Archives For April 2021

One thing we’re big on in theology is literary criticism. The scientific process of taking a statement back to its original source through questions, context, analysis, research, and faith-filled dialogue about our reasoned conclusions.

It’s a sure guard against deception, misrepresentation, and ignorance.

A good reason for our focus on this is highlighted by Eric Voegelin in his 1968 book, ‘Science, Politics & Gnosticism’:

‘The deception of the reader occurs when a text or citation is separated from its context and is used in isolation from its original intended meaning.’ [i] (paraphrased)

Context matters.

Voegelin had just gotten through explaining how Karl Marx in his doctoral dissertation of 1840–41 misrepresented the statement, “In a word, I hate all the gods”, from Prometheus in Aeschylus’ ‘Prometheus Bound.

For Voegelin, “anyone who doesn’t know Prometheus Bound must conclude that Prometheus’ “confession” sums up the meaning of the tragedy.”

Marxism’s revolt against, and hatred of God, is a product of Marx’s misunderstanding of ‘the Hellenic [Promethean] symbol.’ [ii]

Voegelin states that Prometheus is reinterpreted by Marx, ‘The revolutionary reversal of the symbol—the dethronement of the gods, the victory of Prometheus—lies beyond classical culture; it is the work of gnosticism.’

This is where, said Voegelin, the ‘young Marx presents his own attitude; under the symbol of Prometheus’ Marx wages war against God, and because they’re inseparably linked, also, man.

It could be said that Marxism uses a god, to dispose God, in order to exalt themselves as god; leaving in the wake of Promethean “wokeness,” a sea of mass graves, in exchange for the Divine seat of power.

Marx either got Prometheus horribly wrong, or deliberately manipulated the Greek myth to build a school of thought, and oppressive ideology around it.

Prometheus wasn’t a Marxist, but Marxists have forged Prometheus in their own image.

Bonhoeffer, in his lectures on Genesis, recorded in DBW3: ‘Creation and Fall,’ substantiates good reasons for discernment, and suspicion of this Marxist Promethean self-justification, better penned as Promethean wokeness.

According to Bonhoeffer, in the Garden of Eden, God’s Word was used as a weapon against God. The result was a catastrophic fallout between the creature and its benevolent Creator.

The power to decree that which is right and wrong, good and evil, is now considered to have been taken up into the hands of humanity.

Rather than a new day dawning [enlightenment], darkness descends [truth is hijacked] and humanity descends with it.

The source that determines what good and evil is relocated; reassigned by, and lowered down to a Creatorless humanity.

Humanity in its abstraction from God devours itself.

Instead of being liberated, God’s creature becomes burdened. The Promethean Marxist’s hatred of God, is powered by human lust for dominion and power. This is why I am convinced that Socialists, for all their protests to the contrary, care only about power, not people.

Marx’s Promethean wokeness seeks to overthrow God – demanding God’s kingdom, be ruled by man, without God in it [iii].

Thus, human beings, wrote Bonhoeffer, ‘renounce the word of God that approaches them again and again out of the inviolable center and boundary of life; they renounce the life that comes from this word and grab it for themselves.’

Man positions himself in God’s place; Good is called evil, and evil is called good, for ‘humanity stands in the center; disobedience in the semblance of obedience, the desire to rule in the semblance of service […]’ [iv]

We’re told in the Biblical accounts, such usurpation is the nonsense of Nothingness, it turns humans into the playthings of demons, and is ultimately destined to catastrophic failure.

The Governed become pawns, Government becomes God.

The overbearing weight of being governed by a government which has confused the Creator with the creature, is inevitably unjust, corrupt, and self-destructive.

Who, and what governs those who govern us? No one. There is no limit to Marx’s Promethean Wokeness.

Despite appearances, the Promethean self-justification, its pride filled proclamation about the “death of God,” and subsequent coronation of man as a god, doesn’t happen without a decisive response from God.

God isn’t wounded outside His own choosing [e.g.: as He does for our sakes in Jesus Christ].

Neither is He killed off.

Instead of liberation, in humanity’s exaltation of itself over against God, humans mortally wound themselves.

Despite this, God shows compassion.

In spite of the Promethean self-justification where ‘the ultimate possible rebellion, portrays the truth as a lie. [Where] the Abyss that underlies the lie lives because it poses as the truth and condemns the truth as a lie,’ [v] God doesn’t abandon His self-centred, rebellious creation.

He graciously intervenes, judge’s humanity, and in doing so saves it from itself. He then covers His creatures’ nakedness, and blesses it with posterity.

God remains God for us, even when He disagrees and takes a stand against us.

Even though His creature is so infused with, and consumed by the maddening effects of Marx’s misguided Promethean hate, God chooses to reconcile, liberate, and save the creature He loves.

God chooses not to jettison His creature, as it has jettisoned Him.

Promethean wokeness doesn’t allow any connection with this God.

It in fact, denies it. Reduces humanity to systems, and calls all questions that challenge it, “enemies,” “traitors,” and “bugs.”

Karl Marx’s big mistake was to read into the Promethean myth his own lust for power.

Promethean wokeness is a Marxist monstrosity.

What’s left behind is the butchered, and disfigured creation of an idea that prides itself as man’s true liberator, but conceals behind its mask the deep black void of the Abyss.


Sources:

[i] Voegelin, E. 1968, Science, Politics & Gnosticism: Two Essays, (paraphrased). Kindle (Loc.492)

[ii] ibid, 1968

[iii] Johnny Cash, U2 ‘The Wanderer’

[iv] Bonhoeffer, D 1937, Creation & Fall, Fortress Press (pp.109-116)

[v] ibid, 1937


First published on Caldron Pool, 8th April 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Instead of wasting time making childish digs at Australian opposition leader, Anthony Albanese’s misspoken gaff, last week’s criticisms of the alternative Prime Minister and his party, should have been deeper, and a lot more sober minded.

Albanese’s gaff, telling reporters that we can all charge our Labor ordained, tax-free shiny “non-luxury” electric cars at night with solar power, was an honest mistake.

It was clear enough he meant that those Labor subsidised electric cars can charge overnight on Labor subsidised “renewable energy”, with workers (tax-payers) paying an arm, and a leg for the privilege.  

Humour about the gaff aside, pointing out the gaff was pointless.  

The white noise “sound bite” distracted the Australian public from the Labor Party conference, where they announced a range of far-left election proposals; ironically, suppressed debate on the Communist Chinese Party thanks to Penny Wong; and scuttled in-party opposition to legitimising the current Islamist antisemitic leaders of the Palestinians, by recognising the Palestinian territories as a Palestinian State (another Penny Wong move).

The Australian reported, ‘former federal MP Michael Danby, was prevented from speaking on the proposed resolution.’ In addition, Labor senator Kimberley Kitching was barred from binding Labor to equating the CCP’s treatment of the Uighur’s with genocide.’ (Wednesday, 31st March 2021)

Labor is buoyed by a recent win in Western Australia, which has essentially brought the state under one-party rule, and they’re on the Culture War war path to see if Australians will do the same for them on a Federal level.

This utopian hubris, however euphoric it may make the belligerent far-left feel, may be short lived.

The real gaff Australia’s alternative Prime Minister has made is his decision to lead the Labor Party to an election on a platform very similar to that of far-left British Socialist, and former Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

Morrison vs. Albanese is looking like Johnson vs. Corbyn. With the opposition leader revealing that he has no real plan, other than to accuse the LNP of having no real plan, stating that Morrison has no “post-pandemic plan for women, jobs, climate change, and First Nations people.”

The 2022 election (which could be sooner if legacy media speculation has any insider merit) is looking like a rehash of Britain’s Boris Johnson underdog race against the more hegemonically fortified radical leftist, Jeremy Corbyn.

This was hinted at from within the Labor Party when Michael Danby criticised members for “adopting Corbyn’s plan for “unconditional recognition of a Palestinian state, but also his Stalinist methods by suppressing debate on the foreign policy motions.” (ibid)

Earlier in the month, Australian/Israel and Jewish Affairs council’s Dr Colin Rubenstein, called it “problematic” because ‘it denies negotiation with Israel as part of the two-state solution.’

Ergo, the Labor Party is effectively affirming the Palestinian rejection of negotiation with Israel, and, in a nutshell rewarding antisemitic sentiment, in exchange for quick political capital squeezed from the post-modern vine of virtue signalling.

Labor’s platform shows it’s unconcerned with doing real work to combat immediate threats to the Australian people; that its only concern is with appealing to policies that seek to answer threats manufactured by the people they share an ideology with.

Labor are navel gazing about electric cars, fantasizing about apocalyptic climate change, preaching about what white people are not doing for black people, what men are not doing for women, and lining up the ABC’s to be replaced in schools by the LGBTQAAI+, BLM and CRT.

Meanwhile, the Morrison government, for all it’s obvious flaws, such as their COVID-19 downgrade of civil liberties, flirting with quality killing identity politics quotas, and pushing policies based on the Climate Change religion is, however fostering a return to pre-COVID normal, economic recovery, improvements in defence capabilities, real action on caring for the environment, countering a racist, belligerent, and anti-Christian, Chinese Communist Party, as well as building the QUAD, a partnership with four key nations who share Australia’s national security concerns.

More electric cars, aren’t going to save Australians from a militarised South Pacific, with Communist Chinese Party beachheads, and forward staging bases, all pointing in our direction, designed to intimidate and coerce, should we not agree tow the Leninist-Maoist Party line.

Tax-payer funded renewables, and gender fairies in schools aren’t going to save jobs, help bring back manufacturing, reduce mental health issues, or prepare Australians for a future that appears more and more troubled by society’s surrender to ideologies at war with healthy Western traditions, and it’s surrender to anti-christs, bent on taking power, for power’s sake.

Which party has its head in the clouds, and which party is in-tune with the corrosive state of the world?

Which party is taking its role as a Government for the people, in that world seriously, and which party is too busy powdering its face for the cameras to notice?

At the moment, when it comes down to a choice between the two, the LNP is the undisputed winner.

Vote accordingly.


First published on Caldron Pool, 7th April 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

One of Australia’s rising political stars, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price lead a small contingent of young, concerned Indigenous Australian women to Canberra last week, to raise awareness about high rates of Domestic Violence in Indigenous Australian communities.

Nampijinpa Price arrived in Canberra with Cheron Long, the cousin of 15-year-old Layla Leering, who died in 2017 after being sexually abused.

The initial police investigation recorded the cause of death as suicide, but was disputed.

An inquest in 2020 found grounds for further investigation since police were ‘unable to confidently determine the circumstances’ of Layla’s death, and that of two other young girls.

Thanks to pressure from Layla’s family, the inquiry into her death, has been reopened as a murder investigation, with Layla’s family (according to Advance Australia) ‘proving that the police and government had ignored several warnings about Layla’s wellbeing, bringing rise to the opening of a long-overdue review into police and child protection agencies.’

While Nampijinpa Price hit the Canberra bubble with the goal of shining a light on D.V issues, she ended up exposing the infamous double-standard-shuffle found among Australia’s leftist elite, whose favourite target is usually white, heterosexual, Caucasian Christian men.

This is the elitist class who went from being on the “all men are dogs” offensive, to being on the “don’t marginalise gay men” defensive, after facts about men recording themselves committing sex acts in the workplace, and ‘defiling’ an employer’s desk in Parliament house, turned out to involve male staffers who identify as Homosexual. [i]

It’s the same elitist class, who praised the recent women’s ‘March 4 Justice’, flaunting it as a liberating voice for the ‘sisterhood’, preaching loud, and proud, about the evils of the “patriarchy”, sexism, and so-called ‘toxic masculinity’, but stopped short (presumably for fears of appearing racist by “marginalising Indigenous Australian men”) in giving a voice to Australia’s Indigenous women suffering much higher rates of D.V. within their own communities.

All good reasons that justify Vikki Campion’s (Barnaby Joyce’s partner and former staffer’s also somewhat defensive) scathing remarks in the Saturday Telegraph:

 ‘We are so powerfully sucked into salacious stories of sex that the desk involved in the act got more than 1200 media mentions at the time of writing; the rape and death of 15-year-old, Layla, got only 10, three being in her local paper.’

Campion added,

‘Instead of hearing Layla’s story, the media reported more clumsy advances, such as Annastacia Palaszczuk’s encounter with someone who shook her hand too hard.’

Including, notes Campion, hype over the LNP entertaining the introduction of a quota, where women will be put before men for candidacy.

On which Campion spoke of identity politics hysterics, and concluded,

‘Instead of bringing in quotas, support the perfectly capable women like Nicolle Flint, who did turn up and listen to Layla’s cause, who is leaving parliament for good because of how she was treated at the so-called top of the political tree.’

Her criticism is backed by the actions of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, who cut away from Nicolle Flint’s speech in the house while Flint was pointing out Jacinta and Cheron’s concerns about a Domestic Violence, and rape culture within Indigenous Australian Communities.

This prompted Cheron Long’s Facebook response,

‘I’m fighting back tears writing this; today I have lost all trust and respect for the ABC. I am in shock, that the ABC has shut down and censored Nicole Flint MP, when she was giving a direct quote from a speech that I delivered earlier.’

These victims, Long said,

‘Have no voice, they have no support. The ABC have no heart for the silent victims of abuse in the bush; they rather champion the Left, then listen to real stories, and when a real story comes along, the ABC CENSOR IT!!’

In her own criticisms Jacinta expressed dismay at the selective hearing amongst the “elitist” class, stating,

‘It’s trauma enough that as an Aboriginal woman under threat of violence for speaking out against ‘Aboriginal rape culture’ Cheron travelled all the way to Canberra to publicly share the tragic story of her murdered cousin in order to get justice, but then the trauma is exacerbated by being deliberately ignored by the ABC.’

Ignoring Credlin, Campion, Flint, Cheron and Nampijinpa Price’s concerns further encourages a politically correct paralysis that perpetuates a culture of silence, stifles freedom of speech, and enables abuse.

Instead of addressing an alleged ‘Aboriginal rape culture’, or the downgrade of professionalism in Parliament House, by way of Post-Modern, “love is love” anything goes nihilism, legacy media and politicians are playing political football with its victims.

We know the Left has a voice. Their boisterous, persistent, divisive, “Invasion Day”, and “genocide”, anti-Australian rhetoric, gets shouted from the streets every January.

If it seems that this matters more than Layla Leering’s death, it’s because the anti-Australia virtue signalling is a quick injection of political capital.

It’s a comfortable protest; armchair activism powering a paper-thin narrative based on manufactured grievances, dressed up to look like the real thing.

Platitudes of justice for (alleged and factual) “historical wrongs” cost less, than loving those in the here, and now, by helping them help themselves through the messy task of healing wounds, tending scars, changing culture, untangling battered communities, and defending the defenceless.

Layla Leering’s legacy was a chance for the Left to put their heart where they say it is.

Instead, what the Left has shown, is how uninterested they are in helping real people, with real problems.

If their real stories don’t pad the fake Woke (and racist) Critical Race Theory party-hotline, it’s the proverbial, “don’t call us, we’ll call you.”

This isn’t an example of Right vs. Left, or Black vs. White, it’s an example of truth vs. falsehood.

Substance will always, always trump appearances.

Cheron and Jacinta stand in a similar place to Trugernanner (Truganini; 1812–1876). I think she’d be proud of what they’re achieving, and as dismayed as they are at the rot among elites, and the cycle of abuse that their selective silence still perpetuates.

References:

[i] Credlin, P. ‘I stand by every decision I made to clean the place up’ The Sunday Telegraph March 27, 2021

[ii] Campion, V. ‘Rape, murder ignored in favour of salacious pollie sex stories’ The Saturday Telegraph March 26, 2021


First published on Caldron Pool, 29th March 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Chuck Colson saw in advance the contradictions of a society guided purely by the sexual revolution.

In the late 1960s feminist sexual liberation was celebrated as a utopian moment; the elevating of an oppressed “class” through the seizing of power from both men and women, to achieve biological equality.

The great feminist cry against misogyny, through “equality with men” become a misandrist war against men. Its high point was the sexual revolution, and its war-cry ever since has been “choice.”

Respect for women was never the goal. The movement’s primary motivation was the impossible goal of irradicating natural inequalities, through the equality of biological choice.

Raising woman in the eyes of man, for him to see woman as being of equal value, was, at best, a bonus. Not necessarily desired, but welcomed as a consolation prize, should the great feminist war be lost.

Respect for women wasn’t a core virtue. Feminists tended/tend to disrespect other women, and show contempt towards them for not making pro-feminist choices.

Illustrated by author, political scientist, and early feminist, Jean Bethke Elshtain, who, after choosing to join a feminist group with a friend in the 70s, found that being married, and having children appeared to exclude them from being allowed to express an opinion.

Elshtain said, ‘my friend and I left, for we could not treat our children as abstractions, as nuisances to be overcome, or as evidence of our “sad capitulation” to the terms of patriarchy.’

The group’s facilitator had ‘abruptly and publicly’ cut off their discussion declaring, “We will have not diaper talk here. We’re here to talk about women’s liberation.”

Feminists won battles, not just with their ambivalence towards respect, or ignorance of their own hypocrisy, but with their dismissal of restraint, and revelation.

Restraint was considered repressive, and God’s revelation, which included the objective moral law, was demonised as archaic, oppressive, and patriarchal.

According to the thought leaders of the day, such as Simone de Beauvoir, restraint and revelation didn’t liberate women from being a ‘parasite’ on man. They protected, and were used to propagate the parasitical condition of woman, by equally oppressed man. [i]

The feminist bible peached that the human condition wasn’t oppressed by sin. It was oppressed by objective morality, and the shackles of Christendom’s institutionalisation of marriage. Marriage was no longer a vocation, or Godly union where man exists for woman, woman for man, both free before God, but as matrimony –marriage reduced to a woman becoming a mother. [ii]

While feminists got the latter partly right, they got the former spectacularly wrong.

The condition of the human heart is ‘deceitful above all things, desperately sick, outside understanding.’ (Jeremiah 17:9) Without God’s revelation empowering restraint there is no genuine liberation.

Which is why Colson’s brief analysis finds relevance with concerns about reactionary feminist protests today, and the over-reactions to them by Governments.

In observations he’d made about the ‘self-refuting nature of the post-modernism social model,’ Colson wrote: ‘the irony of removing all restraints of shame and modesty is that women led the charge. The feminists thought this was great: women could be “equal” to men, sexually speaking.’ [iii]

It was, he said, ‘the great liberation movement that would lead us to nirvana, freedom, equality.’

Colson added, ‘feminists [haven’t yet] realized [that] they’ve sold their constituency down the river, because the only people who profit from “no restrictions, no limits” philosophy are men’, who are encouraged by this way of thinking to look at women ‘as objects of gratification, and pleasure.’

The ejection of restraint and revelation has ‘reverted culture back to the ancient Greeks, who viewed women as property – as chattel.’

For Colson, the rejection of ‘radical Christian doctrine that considers all human beings to be created in the image of God, with innate dignity’, has created the ‘ultimate post-modern impasse.’

Society wants ‘total freedom [from objective morality] (nihilism), but then, all of a sudden, when it begins to hurt and be untenable, people scream.’

They then turn to big government to solve the problem.

In other words, feminists are running to government, after running away from God, to bring in moral restraints on sexuality, that they’re advocacy for nihilistic, no-restraints, free-sex pandemonium has birthed.

This is the great feminist contradiction, born from legitimate feminist criticisms, that were taken too far by people high on the myth of man created by De Beauvoir, Daly and Greer.

Feminism hasn’t delivered a utopia for women, it’s in fact bought them a ticket on the Titanic. A gargantuan enterprise in the pitfalls of good ideas, corrupted by human arrogance.

It is, as Karl Barth wrote, ‘the myth of man, built up without respect to man and woman’s relationship to the Divine command, which, ends in the negation of real man.’ (paraphrased)

Freedom cannot be maintained where virtue isn’t flourishing, asserted Colson; and he’s right: ‘Moral chaos will lead us to lose our freedoms. The inevitable consequence of the modern project of complete liberation from all restraints is slavery.’

Women’s liberation cannot be achieved through humiliating man, in order to exalt woman, humiliated by man.

The crux of liberation is God on the Cross, who, in, through and, with Jesus Christ becomes our only way to freedom from sin.

It’s the choice between a House of Freedom, and a House of slavery.

It’s the essence of the Easter message, reminding us that it’s not man’s humiliation of man that saves, and exalts, but the humiliation of God, and His exaltation of humanity. [iv]

‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.’ – John 3:16, NIV

God is true to His Word. Restraint and revelation will never lose its relevance, because the liberating, living God, commands it, and still speaks through it.

References:

[i] Beauvoir, Simone de. 1949. The Second Sex Vintage Books

[ii] I’ve merged Kierkegaard’s critique in ‘The Instant’ with Barth, K. Man and Woman, Church Dogmatics: Doctrine of Creation KD 3:4, (p.127)

[iii] Colson, C. 2015, My Final Word: Hook Up Culture, Zondervan (pp.89-90)

[iv] See Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q. 27), Dietrich Bonhoeffer DBW 12 (p.343) & Karl Barth, Respect for Life, KD 3:4 (p.397)


First published on Caldron Pool, 31st March 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Independent Australian MP, Craig Kelly has added his voice to a growing list of politicians  calling for a Royal Commission into Veteran suicides.

Kelly wrote on Twitter,

‘I will be voting to have a Royal Commission on Veteran Suicides NOW. My electorate of Hughes includes the Holsworthy army barracks, and veterans have told me they want a Royal Commission now. Let’s have a starting date ASAP!!#istandwithveterans

In a more detailed video posted to the straight-talking politician’s Facebook page, Kelly’s support for an enquiry into veteran suicides was made even clearer.

The member for Hughes explained his disappointment at the Government’s handling of the Brereton report, stating that LNP didn’t just throw Special Forces Veterans under the bus, they threw them under a tank.

At the time of the report, the LNP appeared to be appealing to an opportunist wave of hate towards the military coming from within Leftist dominated Legacy Media. The pile-on burnt the 99% for sins of a few. Among non-media opportunists targeting our military were Melbourne’s Socialist Alliance.

I noted through Caldron Pool at the time, reform in any institution is a necessary part of good management.

This should involve improving how we as a society look after, show appreciation for, and serve our military, and its veterans. This process shouldn’t involve hurting our veterans in order to help them.

The battlefield criminality of a few, doesn’t justify stripping meritorious recognition earned by the good deeds of the many.

Kelly’s firm advocacy for a Royal Commission, is a step in the right direction.

The Senate passed the motion, but the motion is set to be rejected by the Morrison Government when it comes up in the lower house (House of Representatives), because of a counter proposal which would create ‘a permanent independent commissioner to investigate the issue.’ (TND)

According to Craig Kelly just passing the motion in the Senate was ‘a victory for all our service men and women.’ He added, ‘we have an obligation when we sign someone up to put that uniform on, it should be a lifetime obligation that we look after them.’

Explaining his vote, Kelly said, ‘we’ve seen such a great number of tragic suicides after Defence Force personnel leave the service, and especially in recent months following the Government’s appalling response to the Brereton report, this was something that was urgently needed.’

Any Aussie raised on the Redgum anti-war anthem, ‘I was only 19’, has lived, and breathed John Schumann’s vocalisation illustrating the internal struggle of Australia’s Vietnam War vets.

More than Cold Chisel’s, ’78, ‘Khe Sanh’, Schumann’s 1983 lyrical bridge between Vet, and citizen created a sense of empathy, and appreciation for those who came back, and weren’t welcomed back, but bore the cost of defending our freedom.

I come from a family with a history of military service. Raising public awareness about the needs of Australia’s veterans, rides the rich Australian tradition of mates helping mates.

A Royal Commission’s thorough investigation into Veteran suicides, coupled with its inevitable findings, and recommendations, will open the door to a tactical blueprint for how we can fight for those, who fight for us.


First published on Caldron Pool, 26th March 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Head image credit: Royal Australian Army