Nothing New Under The Sun III (Conclusion)

About 15 years ago, I jotted the points below from a lecture or from a book but neglected to write the source. If a reader knows the source, I would very much appreciate hearing from him or her so that I might give due credit.

The author or lecturer demonstrated that all great peoples or nations usually run a familiar course, which roughly followed the experience of the ancient Jewish people:

  • God rescues a people from slavery giving them faith
  • Faith gives great courage to a people
  • From great courage, the people obtain great liberties
  • From great liberties the people obtain great abundance
  • From great abundance the people become selfish
  • From selfishness the people fall into complacency
  • From complacency the people fall into apathy
  • From apathy the people fall into moral decay
  • From moral decay the people fall into dependence
  • From dependence the people fall into slavery

What we see around us is nothing new. Every great nation or empire or people has seen the same regression — including ancient Israel, as even a cursory reading of the Bible will attest: a time of great faith and great courage; a time of great liberties and prosperity; and then a time of complacency, degeneracy, dependence, and slavery: immorality and pleasure-seeking never produce growth or wealth — quite the opposite.

In the case of America, we have something additional that, although not unique, is nevertheless noteworthy: we have been busy indoctrinating several generations to hate themselves and their native or adopted land. This too has historical precedence, as, for example, the Romans refused to defend themselves from the hordes of invaders. In our case, we have been trained to hate our history and fathers. But that doesn’t mean we end up loving nothing. As someone somewhere has put it, “history abhors a vacuum”. 

We now love “the other”: that which a mere generation ago was thought immoral, indecent, degenerate, tyrannical, and worse, is now what our upcoming generations are taught to “love”. We hate ourselves, but we love something completely opposite to our history and heritage. It follows that we will not defend, let alone fight for, something we hate. 

And “the other” doesn’t just sit there basking in our “love” for it. No, it becomes the viper we have nursed to our bosom; it becomes our master. And nothing good can come of that.

The recent congressional brouhaha over the discovery that Communist China has been influencing the curricula in American elementary schools was much ado about nothing because we knowingly have been teaching the very same atheistic claptrap for generations, without China’s help. Her involvement now ought not to be occasion to clutch our pearls.

So, what is to be done?

There is an example in history of not too long ago which ought to give us hope.

Eighteenth Century England was a moral disaster. There are journals of proper Englishmen registering their having gone to church and successfully “feeling up” a lady or two. Drawings exist of pubs with “clean hay” or simply “hay” to sleep off drunken stupors. The “clean hay” meant that it had no vomit, as opposed to the other, which did, but was cheaper and many resorted thereto. The dog returning to his vomit proverb was very real to 17th Century England. Pornography was rampant.

The North American colonies were well aware of England’s degeneracy: the third bill of right reads:

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

During the War for Independence, British soldiers and foreign mercenaries took over private homes, in many cases assaulting or otherwise ravishing the wives and daughters. Drunken rampages were not uncommon, even among ranking officers.

England was the place where apostates like Voltaire caught the atheistic urge to spew hatred towards Christianity and took that pornographic bacteria back to France where it produced oceans of blood and violence. 

Why did England not go the way of France in the 18th Century?

Well, in her fields and street corners, men such as John and Charles Wesley were preaching the Gospel and thousands were convicted and their hearts opened. George Whitefield preached in both England and also the colonies, although he died before the fruits of his ministries became visible in England.

The Lord used the preaching and teaching of His Word and Law to turn England around. A turnaround the likes of which are rarely seen — Ninevah after Jonah’s preaching comes to mind. And in the following century, she led the greatest evangelical missionary outreach in history, other than the Apostolic age. King George lost his colonies, but gained the world.

From debauchery to world conquest in one century.

Of course, this is not something wrought by human ingenuity or power. It is the work of God. But we know that many mothers and fathers in England were praying for their sons and daughters, that they would return to the old paths.

And that is the course we must ask God to help us take if we hope to see a return to the old paths here in our country, a country whose history irrefutably was founded upon eternal spiritual values which in turn made us a great nation.

John Adams said, “Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.” However, he overlooked Nineveh … and also England.

Let us listen to Jeremiah as he rebuked Judah:

“Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.”

May we say, “We shall walk therein.”

All the while, knowing that without the intervention of God, nations will decline and cease to be.

John Wesley, left (1703-1791) and Charles Wesley (1707-1788)

George Whitefield (1714-1770)

Voltaire (1694-1778)

The Barbarian invasions and sackings took place in the face of little to no opposition.

Rome’s Bad Boy

December 13 was this year’s third Sunday of Advent, which traditionally focuses on the joy of Christmas. Joy and its variants are seen throughout the Bible but one of the best known passages is in St. Paul’s epistle to the Philippians wherein he writes, “Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, rejoice!” He wrote that as a prisoner in Rome awaiting an appearance before Nero, a man not known for his tender mercies. St. Paul made it clear that true joy is not dependent on circumstances or material goods but on the Person of Jesus Christ.

Thinking about this brought to mind a 2014 cover story in National Geographic: “Rome’s Bad Boy: Nero Rises From the Ashes.” The cover is a photo of the majestic statue erected in his home town, Anzio in 2010.

As a child in Venezuela, I’d hear adults say something along the lines of, “Más malo que Nerón,” [“More wicked than Nero”]. I never imagined I’d grow up to hear learned individuals defend Nero. But even that is nothing new under the sun. After all, the ancient prophet warns, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” 

What follows is a letter I wrote my family shortly after reading the article while away on a business trip in 2014.

Dear Family:

T.S. Eliot famously said that those who deny God will pay their respects to Hitler or Stalin. And as we put God farther from our thoughts, we will surely fall for attempts to rehabilitate monsters. Especially explicitly anti-Christian monsters.

The then-Mayor of Anzio, Luciano Bruschini, commissioned the statue [on the National Geographic cover]. He says, “As children, we were taught that he was evil – among the worst emperors of all. Doing a little research, I came to conclude that it’s not true. I consider Nero to be a good, even great emperor, and maybe the most beloved of the entire empire. He was a great reformer. The senators were rich, and they owned slaves. He took from them and gave to the poor. He was the first socialist!” 

Of course, you will be shocked! shocked! to know that Mayor Bruschini is also a socialist.

As you might recall, Nero was considered by many in the apostolic and post apostolic era to be the Beast described in the book of Revelation. Such interpretation largely fell into disuse in succeeding centuries and some now even consider it to be heresy, because such a reading would deny the futuristic view of Revelation so prevalent today.

Without entering into an eschatological argument … we ought to at least consider why so many through the ages have thought Nero to have been that beast (recognizing that the epithet applies to an individual as well as to a kingdom, depending on the context).

What follows is not an analysis of the article; were it that, I’d begin with the wording of the title itself: Nero as “bad boy.” That sort of removes the sting of “beast” or “monster,” and conjures up some sort of Roman Dennis the Menace. My intent is not so much to analyze as it is to caution.

Since some of Nero’s most egregious acts are a matter of record, the article does note them: kicked his pregnant wife to death; murdered his mother after committing incest with her; murdered his brother; ordered his mentor, Seneca, to commit suicide; burned Christians alive, using their bodies to light his gardens, and blamed them for the great fire in Rome, which enabled him to embark on an enormous building program for himself. (Since Mayor Bruschini noted that the senators owned slaves, we will also helpfully note that one of Nero’s pastimes was dressing up as a lion, molesting slaves who were tied up, and then slaughtering them. That was not in the article.)

As horrible as that litany is, by placing it at the beginning of the cover story and then going on about the great things Nero did and his good intentions and his rich enemies in the Senate, and framing his reign within the tiresome class warfare Marxist doctrine (Nero was for the poor, you see) and quoting professors and mayors and sundry apologists, by the time you get to the end of the article, unless you are imbued with a Christian worldview, you’ll be sort of nodding in some agreement: he wasn’t so bad after all. Or as the author of a Nero biography put it, “…even today he would be avant-garde, ahead of his time.”

Not only that, although the article notes that other emperors were also bad, the only one contrasted with Nero is the Christian emperor, Constantine, sarcastically identified as “a saint”. And you’ll read that he had “his son, second wife, and father-in-law all murdered.” So typical of modernists; always seeking to cry, “Aha! Tu quoque!:” an effective red herring to the unaware. However, Constantine, unlike Nero, did not stomp his pregnant wife to death and the deaths noted above were executions, although there is considerable debate as to the reasons. Regardless, the whole tenor of the life of Constantine was poles opposite to Nero’s. But you’d have to look that up on your own.

Again, unless you are steeled with Scripture and a strong Christian weltanschauung, you’ll fall like the foolish moonstruck maiden for the smooth talking rake that alienates her affections from God and home. Likewise, these godless twits seek to alienate your affection from Christ and the historic faith.

A subversive technique cleverly employed in the article is to draw equivalence between its readers’ pleasures in life and the pleasures enjoyed by people-like-us in Nero’s Rome. So you’ll see photos of “Roman revelry” today: a couple about to start slobbering over each other; an 81-year old has-been actress showing off her leg; a crowd of partying, smug-faced (not one bright smile in the lot) high-society 70-year-olds doing their downright best to look like Burberry models. Life under Nero wasn’t all that different from today! And we all behave like that too, anyway. So what’s the big deal? 

And you’ll read about Nero’s love of art and music and great building programs and how they began to be re-discovered in the Renaissance (so-called) and how such discoveries continue on today. Including documented evidence of a statue, almost as high as the Statue of Liberty, Nero erected to himself standing midst his palace grounds but which could be seen from all directions at great distances. Since he considered himself to be a god, the sculpture denoted the rays of the sun on his head, as do some extant coins from that era.

And you’ll read about how he just luuuved the people; and the people just luuuved him back.

Yes, boys and girls, it is lamentable that a “ruler of such baffling complexity was now simply a beast.” A “public relations man ahead of his time with a shrewd understanding of what the people wanted, often before they knew it themselves [emphasis mine]” is reduced to just being a monster. His reign was “warless.”  He gave us “Neronia – Olympic-style poetry, music, and athletic contests.” He “created something no one had seen before: a light-flooded public place not just for hygiene [don’t you love that? ‘not just for hygiene’!] but also where there were statues and paintings and books, where you could hang out and listen to someone read poetry aloud. It meant an entirely new social situation.”

“In addition to the Gymnasium Neronis, the young emperor’s public building works included an amphitheater, a meat market, and a proposed canal that would connect Naples to Rome’s seaport at Ostia … to ensure safe passage of the city’s food supply….”

We are now privileged to discover “the full architectural greatness of Nero’s reign.” The inscription at the statue at Anzio says, “During his reign the empire enjoyed a period of peace, of great splendor, and of important reforms.”

I guess we plebes should have focused on all that, and not on the guy’s fruits which are seen in his deplorable actions and resultant lakes of innocent blood. Poor Nero; no one really understands him. My heart breaks.

The Bible warns us to beware of men whom every one praises, for example, the pharisees. Did not Herod die horribly for receiving praise that belongs only to God? The history of the world is littered with men and women, “loved by the people” but who played God. They had one thing in common: they hated Christianity. And they’re dead. And those today — high and low, known and unknown, famous and obscure — who hate likewise, will eventually be so too. And that, forever.

A funny thing about character is that it will out on what you do. Nero initiated a horrible persecution of Christians in November, AD 64. Vast numbers were murdered, most by horrible means. The numbers were so great, that even Roman chroniclers, who also despised Christians, nevertheless felt compelled to record the vastness of the slaughter. Of course, both Peter and Paul were put to death by Nero. At least one Roman historian specifically called Nero ‘a beast’.

But people kept bringing flowers to his tomb for months and years. He was greatly mourned and lamented. Many believed, and hoped, he would return from the dead. As the article puts it, “…the persistent belief that the boy king would one day return to the people who so loved him.”

The article documents his great power; his great glory; his “godlike” characteristics; his vast riches; his power to give or take life; the belief by many that he’d rise from the dead. And it also cannot help but mention or allude to his beastly cruelty; his hatred of Christ and Christians; and more. Clearly a host of his contemporaries thought very highly of the guy, and many, including him, thought him to be a god. And now we see that many today seem to think likewise!

Some things never change.

Your loving father,

Dad

The September, 2014 National Geographic 
Nero’s fruits