Fluhan from Wushan: What is the straight scoop?

When you need to get the whole story, who do you turn to? The many different news outlets and the amount of information circulating create a hodgepodge of conflicting stories.  Add to that the poor journalism (i.e., Yahoo News, Huffpost) and any accompanying bias and the news becomes more like the buffet spread at a Vegas restaurant--you pick and choose what is news.  Journalists once staked their reputation on their work.  But in our day of anonymity, or in some cases, fake journalists, its difficult to know who you can trust.

There are "different" stories circulating about the Wushan virus--what I will call "Fluhan" (for the purpose of identification this coronavirus as different and distinct from the previous outbreaks like SARS and MERS and the cold/flu like symptoms associated with it).  Fluhan by most accounts was contracted from the Huanan seafood market in Wushan sometime in late December.  Another account pushes the timeline back further to November and states that it was not contracted from exotic animals from the market since one of the first Chinese who contracted Fluhan had no contact with the market.  Some may even go so far as to call it biological terrorism to inflict damage to the Chinese economy because of the trade/tax issues with the U.S. (for all those conspiracy theorists out there).  And I'm sure there are many more stories that contribute to the disinformation.  So who do we get the straight scoop from? 

At least we are not left in the dark regarding the virus.  Most of that information can be found in medical journals.  The past outbreaks originated from animal hosts (a topic that will be dealt with in a forthcoming post).  MERS-CoV (Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus) is believed to come from camels; SARS-Cov (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus) is believed to come from civet cats (which looks less like a cat and more like a raccoon).  The origin of both is thought to bats; the mutated virus in its host is the cause of the cross-species transmission.  One recent study claims the origin of the 2019-nCoV ("Fluhan") originated in snakes (see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.25682).

For now, it's a waiting game here in China.  We are on lock-down (all of our apartment block exits are closed except for one and the government is dissuading any gathering of people--even for church) waiting for news to return to life as usual--unless the narrative changes and the virus turns people to zombies.

China and the coronavirus

Word got back to us today that people are dying in the streets in China.  Chalk it up to the Chinese New Year or the fear of an outbreak, the streets were a bit empty, and of the few that were out and about, none were down and out. 

Some news sources indicate that China is not doing all it can to deal with the spread of the coronavirus--others claim China has done too little too late.  From this side of the world, we see the opposite. 

First, most citizens are part of communities (similar to housing tracks in the U.S.), at least here in Yantai.  The community is made up of many apartment buildings and have two to three gated/guarded exits.  Our community alone houses 1000+ people.  As of the 25th, flyers were posted on doors informing the community of the health risk and numbers to call in case of an emergency.  There was also a blurb about limiting exposure to crowds and leaving the community on an as-needed basis. A few of the pedestrian gates were closed forcing us to walk by the guard gate.  There was a sign-in table for those entering.  So the community has done a pretty good job informing and regulating traffic in and out of the community.

Second, many are conscious here about the risk of public exposure.  I recall two people out of the hundreds that we passed did not have face masks. 

Third, upon entering the market/mall (often the grocery markets are in the malls), we were greeted with an employee with a digital thermometer.  The entrances were limited to two and the exits were guarded.  Even McDonald's street-side entrance/exit was closed though the mall-side entrance/exit remained open.  All employees that I saw wore face masks. 

Simi Valley had a fire in the late 90's that seemingly surrounded the valley.  My mom received a call from her mom in another state pleading for her to get the family out.  Their interpretation of the news was that Simi was surrounded on all sides by the fire and the exits out were hazardous at best.  In reality, breathing the smoke and ash posed more of a hazard than the threat of fire.  Sometimes things look worse from the outside looking in.  China has done what I would expect of a country faced with such a crisis; and from what I "hear," Wuhan is in lock-down mode to the point where streets are torn up to prevent people from leaving--whether that's true or not, that's what we are hearing! 

Christian Educators and Non-Christian Education

In 1929, Presbyterian theologian J. Gresham Machen left Princeton Seminary (along with a few other men) on the grounds that Princeton had become too liberal. As Van Til notes, Princeton was “reorganized in accordance with the new inclusive policy” (Van Til). Princeton had succumbed to a liberal agenda enlisting two members to the new board who were signatories of the Auburn Affirmation, “which allowed broad tolerance on doctrinal matters” (Balmer). Van Til equated this with that of communists appointed to the Supreme Court of the U.S. Because of this restructuring, Machen believed that “The gospel of salvation by grace from dead works would no longer be taught there without compromise. This gospel would be diluted with the supposed wisdom of man” (Van Til). For Machen, there was to be no stark antithesis between the Christian and non-Christian worldview given Princeton’s adherence to a modernist view; nor was there was to be any compromise with a watered-down gospel at the foundation of a Christian educational institution.

It was on the heels of this controversy, in the summer of 1929, that Westminster Theological Seminary was formed. Men such as Machen, Oswald Allis, Geerhardus Vos, and later Cornelius Van Til, left Princeton for they understood that Princeton’s liberal view was unbiblical and not conducive to education. They often declared that Westminster was the flame that Princeton once was.

Now if Princeton’s move towards liberalism prompted Christian educators to leave because of the antithetical nature of a liberal worldview, what ought to be the Christian’s response then towards non-Christian education?

There are three things the Christian must take into consideration.

First: the terms.

The word educate comes from the Latin ēdūcō (ē (ex)+ dūcō)), which is literally translated “to bring forth,” or “lead out of.” When used in the context of schooling or training, it means to “lead out of ignorance,” for to educate someone would be to lead them out of a prior state of darkness or from a lack of knowledge.

The other is antithesis, which means direct contrast or opposition. Jesus puts forth the antithesis in Matthew 12:30 when he states, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” There is no neutral ground here. Those who are not with Jesus are against him; they are actively working in opposition to Him.

Second: the role of the Church and State.

As the United States separated from England, there was also a separation of the function of the Church from the function of the State. Amendment 1 to the U.S. Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Often misinterpreted as the separation of Church and State (which is attributed to Thomas Jefferson, not the Constitution), the intent of this amendment was to prevent a Church/State government such as that found in England which was plagued by religious wars for hundreds of years depending on which ‘religious institution’ was in power at the time.

Our Founding Fathers understood the importance of a theistic worldview; they understood after Romans 13:1 that “there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” The Church’s function was to proclaim the gospel and to educate (in fact, the church established the many universities and colleges we have today- though many have become liberal and now provide secular education). The governments’ function was to protect its citizens and bear the sword against the evildoer. Both were deemed subject to God.

Functions of the Church and State, however, have changed in recent years. The State has not so much as separated itself from the Church, but has divorced itself from God. Considering itself autonomous, the State has taken over education and removed any semblance of God. State-run schools therefore, now conflict with the Christian worldview, which leads to the third point: the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian worldviews.

With the State separated from God, the State no longer finds it necessary to promote biblical principles. Biblical principles have either been replaced with humanistic ideologies or integrated with modernist thought under the guise of Christianity. State-run schools have thus adopted an anti-theistic philosophy that incorporates the acceptance of perverse relationships and theoretical evolution. Van Til notes, “All forms of anti-theism reveal a common hatred for the theistic doctrine of creation” (Van Til), but this is simply the States attempt at liberation from the God who is. Sadly, they are offered no escape, for all their endeavors bring them face to face with the one with whom they must one day give an account.

Though State-run schools attempt to shed its religious tendencies (reading of the Bible and prayer), they remain unsuccessful for they cannot escape their religion/philosophy of education. Any attempt at neutrality only solidifies the fact that they are not neutral. If they were neutral, they would not be in the business of education. State schools have an agenda, they have a curriculum, therefore they have a philosophy of education; they are undoubtedly religious, but this religion is anti-theistic for it does not find its foundation in the fount of all knowledge.

The Christian, however, believes in the sovereignty of God over all things, including education. Without the God of the Bible, there can be no education, for without God, there is no knowledge. Man cannot escape the knowledge of God for this knowledge is “manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.” This knowledge of God is not only written in the heavens, but can be found within the very disciplines of the sciences and arts. Regarding mathematics, Van Til writes,

The fact that two times two are four does not mean the same thing to you as a believer and to someone else as an unbeliever. When you think of two times two as four, you connect this fact with numerical law. And when you connect this fact with numerical law, you must connect numerical law with all law. The question you face, then, is whether law exists in its own right or is an expression of the will and nature of God. (Berkhof)

The unbeliever cannot account for laws in general given their worldview. Only on the Christian worldview do laws make sense; only given the sovereign God can there be laws.

Since public schools have adopted an atheistic philosophy, a religion of sorts, their attempt at education is futile for they do not begin with the God of whom all things pertain. How do they teach math without reference to the God whose nature is seen in law? How do they teach history without reference to the God of history, the God who “ordains whatsoever comes to pass,” who “hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of [man’s] habitation”? If education is the ‘leading out of darkness,’ what has the State then led their students from or into if they have not started with God as their presupposition?

These are some questions the Christian educator must ask. There is also the question of ethics. Is it ethical for the Christian educator to teach in a non-Christian educational system? Apart from the rules and regulations that govern what a Christian educator can and cannot say and teach, what is the ethical basis for teaching only part of the whole? If the goal of education is to lead one out of ignorance, can that goal be accomplished in a non-Christian environment? What is our accountability before God as teachers?

It is thus impossible for a Christian educator to teach in State-run institutions because of the antithesis between both worldviews. The State has a philosophy of education. The teacher also has a worldview, which, as Gaebelein writes, “in so far as he is effective, gradually conditions the world view of the pupil” (Gaebelein). They may compliment or contradict each other, but when the day is finished, has the student been educated if we have not begun with God? Machen was right to leave Princeton though it may have been difficult to do so, for in leaving he inadvertently told Princeton that their worldview was incompatible with Biblical Christianity. If he could not see fit to teach in an incompatible environment, how can we?

Misplaced Faith

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I understand why people are demanding proof that Bin Laden is dead. Hesitant to release photos for fear of retaliation, the Obama administration thought it best he serve as fish bait, but an ‘un-ceremonious burial at sea’ doesn’t cut it for most. After all, the government hasn’t been so forthcoming in the past about the ever-elusive WMD’s (Weapons of Mass Destruction), or the questionable details regarding the 9-11 attacks, or even the JFK files (which resembles the art of a two-year old with a black Sharpie). Whatever the case, faith in our government is slowly deteriorating. What then becomes of us?

Thomas Jefferson once said that those with power in the best forms of government slowly pervert that power into tyranny. I, for one, can see us trending in that direction. Pretty soon the government will be in the business of disposing of dissidents, even within its own borders, for the sake of the greater good, that is, whatever they deem as good.

You may gasp at the idea that our government would purposely harm or even kill its own citizens, but it’s not as far-fetched as you think.

Machiavelli, the 16th century writer and philosopher, put forth the idea that the prince (or in this case, the government) should instigate something of a rebellion that he may squelch it. Why? By suppressing the rebellion, the prince would make himself even greater in the eyes of the people.

But the U.S. would never do that, you say! We’re five hundred years removed and much more civilized.

Are we? What about Operation Northwoods, a proposal by people in our government to carry out terrorist attacks on U.S. cities in order to justify a war with Cuba. Though never put into action, at least not then, the thought that the DOD (Department of Defense) and the Joint Chief of Staffs would consider such a heinous act against its own to pin on Cuba is terrifying. That was 1962!

And we haven’t fared any better since.

Obama’s recommendation of Sanjay Gupta for Surgeon General in 2009 was just as disturbing, if not worse. Gupta advocates, as does Bill Gates, vaccination population control for third world countries. Gupta providentially withdrew his name from consideration, but who would nominate such a person in the first place? You say the Surgeon General doesn’t legislate law- I agree- but he does influence legislation.

Sitting in a training class about ten years ago we somehow got on the topic of abortion. Most in the class believed it was morally wrong. Then I had to bring up partial-birth abortions. After describing the horrific process for Annette, her countenance changed. Looking at me with disgust and with a mocking tone she said, “You’re one of those people who believe everything you read and all those rumors that go around.”

Wait…what happened here. I’m the bad guy? Has she been hiding under a rock? She’s always quite blissful.

Annette was a pro-lifer and the thought of such atrocity should have disgusted her, but her disgust was aimed at me; shame on me for thinking something so un-American, so un-Christian. Annette’s government would never let that happen. Or would it? Or did it? Yes it did, and yes they do.

I do not place my faith in men. They will always fail me. My faith rests in God alone who inclines the heart of men. Scripture declares, “the heart is deceitfully wicked above all things” (Jer. 17:9). No wonder men lose faith in their government.

Paradise Lost

As I pondered Friday's post, I began thinking about people's need to think the best of their dearly departed. After all, who benefits from thinking their loved ones are not "in a better place." Funeral after funeral, I heard things like, "at least he's not suffering anymore," or "she's got her wings and she's singing with the angels." Mind you, these are funerals for unbelievers, those who have no hope without Christ.

I don't want to seem unsympathetic here. I know the loss of a loved one is difficult for both believer and unbeliever. However, as a believer, the last thing I want to do is give false hope.

I remember years ago my mom asked me to represent our family at Earl's memorial service and say a prayer or read a verse. According to my mom, Earl's wife, Helen, w a believer...Earl was not. Most, if not all, of Earl's friends were unbelievers as well who paid tribute to him in song (Helen and Earl were part of SongMakers). Helen sang a Hawaiian hymn called Kanaka Wai Wai, but changed a few words. She sang,

Let Earl walk to paradise with you Lord,
Take his hands and lead him there

Again, Earl was not a Christian nor claimed to be.

According to God's Word, the unbelievers lot in eternity will not be paradise but will be consistent with his rejection of the only begotten of the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ; for "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

While searching the web...

Just my response to a link I followed (my comments in bold).

Akin says (responding to James White):

But I am not an anti-Calvinist in the second sense named above since I do not believe that Calvinism is so evil/bad/defective/whatever that it prevents Calvinists from being Christians.

Hmmm...then you must not hold to the Declarations of the Council of Trent which anathematizes those of us who subscribe to Calvinism for such is what Calvinists subscribe to- for such is what God's Word teaches. Since you are opposed to the Councils' declaration, does that mean the church is wrong for decreeing such anathemas?

I am perfectly happy to acknowledge Calvinists as brothers in Christ, even if I disagree with certain points of their theological system. You don't do that. Your level of "againstness" toward Catholicism is such that you think it deprives a person of the status of Christian if they really believe what the Church teaches, and that represents a more fundamental level of opposition to Catholicism than I have toward any form of Protestantism.

And again, you may see us as brothers in Christ, but that is not what Trent means when they say "LET HIM BE ANATHEMA." There is a level of "againstness" for Paul tells us to "encourage with sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it" (Titus 1:9). Christians are also called to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3). So yes, there is opposition. If you do not have the same opposition, then you are inconsistent with your own worldview. If you subscribe to the teachings of the Church over and above what God's Word teaches (for they are not the same), then what Paul says applies,

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
-Galatians 1:8

Maranatha!

Yeah, it my be a year or two late, but the issues are still relevant for today. Besides, it's late.

Is Doctrine Divisive?

Scripture calls us to "teach what is in accord with sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1). Contrary to sound doctrines is...yep, you guessed it, false doctrine. Paul warns us that "the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear" (2 Tim 4:3).

Benedict XVI, in his latest speech to some "50 Australian leaders of the Anglican, Uniting, Catholic, Lutheran, Maronite and Melkite and Assemblies of God churches," calls Christians to "guard against any temptation to view doctrine as divisive and hence an impediment to the seemingly more pressing and immediate task of improving the world in which we live."

Merriam-Webster defines doctrine as: something that is taught; a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief.

Applied to Christianity, it is the principle teachings or instructions of Scripture.

So what's the problem? Well Benedict ought to know that Catholicism is at odds with Christianity. In fact, didn't they somewhere at some council anathematize the Christian church for their distinctive doctrines? Oh yes, it was the declarations of the Council of Trent.

Doctrine is divisive simply because both groups have two different interpretations, one based on Scripture alone, the other on Scripture and Tradition; one places God's Word as the sole authority, the other the Church- the Catholic church.

Catholicism has continued to teach their perverse doctrines and has not to this day rescinded their anathemas against the Christian church. So what do we have in common? What is the point of attending some ecumenical hash and listen to a man who speaks out of both sides of his mouth?

As a side note, Christians ought not to agree on Benedicts second point about world improvement either. The Christians main objective is spelled out in Scripture- Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit -Matt 28:19. The Gospel is the immediate and pressing task of the Christian, not world improvement. The only way the world will improve is through man's subjection to Christ our King.