet groups, particularly by Christians and orthodox churches? 

If Christians were to rule the earth, as North suggests, would this be a blessing for all? In my experience, North is too optimistic. First, because sacrificially loving Christians will be mixed with self-serving Christians, and hypocrites are an ever-present danger for the church on earth. Second, because greater power leads to greater corruption, even among the believers and in churches. I have worked for Christian school boards and public-school boards, and in my experience most secular schools treated me with greater fairness than Christian schools. Third, when Christians rule they will disagree with each other whether or not to give equal freedom to Jews, Hindus, or Muslims and whether or not all citizens should be forced to keep the Sabbath Day at all, on Sundays or on Saturdays. Are we, as Christians really called to take dominion in every area of life? How did the early church do this under the rule of evil emperors? How does the church do this today in countries like Iran, China or Afghanistan? 

Sure, there are passages in the Old Testament that suggests that obedience to God results in material blessings. In the case of Jabez, prosperity came as God’s response to his prayer. Judah’s offspring had fallen so far, but Jabez -in his fear of the curse of pain- cried out to God, and he received mercy. 

Yet, the general truth that obedience results in prosperity is not a guarantee or promise for all. Job learned the hard way that general truths are not guarantees for life. Throughout history, many faithful servants lived in pain and poverty. The desire for material wealth is spiritually destructive. Paul calls it the root of all kinds of evil and Jesus said that it is particularly difficult for wealthy men to enter the Kingdom of God. The failure of Solomon, though he was a wise man, is just one obvious example. 

Sure, on a larger scale we can recognize the blessings from obedience. As Vishal Mangalwadi and others demonstrated, when the Gospel spread into Europe, it resulted in improved health and wealth, better legislation and greater liberty, better education and technology. Yet, just as Israel experienced God’s curse when they turned away from their Provider, so today “the sun is setting on the West.” Indeed, it appears that God is allowing Western culture, education, science, and economy to collapse to show what the world is actually wishing for. Will the rebels wake up from their own woke illusions?

1 Vishal Mangalwadi: The Book that made your world- How the Bible created the Soul of Western Civilization. Nelson, 2011, This Book Changed Everything- The Bible's Amazing Impact on our World. Sought After Media, 2019.

2 Matthew 13:24-30.

3 Dominion, p. 68.

4 Dominion, p. 97, 98.

5 Dominion, p. 101

6 Dominion, p. 219.

Dominion and Common Grace - Reviewing Gary North's publication 3

Truths in Tension 

The Bible clearly teaches the Sovereignty of God. Yet, throughout the Bible it is also clear that every human is responsible to respond to his/her God-given gifts. And, there cannot be a real responsibility without a real choice. This freedom to choose, however, does not mean that the one who must choose has the power to make the right choice. Nobody will or can seek God without the re-creating work of the Holy Spirit. 

The difficulty comes with trying to keep God’s Sovereignty and the human responsibility together. It’s like trying to create a flat map from a spherical globe; you must resort to some stretching or cutting to make it work. The human mind frame is too small to keep some apparently contradictory truths together. Or, it’s like juggling two balls -like a blue and an orange ball- with one hand. If we focus our attention mostly on the blue ball, we can easily drop the orange one and vice versa. Unless we insist on balance, we may well end up holding on to our favorite ball, while we lose sight of the other one. 

Consequently, theologians frequently focus mostly on human responsibility (as in Arminianism) and freedom or put the primary focus on the Sovereignty of God. 

The first approach invariably results in the chipping away from the Sovereignty of God. Philip Yancey, for instance, argues that God took a risk when he left the final decision (for obedience and faith) totally and only up to human beings. R.C. Sproul argued that this cannot be. Even if there were one atom in the whole universe outside of God’s control, there could not be a guarantee that God’s Kingdom would ever be restored. In this (Arminian) camp, consistent reasoning can lead to the heresy of Pelagius or the Open Theism of Clark Pinnock. 

The second approach tends to view humanity and people in a static way as either elect or reprobate; there is no real well-meant offer for all people, for God cannot ‘mean well’ or show mercy to the reprobates. If Arminianism thrives in the more liberal churches, forms of Hyper-Calvinism are not uncommon in Reformed churches. Personally, I have heard and fought church leaders argue that ‘It is totally wrong to talk about ‘accepting’ Christ as only He can accept us. Or, that you cannot sing “I have decided to follow Jesus”, for it was only God’s decision to make us follow him. Once I was challenged in a church council meeting because I hold that ‘faith’ is not only a gift of God, it is just as much the work of the regenerated person. Another time, a former Protestant Reformed member argued I could not teach the young people since I had written that the Holy Spirit also works in the unregenerate. 1

This approach typically leads to the presumption or assumption that all church members are true believers so that there rarely or never is a call to real self-examination. Some thereby equate covenant and election, believing that in infant baptism the Holy Spirit guarantees the babies and their parents that he will dwell in them and sanctify them so that they will live with God forever. Others warn their congregants, who outwardly live like Christians not to partake of the communion unless they have received a personal revelation to assure them that they are elect. Sadly, many are thus prevented to embrace the promises of God, which are also for them and come to real faith. Thank God, the men who started The Gospel Coalition have grasped these ‘truths in tension’. I would recommend Don Carson’s ‘Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility’2  and his ‘The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God’3

Reasoning from a Predestination Perspective 

Although ultimately God’s sovereignty must imply predestination, this cannot be our primary perspective of evaluating human beings. In daily life it does not work for us, for the man who is known as a wonderful servant of God may yet end up in hell, and the one whom we see as the greatest of all sinners may actually be saved by the powerful re-creative work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, even if we know that predestination is a fact, we cannot use this perspective in practical ministry. 

Neither does the Bible approach people from an eternal-decree perspective. Rather, it sees people as recipients of God’s good gifts and at each level there are those who receive the gifts in loving thankfulness and voluntary service and others, who do not do so and refuse to seek their gracious Father-King. 

North likes the Protestant Reformed view, expressed and promoted by Herman Hoeksema. This starts with God’s sovereignty -and therefore with predestination, whereby there is little or no room left for a well-meant Gospel offer 4 or a love for a demon-possessed pagan girl. If God just loves some and hates the others, why did he show compassion with or look with pity on the Samaritan woman at the well or the multitude in Nineveh?5  North argues that ‘The perfect love of God necessarily involves the perfect hatred of God’s enemies.’ Jonah could only see the wicked city as ‘God’s enemies’, but God taught him that his thinking is too simplistic, for God still showed pity as he looked upon his ‘children’ there. Did God love or hate King Saul? The end of the story shows him as a reprobate, but does that mean that God did not love him when he blessed him in his younger years? Samuel, the man of God, loved Saul, but he also had to adjust his views to see that Saul actually hated God. How could Jesus love to gather the prophet-killing ‘Jerusalem’?6  If we see people only in an absolute love-hate division, we have not grasped the difficult doctrine of the love of God. 

North refers to Romans 12:20, where Paul quotes Proverbs 25:21-22, as the best revelation on God’s attitude to the Romans’ enemies. Although the image of ‘burning coals’ to be piled on the sinner’s head refers to judgment, it must also serve to bring him to repentance and faith. We, too, must love our enemies in the realization that also we were at one time God’s enemies and while we were in that state, God lavished his love on us. How do we know whether our display of love towards others may be used by the Spirit to make sinners turn to the Source of love!? God does want us to proclaim the Good News (!) to all, and he wants its recipients, the hearers, to accept the Word and be reconciled with (their true Father) God! 

The Difficult Doctrine 

According to Gary North, God has and shows no love for those whom he did not elect for his ‘effective grace’. Klaas Schilder agreed with Herman Hoeksema that ‘common grace’ was merely a postponement of judgment, and therefore he did not want to talk of common ‘grace’. Yet, when the Protestant Reformed churches made this approach a doctrinal prerequisite in their 1951 ‘Brief Declaration of Principles’, Schilder no longer recommended the Liberated Reformed emigrants to Canada to join this denomination. 

He wrote a series of articles, later published as a brochure, called ‘Extra-scriptural Binding- a New Danger’.7  Gary North suggests that the gifts for the reprobates are undeserved, thus gracious gifts, but finds that ‘favor’ implies sympathy or love. And, if God hates the reprobates with perfect hatred, there cannot be any room for love. And yet, North does speak about God’s love for the reprobate,8 but this ‘love’ is defined as negative in its emotional attachment, and also judicial. Instead of blessings, there are only wrathful curses. 

To some degree this can be an issue of semantics, but -as I suggested before- North’s concept of the love of God is too simplistic. It follows from human reasoning, which grabs hold of God’s Sovereignty and predestination, and thereby must limit God’s love for his children, whom have not (yet) turned to Him. 

For support, North refers to Romans 9:13, where God is quoted through Malachi’s prophecy, “Esau I have hated”, but what would happen if he did the same thing with Luke 14:26, where Jesus said, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple”? Allow me to give some very relevant and insightful quotes from D.A. Carson’s booklet ‘The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God.’ 

In the first chapter, Carson describes five different kinds of ‘love of God’. The third one refers to the fallen world. John 3:16: God so loved the world that he sacrificed his Son. 

“I know that some try to take KOSMOS (“world”) here to refer to the elect. But that really will not do. All the evidence of the usage of the word in John’s Gospel is against the suggestion”… In John’s vocabulary, world is primarily the moral order in willful and culpable rebellion against God. In John 3:16 God’s love in sending the Lord Jesus is to be admired … because it is extended to such a bad thing, … to such wicked people.9   To rebels the sovereign Lord calls out, “As surely as I live…I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?” 10

 “It is easy to see what will happen if any of these five biblical ways of talking about the love of God is absolutized and made exclusive, or made the controlling grid by which the other ways of talking about the love of God are relativized.” “If the love of God refers exclusively to his love for the elect, it is easy to drift toward a simple and absolute bifurcation: God loves the elect and hates the reprobate. Rightly positioned, there is truth in this assertion; stripped of complementary biblical truths, that same assertion has engendered hyper-Calvinism. I use the term advisedly, referring to groups within the Reformed tradition that have forbidden the free offer of the Gospel.” 11

1 Stephen, for instance, warns the unreopentant Jews to stop resisting the Holy Spirit. Acts 7:51.

2 D.A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility- Biblical perspectives in tension. Baker Books, 1994. 

3 D.A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Crossway, 1999.

4 https://www.amazon.com/Well-Meant-Gospel-Offer-H-Hoeksema-Schilder/dp/B000ZEXJXG, and The Covenant of Grace Revisited

5 Jonah 5:11.

6 Matthew 23:37.

7 Inheritance Publications, 1996.

8 Dominion, p. 205.

9 D.A. The Difficult Doctrine, p. 17.

10 Ezekiel 33:11; Carson, p.18.

11 Carson, p. 21, 22.

Dominion and Common Grace - Reviewing Gary North's publication 2

Common Grace

The Thesis What is ‘common grace’? (167) North states that, 

“The thesis of this book is that the best way to explain common grace is by comparing it to the crumbs that fall to sinners who sit under the table of the Lord. The key question with respect to the timing of God’s judgment against sinners is this: When do they attempt to destroy the table of the Lord? In other words, when do they do their ethically best to kill, remove, or persecute God’s church?” 

The picture of the front cover shows one end of this table covered with fairly large plates with chunks of fairly dry, white bread. Some crumbs have fallen off, and a little naked girl seems to reach out to the largest of these crumbs. 

Apparently, North sees the crumb-crawlers as the reprobates, that is: those who are hated by God and therefore destined for their well-deserved damnation. Nevertheless, they are still recipients of a ‘trickle-down effect’ from the blessings for God’s only loved ones even though they will never be thankful and repentant. To the contrary, they will use God’s lesser gifts in order to rebel against the gracious Giver. And when they finally attack, trying to grab the better blessings, the table will fall on them in judgment. 

Gary North apparently suggests that ‘common grace’ is only for ‘sinners’ under the table. Supposedly, those truly loved by God are seated at the banquet table, while all others are mere crumb-crawlers. I assume he defines ‘sinners’ here as those whose minds and lives are dominated by sin,1  but can we equate this with the reprobates? Apparently, this is implied in Gary’s exposition. 

Nevertheless, Paul reasons with the Romans that ‘God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.’ In other words, those Christians in Rome used to be sinners, but -by God’s grace- they have now been saved and invited at the Master’s table. Once a sinner does not imply: always a sinner! The Good News is that there is hope for sinners. And, what about those, seated at the banquet table (yet, missing in the picture)? Are they not included in the recipients of ‘common grace’? We will discuss this in a later paragraph. 

 The Canaanite Woman 

North’s metaphor seems to relate to the Bible story of Jesus, when he meets a Canaanite woman. We read this in Matthew 15: 21-28. In preceding and following stories Jesus feeds thousands of people, who apparently came to seek healing. And right in the middle there is just one pagan woman, who seeks the blessing of healing for her daughter, who is demon-possessed. 

That the picture shows a naked girl seems to confirm that this is the demon-possessed girl. Jesus appears to dismiss her (and her mother) as they do not belong to the covenant people of Israel, being of Canaanite background. But is that really his intent, or does the Teacher pursue the popular rhetoric in order to create an opportunity for her ‘great faith’ to be revealed? For, when the mother continues her pleas in spite of Jesus’ (apparent) dismissal, he then praises her for her great faith. Concerning the thousands that were healed and fed before and afterwards, we find no such commendation from the Lord. Yet, for this one Canaanite woman, who loved her daughter and trusted in the power and mercy of the rabbi Jesus, we find surprising faith, which brings out God’s amazing grace. Perhaps the story of the Canaanite woman fits in Jesus’ story line when he ‘preached’ in his home town: 

I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.” 2

So, the Canaanite woman and her daughter may well be another sign and evidence of the coming Kingdom restoration. Many last ones, like a demon-possessed pagan girl, will end up as the first! In the end, she gets offered much more than crumbs! 

How can North be sure that she and her mother are reprobates, who cannot come to saving faith? I think we should not see those who live in sin as reprobates but as not-yet-believers, with the understanding that they, too, are invited to come to the Table by true faith. Even though the Good News turns out bad news for those who reject it, is therefore not a good message for all who hear it? 

As we read in Genesis 9:1-17, God made a covenant with all the earth, all its creatures,3  and especially all people.4  All people -yes, all earthly creatures- are included in the post-flood covenant. God reveals himself as their Creator (like sons, they were created in his image), Savior (through the Flood) Provider (of rain and sunshine),5  and Sustainer. This refers to all humankind, for all are recipients of this ‘common grace’; therefore, the Noahic covenant can be seen as the first dimension in God’s covenant of grace.6 

This is how Paul addresses the atheist and pantheist philosophers in Athens.7  As Paul insists, these gracious gifts imply obligations. The recipients are warned to seek this God and to live in thankfulness and expectation with this Father-God. Just because Israel received greater blessings (as well as obligations), this does not mean that they no longer receive this common grace. Later, with Jesus’ coming, and particularly after Pentecost (his return by his Spirit), all nations are reminded of their relationship with and obligation to their creator-provider God. That’s why Paul, when the Spirit brings him to the Areopagus, argues that the God he proclaims is not a foreign God for them; he has provided and guided them all along, and now they are called to seek their Creator-God and Father-Provider to be reconciled to him. And, indeed, if they refuse to do so, there will be judgment in the end. 

From this perspective then, common grace refers to God’s gifts to all humanity. The greater gifts of the covenant with Abraham-Israel are not more of the same; they are much richer. If ‘common grace’ is bread, then the grace in God’s Word and the communion of God’s people, which experiences the mighty acts of their God is perhaps butter and cheese. Do not despise the bread of the basic blessings. God cares for all of creation, and he sent his Son to restore it fully as his Kingdom.

1 Occasionally, the term ‘sinner’ is used in the Bible to refer to people who regularly fall into sin, even if their lives are no longer under the rule of sin but under the rule of the Spirit. So, their genuine desire is to love God and to hate sin.

2 Luke 4:25-27.

3 It makes no sense to apply the Covenant of Grace to Satan. He is no eartly creature and there is no biblical indication that Satan could be reconciled.

4 in other words: Noah and his offspring, i.e. all humanity since the Flood

5 as in Psalm 104:27.

6 See 'The Covenant of Grace revisited 1 in Praying for Rain, blogger

7 Acts 17: 22-31.

Dominion and Common Grace - Reviewing Gary North's publication 1

 DOMINION AND COMMON GRACE 1

Summary

Two months ago, my friend Don gave me a copy of this book ‘with much appreciation for (your) Kingdom vision. Although Gary North’s style first irritated me, I also realized that I may have had a similar tendency of making enemies. Since I have battled hyper-Calvinism several times in my life, I am genuinely bothered by North’s view of humanity around us as just elect or reprobate, even if in the final analysis, at the final judgment this will prove correct. Related to this is, of course, his restricted view of the Love of God. While North refers us to Chilton’s books for the better argumentation in favor of Postmillennialism, the line of arguments used in this book failed to convince me. Although I can cooperate well with Millennialists of different persuasion, I prefer to keep at arm’s length those who claim to know exactly how the latter days will unfold. I do appreciate the book and the insights shared by its author. There are many thought-provoking ideas that help me to adjust and fine-tune my own understanding and it is a wonderful thing to meet companions, who love to study and debate the Word of God and its implications for culture trends and practical church life. 

Appreciation

Let’s start with some ‘applause moments’ during my studying of the book After he quotes Romans 9:18,2 North comments, “If this bothers you in any way, let me issue a warning: you are thinking humanistically.”3  I like this, because in today’s setting we need such reminders on a regular basis. Don Carson warned church leaders to stop saying things like, “Now, we come to a topic I would rather avoid, but since the Bible talks about hell, I am obligated to talk about it, too”. Carson then adds: “Do you pretend to be more merciful or righteous than Almighty God?” 

When, two pages further, North quotes Timothy 4:10, which states that “…the living God … is the Savior of all men…”, he agrees that just as there is a common grace for all and a special grace for some, there is also -to some extent- a universal salvation for all even though the eternal salvation is reserved for the elect. As I have argued elsewhere, God’s covenant of grace was -in its most basic form- extended to all earthly creatures, as God had saved them all from the great flood. 

Several times Gary North reminds us that the recipients of God’s greater gifts also have a greater responsibility to respond in grateful thanksgiving.5  Again, in today’s age of ‘equality worship’ it is important to stress that God does not give equal gifts to all persons.6  Yet, he does demand more from those who received more and will issue greater punishment for those who received much, while they continue in their rebellion against the giver of all good things! 7

In my experience, deconstructing Christians and liberal churches today focus especially on ‘doing good’ and ‘being nice’ to others, like Muslim immigrants. Yet, they show no love or Christian faith if they do not seek to bring these people into loving relationship with the ultimate Giver of all good things. So, in their humanistic ‘love’ they end up piling coals of fire on the ones they claim to love, leading to their greater judgment. North recognizes that, although ‘evil man can do good things’,8  such good things are only good in a limited sense. In fact, all things that do not give glory to God, are essentially evil.

1 Gary North, Dominion & Common Grace, the biblical basis of progress, Dominion Press, 1987.

2 God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

3 Dominion, p.20.

4 The Covenant of Grace Revisited I, in Praying for Rain blogger

5 e.g. Domion, p.29, 97.

6 Even many 'Christians today would argue that God is not fair or righteous! :(

7 Matthew 11:20-24.

8 Dominion, p.53.

Privilige and Responsibility 2

Diamond's Quest - The Roots of Inequality

Jared Diamond is the author of Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. His study was later popularized by the National Geographic Society, through a series of three video presentations under the same title. 1

Diamond started his career as biologist, specializing in human physiology. Through his passion for bird watching, he used to visit Papua New Guinea, where he really got to know the indigenous population. He saw them as quick learners, who were among the most culturally adoptable people groups he knew. One day (in the mid-seventies) a man by the name of Yali challenged Diamond: 

“How come, white man has all the cargo, while we -New Guineans- have so little?” 

 At first it appeared a simple question and yet, it was perhaps the biggest question of human history: What were the roots of global inequality? What determined who would be the haves, who would be the have-nots? So, Jared Diamond spent some thirty years trying to find answers. 

Diamond realized that, prior to WWII, it had been a common theory that ‘white man’ was by nature superior to other races; therefore, it was considered natural that they should be more ingenious and successful than other, inferior races. Eugenics used to be a prestigious area of academic study in Europe and North America, which tried to prove that Europeans had the best evolved genes in the scope of the (Social) Darwinist theory of the survival of the fittest. This popular mindset was grist on the mill of Adolf Hitler and his henchman to provide a ‘scientific rationale’ for the purification of the Germanic gene pool by eradicating the Jewish population. Diamond dismissed this rationale as absurd, especially as he had come to know and respect the genius of his Papua friends. 

Consequently, he looked not for differences in human competency but in geographic patterns. Perhaps ‘white man’ had (temporarily at least) won the game because he had been dealt a better hand. 

Location and Privilege 

Diamond did not have a history background, but when he studied earlier ‘Great Civilizations’, like the Egyptians, Greek, Romans, and Mayan people, he found they all had a more advanced technology, larger populations, and well-organized workforces in comparison with other nations. But, where did these advantages start? 
To support a larger population and facilitate a good organization and come up with improved technology requires a surplus of food. In tropical rainforests, it simply took too much time and energy to develop such a society. 
Nevertheless, in ‘The Fertile Crescent’ we find the earliest evidence for the first agricultural revolution. Archeologists have found the ruins of fairly large granaries in the Dead Sea area, where surplus wheat and barley could be stored for quite some time. And this facilitated a growing population with significant specialization. 
Diamond ascribes the area as most suitable because of the climatic conditions (at the time) and the availability of wheat and barley varieties. 
When, over time, the climate changed, perhaps as a result of overgrazing, the Fertile Crescent was in a perfect location as people could migrate long distances to the East and the West, where they encountered lands with fairly similar climates. This allowed the migrating nations to take with them their crops and livestock, which gave them again a great advantage. Talking about livestock; Diamond found that the availability and diversity of useful livestock was the greatest on the Eurasian landmass. 
In the 16th century, the Spanish conquistadores very effectively dominated and destroyed the enormous Inca Empire in South America. Although this continent missed an agricultural revolution because of geography and less productive crops and livestock, nevertheless the Incas had built a well-organized society with a fairly large percentage of its population outside the agricultural sector of its economy. 
So, what made the Spanish conquistadores so powerful and effective in comparison with the Inca rulers? Diamond lists a number of key advantages. The Spanish had a lot of experience with horses, which gave them greater mobility and power, certainly in the Americas, where no animals were or could be ridden. Nevertheless, the Inca rulers did not think a relatively small group of foreigners stood a chance against their own great army and their superior gods. Yet, the Spaniards’ weaponry and experience in warfare. Gunpowder and horses were of some advantage, but their long swords of quality steel were very effective in the battles. Also, the conquistadores could learn from the published records of earlier confrontations between the Spanish and the Aztecs in Central American lands. 
Although Chinese inventions of gunpowder and the printing press could transfer through the Silk Road and beyond. According to Diamond, again the East-West route was much more effective for the exchange of people groups and their technology, while the North-South axis in the Americas proved to be much more restrictive. So, Diamond argues that large-scale geography was in many respects favorable to the Europeans. Through agricultural and technological progress, they could increase their power, and thereby make them more effective in conquest. Another, unexpected ally came in the form of germs. When one of the slaves came to Central America with the variola (or smallpox) virus, it had a devastating effect, first among the Aztecs, then among the Incas. Europeans had probably been exposed to more germs through domesticated animals and earlier epidemics, that had killed many of their own, but in the end had given them some level of herd immunity. 
The continent of Africa does not fit Diamond’s theories quite so well. Europeans did settle in the far South, which provided climate conditions comparable with southern Europe. But, in contrast with North America, the European settlers remained a minority, while the indigenous people groups were not really integrated in their society. When the Europeans migrated North, they started to experience serious problems when they reached the Tropics as they were badly fit for the agricultural conditions and the tropical diseases. 
While Africa’s interior had not been an obstacle for other people groups, Europeans relied on access from sea. Only when Europe began to enter the industrial era did European greed and power result in a period of major abuse, where local citizens were forced to gather and hand over the rubber and minerals Europe could use for their industries. Railways and rivers to some extent overcame the interior transportation troubles. 
Diamond admits that Africans had animal husbandry and some antibodies against livestock-related diseases. Transportation and large-scale agriculture were limited in the landscapes under extreme climates from dry deserts to humid-hot tropical rain forests. 

Racism Redefined 

Jared Diamond’s research and conclusions are mostly limited to geographic factors, but this does not suggest that cultural, religious, and political factors did not play a role. Besides, one cannot reduce human beings to homo economicus, as if all humans see the pursuit of economic benefit (and the resulting improved nutrition, higher life expectancy, and greater wealth) as the primary or only goal in life. In fact, Critical Theorists would or might argue that this pursuit is linked with the oppressive whiteness, that dominated European thinking and was designed by them in order to oppress the colored races. In fact, this overarching conviction results some critics to dismiss Diamond as a racist. Why? 
‘Racism’ used to mean the view that colored people are per definition inferior and incapable of producing ‘cargo’ through science and technology. In this original sense, Diamond refused to take that route. In the eyes of Critical theorists, however, looking for geographic factors to explain the different outcomes is an implicit rejection for the only non-debatable fact: Europeans are per definition racists and oppressive to people of color. Diamond, in his ‘badly-biased research’ is thus attempting to let ‘white man’ off the hook. Henry Farrell, for instance, simply suggested that Diamond’s kind of reasoning is ‘inherently racist and repugnant to right thinking (!) people’. 
Thomas Sowell points out that slavery was one of the longest living, most universal institutes in history. In the first half of the 17th century, there were more European white men captured and used as slaves by North African Muslims than Africans were taken as slaves across the Atlantic. He also argues that simple observation clearly demonstrates that different people have different capabilities. Yet, those who insist that people have been born with equal opportunities want to believe so and then demonize those who give evidence to the contrary. 
“The idea that the world would be a level playing field, if it were not for either genes or discrimination, is a preconception that defies both logic and facts. Nothing is easier to find than sins among human beings, but to make those sins the sole or primary cause of different outcomes among different people is to ignore many other reasons for those disparities. Geography and demography are among the many factors that make equal or random outcomes among human beings very unlikely.” 

Personal Observations 

After looking at Joseph Needham, the scientist and his (implied) search for the roots of modern science, we now looked at Jared Diamond, the geographer. As geographer, he would naturally explore the economic revolutions that helped to give the western world its advantages in health and wealth. So, he explored to spatial distribution that facilitated both agricultural and industrial revolution as well as the linked potential for battling various deadly germs. 
If we put Diamond’s thesis in light of a biblical worldview, this would suggest that God does not give equal gifts to all people (groups). When Paul addressed the philosophers of Athens (Acts 17), he argued that God had created all nations, allocating to them their times and locations. Well, some of these people groups were led to desert areas, others to tropical rainforests, and again others to temperate forests or semi-arid grasslands. Each of these biomes would offer a unique set of opportunities and challenges in topography, climate, soil conditions, as well as available flora and fauna. Even if all people groups have the same potential for nature observation and technological creativity (and I am not denying this), it would seem possible that different opportunities and challenges might stimulate or hamper their motivation to explore these and to utilize them or use them to modify their environments. 
Indeed, there is plenty of evidence in the Bible that God has giving varying gifts and opportunities to people and people groups, whereby those, who have received the greater gifts are also made accountable to a higher degree to produce God-pleasing fruit for their Creator-Provider God. In today’s Post-Modern Western world, it is increasingly unpopular yet vital for the church to let God be God and to maintain that, although God’s ways are different from ours, that he is Just in all his ways, even if today’s ‘Social Justice’ refuses to admit it. When God brings his last judgments on the people of the earth, there will be two kinds of responses. Some will exclaim, “You are just in these judgments, O Holy One”. All others will curse the name of God, while they will refuse to repent and glorify him.

Notes

1. Jared Diamond: Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. (New York, 1999)

2. Available on YouTube

3. The term 'cargo' is used for material blessings, such are obvious in the West. The indigenous people had watched with amazement how 'the white man' came with many miraculous goods.

4. This is the are that includes the Lower Nile Valley, the Jordan Valley, and Mesopotamia. In its far eastern region was the city of Ur, where Abram's father terah lived. Following the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, he traveled to Haran at the northern bend of the crescent shape. Later, Abraham continued south to the Jordan Valley. So, the early history of the Bible coincides with this area.

5. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-jun-27-sci-granary27-story.html

6. Farrell, responding to criticism by https://savageminds, quoted by Scott Jaschik in Inside Higher Ed, Au.3, 2005.

7. Thomas Sowell: Discrimination and Disparities- YouTube interview on Critical Race Theory and Slavery, on YouTube.

8. Idem.

9. Thomas Sowell: Discrimination and Disparities (New York, 2019), p.18.

Privilege and Responsibility 1

The Needham Question - Prerequisites for the Scientific Revolution

“Francis Bacon had selected three inventions; paper and printing, gunpowder, and the magnetic compass, which had done more than (anything else), he thought, to transform completely the modern world and mark it off from the antiquity of the Middle Ages. He regarded the origins of these inventions as ‘obscure and inglorious’ and he died without ever knowing that all of them were Chinese. We have done our best to put this record straight.” 
This is what D. Joseph Needham wrote in October, 1985, in his foreword to “The Genius of China.”1  Needham started out his scientific career as a biochemist in the United Kingdom, even though he had first planned to study medicine. When, in 1937, three young Chinese graduate students came to the University of Cambridge, Joseph connected particularly well with one of them, and she taught him Chinese and encouraged him to study the history of Chinese science and technology. This then became his life-long passion. 
Already fairly early in his Chinese research, the man who loved China 2 wondered why all the scientific genius in China had not resulted in a scientific revolution or modern science as had happened in Britain. 

“It haunted him so ceaselessly, and it pervaded so much of what he later wrote, that it was to become his memorializing eponym: it became known as the ‘Needham question’.”  3

At age 84, Needham wrote (In order to answer that question, we must accept the fact that) “in the seventeenth century we have to face a package deal; the Scientific Revolution was accompanied both by the Protestant Reformation and by the rise of capitalism, the ascendancy of the entrepreneurial bourgeoisie.” Just as international trade demanded universal units of measurement, so international scientific cooperation required an international language and methodology (read: mathematics, AS), which then could with proper training be used and mastered by “every man and woman, irrespective of color, creed, and race.” 4
Interestingly, Needham writes he does not want to pick a primary causative factor, for that would depend on one’s own background. A theologian would probably think that the new freedom through the Reformation was responsible, a Marxist would certainly point to the economic and social changes of the time, and “an old-fashioned scientist would naturally think that the scientific movement occurred first.” 5  Although Needham had been somewhat involved with both Christianity and Marxism, I would think that (especially in his senior years) he would see himself mostly as ‘the old-fashioned scientist’, which may have made him at least somewhat reluctant to delve into the religious and socio-economic factors that must have played significant roles. Winchester suggests that “(Since Needham had not given a conclusive answer) it has been left to others to take up the challenge in his place.” Scanning the Internet, we should not be surprised that ‘the Needham Question’ has been a favorite topic for graduate students and students of historical science and technology. In the rest of this article, I will try to give an overview of the most common responses to the question. 
In attempting to classify the different factors that have been presented, I found it hard to present an effective system. Although I divided the possible factors into cultural and political groups, I realize that there is quite some overlap here. Also, cultural factors influence the leaders and their policies, and vice versa. And, although I see myself more as a theologian than a Marxist, I will -at this stage- list ‘religious factors’ under culture. 
Cultural and Political Promoters and Inhibitors for the Rise of Modern Science 

• a: cultural values of religious and/or ideological nature 

• b: the culture’s value placed upon nature observation and experimentation, and 

• c: the ruler’s restrictions and selection procedures for granting special privileges and 

• d: the ruler’s international politics: open or closed 

a: cultural values of religious and/or ideological nature 6

Except for technological discoveries for warfare, it seems that ‘the Genius of China’ was most productive between the 4th century B.C. and about 400 A.D. In ancient cultures, there was only a small portion of the population that could afford to be non-productive and agriculture or craftmanship. These ‘specialists’ were typically the rulers and their servants, advisors, and soldiers, but also the priests, which had to maintain harmony with the gods to ensure their blessings for the nation. This is one reason why religious monasteries and their communities were more likely places to find literacy, libraries, and natural investigation. Consequently, Needham looked at Chinese older religions to find possible motivators for science and technology. 
Christianity and Islam came into China in about A.D. 600 via the Silk Road via the city Xian. Buddhism had arrived perhaps five centuries earlier. Needham did not think Buddhism a suitable basis for the encouragement of studying the natural reality, as it focused more on the spiritual dimension of reality and relatively little on the physical. Today, there is much philosophical discussion about the compatibility of Buddhism and science, but when you try to find Buddhism as (early) promoter and successful producer of science and technology, you find little real evidence. Nevertheless, when printing was developed, Buddhism was interested to pursue this for the distributing of Buddhist texts and the mass production of holy objects. Since Confucianism focuses mostly on rules for social harmony, it is another unlikely promoter for China’s success. 
So, Needham figured that Taoism would be the most likely religious/cultural promoter for scientific inventions. Taoist monks were interested in achieving immortality, and alchemy was seen as a possible path for discovery. Apparently, this was indeed how powerful explosives were discovered, which ironically greatly contributed to mortality in warfare. Nevertheless, in Taoism time is seen as cyclical, not linear, in nature. When viewing the world and its features from this perspective (of what goes around comes around), people typically get frustrated with an apparent ‘vanity’ of finding real meaning in study and exploration. As the biblical ‘Preacher’ sighs, 

“I applied my mind to know wisdom and knowledge, madness and folly; I learned that this too is like “chasing the wind”, for with much wisdom comes much sorrow; as knowledge increases, so does grief.”  7

Stanley Jaki, a philosophy and theology professor at Seton Hall University, wrote that modern science is a unique result of a Hebraic-Christian (read: biblical) linear view of time. In non-Hebraic-Christian cultures, science existed, but the “belief in an eternal, cyclic recurrence of everything in a universe which was taken as the ultimate realty...implies a cosmic treadmill and casts the spell of pessimistic hopelessness,” inhibiting the quest for scientific principles.8   In Needham’s essay, “Time and History in China and the West,” he also argues that the European, or Christian, conception of time and history stems from the Hebraic tradition which depicted world-epiphanies as markers of time with a beginning and end. Christianity, whose roots lay in Israel, formed a “linear redemptive time-process” with God as the “comptroller of time,” and a faith tied to a future as well as a past. So, even if later Confucian scholars began to embrace a linear view of history, originally this was alien in Chinese thinking.9  
Wen-yuan Qian maintains that China remained descriptive while the West explained nature with mathematics. He links Europe’s scientific progress to its desire to conquer nature, whereas the Chinese notion of ‘ataraxia’, contained in Confucian, Daoist and Buddhist thought, favored one personally turning inward for the attainment of equanimity and calmness, rather than outward toward the material world and the cosmos. 10
Albert Einstein and Joseph Needham both argued that the Chinese did not adopt Euclidian geometry, which was an important tool in providing mathematical models for natural patterns and processes.11  Needham thought that the dominant Confucian philosophy may have been an obstacle here. The Chinese generally assumed the universe was not rationally ordered or that there were laws that regulated the natural world. Galileo, on the other hand, argued that natural philosophy should be mathematical in form because nature was inherently mathematical.12  Einstein himself was surprised Interestingly, “that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the study of (the natural) reality”. This was not a surprise for many early scientists, who, from their Christian convictions argued that natural science was actually “thinking God’s thoughts after him”. This was said by Johan Kepler, and made sense in the view that humankind was created in God’s own image. 

b, c the culture’s value placed upon nature observation and experimentation and the ruler’s selection procedures for granting special privileges. 

During my (eight years) teaching experience in China, I noticed that it was generally quite difficult to encourage students to form or formulate personal opinions or to think “outside the box”. If I would ask a student for her personal opinion, I often detected panic as she would try to deduce an opinion that the teacher hoped to hear. You could almost hear her thinking: “What is my personal opinion supposed to be?” Surveys are typically useless in China, as one is supposed to give a favorite reply that benefits one’s own company, town, or country, for that is considered ‘the ethical approach’. 
Scientific progress typically requires freedom of thought and acceptance of an “outside-the-box” approach in thinking. This is often supressed and even punished in traditional societies and cultures. 
Traditionally, and probably enforced by strict emperors and Confucian wisdom, the Chinese rarely questioned authority. In Boyé Lafayette De Mente’s comprehensive description of Chinese culture, we read: 

“In pre-modern China, loyalty and submission to superiors was morally the right thing to do. People did not have rights that were guaranteed by law or by tradition. They had responsibilities and certain privileges that the state could withdraw at any time.” “Individualism was a sin against society and was severely punished.” 13

Needless to say, such a strict regime with little intellectual freedom did not encourage citizens to explore and test new ideas, to freely discuss new theories in public, or to be dynamic and daring in the pursuit of personal knowledge or wisdom. In Mediaeval Europe, we find a similar situation, but this was dramatically broken during the 16th Century. Martin Luther’s ideas would not have reformed the church if the emperor and pope at the time had not been weak, while the peasant population became increasingly outspoken in its anger and frustration. The sudden availability of mass media by the printing press (although it had to be used in secrecy) was another (unexpected) major contributor in this development. In China, the rulers knew the political potential of printed material, so they often enforced a strict control to ensure that only government-friendly material was published. Actually, not much has changed during the Communist and current regimes. 
Martin Luther, Galileo, and others finally dared to challenge the power of the Roman Church and Empire, which no longer served their God but themselves. Over time, this created freedom to think beyond tradition, which must have been (among others) a major factor for the development of science. 
The pre-Reformation church had adopted much of Aristotle’s teaching, which was not based on careful observations. In his time, tedious, repetitive experimentation was seen as slave labor and had no appeal or respect. The truth was supposed to be discovered by logic and mindpower only. Consequently, Greek traditional ‘science’ was quite different from modern liberal science, for in traditional societies, the masters’ thoughts had to be respected by all means. So, fallacies were easily adopted and enforced through thought-control and discipline, by political and religious authorities. And, this traditional world was broken in the time of the Reformation. 
Rebecca Olerich, in her master’s thesis,14  argues that the imperial examinations in China aided in hindering the development of modern science in China. These exams were extremely demanding, leaving little time for committed candidates to pursue any interests outside the focus of the exam. Yet the passing of the exams was -officially- the only way for one to gain a position of prestige, fame, and wealth. On the other hand, the exam was an effective tool to shape and maintain the country’s culture; the candidate would have to follow the strict code of expectations for the successful complication of the exam. 

“As of 1313, the required reading of all aspiring intellectuals was still narrowly restricted to the Neo-Confucian texts, suppressing the intellectual creativity, needed to create the theoretical and methodological frameworks of modern science.” 15

 Math and science received little attention in these exams, and in general, the study of the natural sciences was often associated with the common people. On the exams, natural phenomena received little attention, as freedom of thought on such issues might have a negative impact on the ‘orthodox’ views of the central government, which was responsible to uphold harmony between heaven, earth, and humankind. 
The rigorous ‘eight-legged essay’ (which formed a significant part of the imperial exams) further contributed to China’s backwardness regarding not only industrialization, but more importantly, to China’s failure to develop science and technology, because “its formulaic structure compelled uniformity and de-emphasized critical thinking in favor of rote learning, which often did not prepare a candidate to adequately function in an official position”. 16

d the rulers’ restrictions on its citizens’ freedom and international contacts 

During Europe’s Mediaeval times technology had helped China’s economy, resulting in a comfortable life for many or most of its population. Possibly, the resulting ‘comfortable life’ reduced the drive to new challenges. 
During this Golden Age, the Yong-le emperor’s admiral Zheng-He made extensive explorations with enormous hard-wooden ships that could transport up to a thousand sailors.17  Yet, when this emperor and his powerful admiral had passed away, rebellion against Yong-le’s brutal government and heavy taxes and national pride seems to have been a dominant factor to abandon such expensive pursuits. 
The year 1644 was the start of the Manchu dynasty; it was the last dynasty of imperial China. The Manchu often tried to keep foreigners, their trade, culture, and religion at arm’s length. So, while the Chinese rulers looked down on the inferior ‘barbarians’ to the West, it experienced an opening up to greater freedom and optimism for a better life. 
Around 1800, when European traders presented their latest technology (like diving bells, hot air balloons, and telescopes), the Chinese were not impressed or interested. They saw little practical potential for such things and saw them as play-things of the West. 
 Earlier already, the Buddhists had opposed Jesuit impact with their religion and mathematical knowledge and astronomical insights. Although western medicine, brought by Protestant missions were generally appreciated, selective ‘narratives’ were used to maintain distrust and suspicion concerning the ‘foreign devils’.  

 

Personal Observations 

Joseph Needham had very much respect for Chinese ingenuity, and his question did certainly not stem from a disdain of their accomplishments. In modern China, we see that China has become a world player in modern science. So, in the final analysis, the quest reveals more about the special conditions and circumstances that played a role in Europe’s development than about the temporary stagnation of scientific progress in China. And this is also why the Needham question is of significance in the context of our quest about the roots (and possible demise) of Western blessings. And, from a Christian point of interest, there are several important aspects, which are linked to the things we have discovered at this point: 
1. A linear view of time The Bible presents time as narrative along a line; there is a beginning (Creation), after which there is a rebellion (Fall). The biblical story then shows us how the Creator in time and space and through his active interaction with humans, made in his image, brings about a final Restoration. Although within this story we find numerous cycles (God makes something good, humans destroy, God makes a new beginning), the overall pattern is linear and the outcome is good for those who do good (by living in harmony with their Creator-Provider). And, although a godless perspective ‘under the sun’ may be rather repetitive without a final purpose, there is ultimate significance and beauty in all that is going on in the world. Apparently, this biblical perspective is quite unique and has given purpose and hope to humanity throughout space and time. 
2. The separation of the spiritual and the natural realm In pantheism, the whole natural world is ‘infused with the divine.’18  Not only does ‘the divine’ indwell all human beings but also animals, and even non-living matter found in rocks and minerals. The biblical revelation that, while God is omnipresent, yet he is distinct from his creation is liberating. The notion that all humankind was created in his image especially gives optimism that we can ‘think God’s thoughts after him’. 
3. A personal freedom and responsibility It is a very natural thing that powerful people lord it over others, whether it is for pure self-interest or to build and maintain a stable society according to the rulers’ vision. Although the woke folk are convinced that ‘white culture’ always seeks oppression, while others do not, this is based on irrational beliefs and not on historical evidence. So, in a setting of common corruption, driven by power and/or wealth, rulers need to exercise strict control to maintain stability and ‘peace’. If there is little freedom to ‘think outside the box’ and thereby to challenge established convictions, science cannot flourish. And, where people cannot be trusted, there will be little sharing of knowledge and ideas; and this was often the case in imperial China. Although in modern-day China real communism has been abandoned to allow for some freedom of enterprise, the country’s ‘representatives of the people’ are still paranoid about much ‘thinking outside the box’ and a free ‘sharing of information’ through the Internet. 
In the biblical record we find the unusual notion that all people (must) live under the rule of God. Therefore, no human ruler can claim absolute sovereignty. In many cultures, it was common that the rulers would claim godly status for themselves, but from a biblical viewpoint, this would be untenable. Over time, the ruler -in his mortality, immorality, or other folly- would disprove his divine status, and this would also be the implicit curse of the only God. In 16-th Century Europe, the Reformation made it clear that popes and emperors only had power ‘by the grace of God’, and if they went against the explicit Law of God, their underlings were called to challenge them with the apostles’ question ‘whether it would be right to obey the authorities, if thereby one would disobey the will of God’. And, this is the problem for any totalitarian government, for it cannot tolerate a higher law. 
Martin Luther did the unthinkable in his days by challenging ‘the church’ to defend themselves from the Word of God. The church authorities, of course, saw no need for that. They were, as-it-were by definition right, so Luther was declared a heretic- not for opposing Scripture but for opposing the authority of the Church and its (God-appointed) leaders. Nevertheless, God used the Reformation to reform the church to live under the ultimate authority of the Word of God. 
And the blessed by-product was the scientific revolution. This blessing, much desired by those have not enjoyed its fruits, were not without problems. There were opportunities for greed and abuse to taint the blessings. Those who believe the lie that the world would have been better without the scientific revolution or Christianity might not see it as a blessing. Nevertheless, for those who honestly evaluate the gains in hygiene, nutrition, health, and life expectancy, the beneficial fruits are obvious. 

 

Notes  

1. Introduction by Joseph Needham, in Robert Temple: The Genius of China - 3000 years of science, discovery, and invention. (London, 1986)
2. Simon Winchester used this as title for his biography of Joseph Needham. (Harper Collins, 2008)
3. Winchester: The Man who Loved China. p.260.
4. Joseph Needham's Introduction, see note 1. p.7.
5. Idem, p.7,8.
6. For a. and b., I used a number of ideas, provided by Melvyn Bragg and guests in a BBC podcast in the series: In Our Time, this issue on The Needham Question. (available on www.bbc.co.uk.)
7. Ecclesiastes 1, esp. vs.17.
8. Stanley L. Jaki: The History of Science and the Idea of an Oscillating Universe., History and Theology, ed. Wolfgang Yourgrau and Allen P. Breck. (New York, 1977), 247. Quoted in Rebecca L. Olerich: An Examination of the Needham Question: Why didn't China have a Scientific Revolution Considering its Early Scientific Accomplishments?
9. Joseph Needham: Time and History in China and the West, Leonardo 10, no.3 (Summer, 1977), p. 233.
10. Wen-yuan Qian: The Great Inertia- Scientific Stagnation in Early China, p.101,102,. 

Quoted in Rebecca L. Olerich: An Examination.

11. There were European textbooks on Euclidian Geometry and superior technology in China, but scholars had no access to this material, as it was shelved by the governors.
12. in The Assayer
13. Boyé Lafayette de Mente: The Chinese Have a Word for it.- The Complete Guide to Chinese Thought and Culture. (Passport Books, 2000). p. 66,112,262.
14. Rebecca L. Olerich: An Examination. p.5.
15. Idem, p.46.
16. Hilde de Weerdt: Competition over Content- Negotiating Standards for the Civil Service Examinations in Imperial China, p.66,67, quoted in Rebecca L. Olerich: An Examination. p.88.
17. 1404-1433
18. Greek: pantos = all, theos = god