Without Prejudice

England’s Choral Culture

by D.J. Webb

Much discussion of libertarianism revolves, in one fashion or another, around the English Common Law and England’s cultural traditions. England is the home of liberty (it is quite incorrect to claim, as the US president George W. Bush did, that America is “freedom’s home”, other than in the sense that America is an Anglo-Saxon nation—an identity specifically rejected by another US president, Woodrow Wilson). Consequently, there is a continuum of thought in libertarian circles between those who wish to see minimal government with little reference to the cultural basis for it—I believe this would lead to the minarchism of Mogadishu, Somalia, one of the few fully libertarian societies of the present day—and those conservatives who want to see England’s traditions of small government restored and all the rights and liberties traditionally accorded to Englishmen honoured and upheld by Crown, Parliament and Her Majesty’s Courts of Justice.

I would argue that the latter approach is more likely to yield a sustainable free society—and, more to the point, one that anyone, other than a thug, should wish to live in. I have, in various places, outlined some views on the Christian basis of a free society. Unfortunately, it would be disingenuous of me to claim that a pre-critical belief in Christianity was still available. Consequently, I would have to admit that God Himself is just a cultural character, as real as Father Christmas or Merlin in the West or “Monkey” in the Eastern civilisation. This doesn’t mean he is unreal: rather, his reality derives from his role in our culture. As fewer and fewer people are taught to believe in him—and this is effectively what a church upbringing used to offer—the schooling of children in a world outlook where God was a real figure—he becomes less real. While not a historical or scientific personage, in the 19th century and before God was a real cultural presence in England owing to maintenance of a cultural heritage that dated back to the days, in the Dark Ages originally, when English people did believe in the historical and scientific truth of the Bible.

When one reads the history of our country, one is struck with how stiffened were the backbones of Englishmen by their cultural traditions. One example is Gladys Aylward, the English woman who travelled to Nationalist China to run an orphanage. Such people accomplished amazing things, but did so based on their firm beliefs. They were sure God would support them, and extended great effort in achieving their goals as a result. The characters of English people today are flimsy and self-regarding by contrast.

Why is it that people do not believe today? As late as 1960, 50% of English children went to Sunday school. It seems clear that the drive against religion stems, not from popular revulsion, but from Establishment tiring of our traditional culture and decades of anti-religious propaganda on the BBC. The case a few years ago, not far from where I live, of children attempting to kill each other in the woods is emblematic of the transformation of our culture. “You save yourself”, or words to that effect, were uttered by one of the 10- or 11-year-old children whose head had been dashed by a rock, “and I’ll just lie here and die”.

The great “advantage” of the state-fostered cultural revolution is that children are now no longer being taught “lies”, taught to believe that someone a little like Father Christmas created the world, and awaited us in the next world to usher us into Paradise. The disadvantage is the degradation of our culture, as nothing worthwhile replaces it. And I think this is partly why the 19th-century English thinker John Ruskin lamented the scientific discoveries that were destroying the basis for faith. In 1851 he exclaimed,

If only the Geologists could let me alone, I could do very well, but those dreadful hammers! I hear the clink of them at the end of every cadence of the Bible verses.

Early on, Victorian intellectuals realised how transformative the scientific discoveries being made would eventually be, both for religious faith and for wider culture. I wonder whether it is possible to accept Anglicanism in particular as a cultural heritage, and believe in it culturally, but not scientifically or historically. This is the point of view that I hold, at any rate, and so, for some reason, I love our traditional hymns, even if the content is objectively false.

There is a beauty in the words of the Anglican hymnal, and of course hymns of other denominations. “Lo! he abhors not the virgin’s womb”. “The Lord of years, the Potentate of time, Creator of the rolling spheres, ineffably sublime”. “Foul, I to the fountain fly; Wash me, Saviour, or I die”. Just as Shakespeare, Milton, Dickens, etc, ought to be studied by English schoolchildren, and of course the Authorised Version of the Bible, our hymnal contains glorious imagery and beautiful tunes that ought to be studied by future generations. You could call it “heritage”, rather than “culture”, but I insist on believing this heritage is a more stable basis for a free society than anarchy as such. Possibly this is because Christians sought to encourage the putting on of “the new personality”, the Christ-like personality—the 1950s image of someone who has a “policeman in his head”, who instinctively behaves in an orderly fashion without the presence of CCTV cameras, is an artefact of a Christian culture.

By contrast, religions such as Islam have never sought to create a “new personality”. Islam functions via harsh and barbaric shariah law punishments, leading to the odd circumstance that Muslims believe English society to be decadent, while the Muslim community (and not just a tiny minority of it) is heavily involved in child rape and similar crimes in our country: they sneer at us for our weak punishments for such crimes, oblivious to the fact that they, so far from being our superiors by behaving with higher morals, are the source of a good deal of such public order problems in England today. For this reason, I doubt the Islamic heritage forms an appropriate basis for a libertarian society.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this, I love the hymns. The following is a list of my favourite carols, some by Charles Wesley and some not. Charles Wesley was the son of the rector of Epworth, not too far from where I live, in fact. I then also list some favourite hymns, both Wesleyan and non-Wesleyan. First of all, the existence of hymns at all reflects popular pressure in England, where the non-metrical psalms (as exemplified by the Parish Psalter) eventually gave way to metrical songs from the 18th century onwards, and the once austere low-church traditions of the Church of England broadened to include hymn singing and a high-church variant in style of worship.

I like congregational singing—not songs sung by an individual singer, such as Charlotte Church, as if hymns were pop songs. Neither do I like guitars or other forms of jazzing up the hymns: listening to hymns on Youtube, one’s heart falls when one hears the guitar chords start strumming and then a rock perversion of a hymn performed. The church has traditionally preferred male to female voices—there were no choir girls (“girl choristers”) in the cathedrals of 19th-century England—and in the Middle Ages the plainchant parts of the service were seen as part of the liturgy and thus could only be sung by men. To hear female voices intruded into our choral tradition besmirches and sullies our traditions in the name of “equality”. In general, women’s voices tend towards screeching and lack the quality of men’s voices. Nevertheless, some of the links below, faute de mieux, had to be to hymns sung by females. Some were sung in horrible American accents that tended to spoil the hymn. In general, the highest-quality hymns on Youtube are those uploaded from the BBC Songs of Praise programme, a programme that maintains very high choral and cántatory standards, albeit marred by the interspersal of sanctimonious and self-righteous saccharine personal stories between the hymns.

These are my favourites, with links to reasonably good renditions.

Carols

These carols all have a grand and declamatory feel to them, and ought to be known by heart by all English children. I can think of nothing more enjoyable than singing these hymns in full congregation, and would like to see a culture where our society were held together by a common heritage of worthwhile things, and not meretricious ephemeral pap, such as pop songs. O Come, All ye Faithful is, in particular, a very doctrinally rich hymn that brings pleasure to all traditionalists in England.

Wesleyan carols

Lo! He Comes with Clouds Descending is one of my favourite Wesleyan hymns. It is not a Christmas carol, but an Advent carol. It is frequently sung with butchered words, reflecting a rather transparently fake attempt in the Church of England today to pretend to a deeper faith than is really felt. So those who set at naught and sold him is for some reason often sung as we who set at naught and sold him although it is hard to believe that those who changed the words believe that it is we who crucified Christ. It seems the words are deliberately changed to confuse our cultural heritage and spoil the experience for all of those over a certain age. The words Those dear tokens of his passion/ Still his dazzling body bears,/ Source of endless exultation to his ransomed worshippers,/ With what rapture/ Gaze we on those glorious scars! (a verse not given in the link above and unfortunately often omitted) are quite astonishing, illustrating a sometimes terrifyingly detailed contemplation of Christ’s suffering on the cross. Hark! the Herald-angels sing is another one of Wesley’s doctrine-packed hymns that is an eternal favourite. The words Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;/ Hail the incarnate Deity,/ Pleased as man with man to dwell;/ Jesus, our Emmanuel expound the doctrine of the Trinity much better than any catechism could.

Other Wesleyan hymns

We see here an example of how many of the hymns in the hymnal are sung in many different settings, including O Thou who Camest from Above. Numerous hymns can be found in three or four different versions, and often each setting has its own merits. And Can It Be is one of the finest hymns of all, and the link given is to one of the best renditions on BBC Songs of Praise. Composed in the year of Charles Wesley’s conversion experience, the words Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—/ I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;/ My chains fell off, my heart was free,/ I rose, went forth, and followed Thee became associated at some point with the prison reform movement in the 19th century. Jesu, Lover of My Soul is one of the best-loved Wesleyan hymns, being composed in 1740 in Co. Down while Wesley lay under a bush, hiding from a Catholic mob that had attacked him. Christ the Lord is Risen Today is one of the best-loved Easter hymns, ultimately based on an Easter hymn of much greater antiquity.

Hymns by others

Rock of Ages here was thought to have been inspired by a storm experienced by Toplady in the Mendip Hills. The Redhead setting linked to here seems to me to be superior to the Toplady setting more common in America. The Carlisle setting of Breathe on Me, Breath of God is linked to here, although other settings are more common: this is my favourite setting of his hymn. We notice here that two or three hymns of American composition rival in quality the English hymns, although America’s choral culture is overwhelmingly dependent on its cultural links with England. It seems to me that only Tell Out, my Soul can be considered a quality hymn of recent composition.

What is the point of arguing for a ethno-cultural basis for a free society? Isn’t a free society one where people create and enjoy cultural works of whatever type they wish? It is, but this does not answer the question of what sort of society a free society would be. Could a free society have an admirable culture? Or would it have to be like Mogadishu? Matthew Arnold wrote in Culture and Anarchy,

“May not every man in England say what he likes?”—Mr. Roebuck perpetually asks; and that, he thinks, is quite sufficient, and when every man may say what he likes, our aspirations ought to be satisfied. But the aspirations of culture, which is the study of perfection, are not satisfied, unless what men say, when they may say what they like, is worth saying,—has good in it, and more good than bad. In the same way The Times, replying to some foreign strictures on the dress, looks, and behaviour of the English abroad, urges that the English ideal is that every one should be free to do and to look just as he likes. But culture indefatigably tries, not to make what each raw person may like, the rule by which he fashions himself; but to draw ever nearer to a sense of what is indeed beautiful, graceful, and becoming, and to get the raw person to like that.

The cultural heritage of England was once the basis for a much freer society, one where people were raised to know what was right and wrong, and how to treat others. The fact that education was once not funded by the state did not mean that only meretricious forms of education were available. Architecture, song, and language all met higher standards than are the norm today. It is a shame that a managerial élite opposed to England’s traditional culture has gained prominence, using its position to weaken knowledge of our cultural traditions and the adherence of English people to them. It may be that in the ruins of culture the only type of “free society” that could now be built would be a cultural “race to the bottom”. An alternative view is that once education was freed of state controls, enough parents would be able to insist on worthwhile educations for their children, educations they were paying for, and, hopefully, this would include a knowledge and understanding of our religious heritage, including our wonderful hymns, which ought to be passed on to our children. We are in a unique position among the nations of the world, in that the cultural traditions of our nation are the essence of freedom, and so conservatism and libertarianism can be two sides of the same coin, as we seek to recover our national identity even as we adapt demands for freedom to the economic and technological reality of a new century. Whatever is thought on this subject, all the hymns linked to above are pleasant and enjoyable, and I hope libertarians give some thought to the way in which a society’s cultural heritage, and especially one as glorious as that of England’s, can play a role in a free society. John Stuart Mill wrote in Chapter 16 of his Representative Government of the difficulty of forging a free society in a state peopled by competing cultural groups. One of the key facets of national identity is religion, and a common religious heritage aids in the establishment of a free polity:

A portion of mankind may be said to constitute a Nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others — which make them co-operate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be government by themselves or a portion of themselves exclusively. This feeling of nationality may have been generated by various causes. Sometimes it is the effect of identity of race and descent. Community of language, and community of religion, greatly contribute to it.

Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Related posts:

Bring Back the Gallows: Crime, Eugenics, and the Death of Justice The Drum-beat to War? The Universal Life Church The Daily Telegraph: A Culture of Decay Foreign Devils: Fear, Admiration, and the Future of Civilisation

Powered by YARPP.

14 comments


  1. In the first paragraph Mr Webb claims that President Woodrow Wilson rejected a racial (“Anglo Saxon”) view of America, Actually President Wilson was a racial fanatic, it was he who brought in separate toilets for black and white people in the Federal government (no other President – even slave owners, had been interested in such “scientific” racism).

    President Wilson (along with President “Teddy” Roosevelt – although T. Roosevelt used much loser language and kept changing his opinions anyway) rejected the idea of universal principles of reason and justice (the heart of the Old Whig tradition – whether it be Chief Justice Sir John Holt of the British “Glorious Revolution” period or the American Bill of Rights) adapted a “cultural” view of things.

    Woodrow Wilson supported Britain in the First World War NOT because he believed our cause was just in a universal sense (and our cause was just – contrary to what Sean Gabb and others claim), but because of cultural ties (language and so on) and partly reasons of national advantage (remember Wilson, like his Richard Ely his mentor, did not hate the German elite because of its moral relativism, such “lie fests” as the German Declaration of War upon France in 1914, he SHARED their philosophical attitudes – he “hated them as a rival” he wanted America to replace Germany). President Wilson rejected the philosophy of the Bill of Rights (American or British) things such as the “Constitutional Club” network (British) and the “Liberty and Property Defence League” (also British) would have produced nothing but contempt in President Wilson – just as he despised the American versions of these things.

    The attacks of such men as Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge (see “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents”) on Woodrow Wilson and his Progressive allies were fundamentally correct. Whatever moral failings Warren Harding may have been guilty of (and the attacks on him are mostly falsehoods anyway) then do not invalidate his attack on the un-American (in the sense of being opposed to the PHILOSOPHY of the Constitution) Wilson and co, no more that Joad (of Oxford) being convicted of not buying a railway ticket refuted his attack upon Logical Positivism.

    “What do they know of England that only England know?” Truth and justice (the principles of ordered liberty) do not stop at the coast of the sea. As Edmund Burke spent his life pointing out they as valid in India as in Surrey, as much in America as in Norfolk, as much in Ireland as in Devon. The French Revolution was not wrong because it went “too far” (as Hegel falsely thought), it was wrong because it went in the WRONG DIRECTION. Rousseau style collective “rights of the people” not the rights of individual persons and voluntary (private) associations, Not wrong because it tired to apply principles – but because it tried to apply the WRONG principles.

    Mr Webb then goes on to attack Somalia as an example of “minarchism”.

    Actually no side in the civil war in the Somalia supports a minimal state, just as no side in the war in Somalia supports anarcho capitalism (another false claim I have heard). Somalia is certainly NOT an example of minarchism.

    The later paragraphs in Mr Webb’s post may be much better – vastly better (I can not honestly dispute that because I did not read them), but the first paragraph was so bad that I stopped reading there.

    Reply

  2. What a pity you don’t stop reading all the paragraphs, it certainly doesn’t do much to modify your views. Woodrow Wilson supported Britain in WWI because certain people ‘persuaded’ him to . Possibly the same people who ‘persuaded’ AJ Balfour to support them, not that we’ll get much comment on that from you.

    Reply

  3. This article was supposed to be about how hymn-singing cements certain cultures, I guess.

    Whether or not Woodrow Wilson was a fascist-collectivist-scumbag (very probable, given the surviving evidence) who only got his nation to “enter the War” because of future perceived losses of US-owned-tonnage-of-shipping ascribable (as loss-invoices) to “his voters”, he took what we’d I guess call a commercial decision.”Let’s go to support the guys who are killing the sumbarines that are trying to kill our voters’ ships.”

    This happened to be the right decision, luckily for him, at the time.

    I guess that all that this proves is that you should only go to war to protect your own interests. In this case then W Wilson did right. Whether or not I now get into an argument with my dear friend the Director about whether Britain ought to have gone to war in the first place in 1914, is another discussion. He knows my position on this one.

    Reply

  4. I thank Paul Marks for setting the record straight regarding Woodrow Wilson. If anything, Wilson was more viciously anti-Black than Marks portrays him. As for Theodore Roosevelt’s alleged inconsistency in that regard, I believe it can largely be attributed to the fact that the Black vote was a key constituency of the Republican Party then, as it had been since Reconstruction and would continue to be until the New Deal.

    I’m willing to overlook D.J. Webb’s flub on that reference to American politics of a century ago. I could see myself getting something similarly muddled if I dragged David Lloyd-George into the conversation. I wish Mr. Marks had read further, as I did; there are some good points raised by Mr. Webb, even if one is not such a fan of hymnody as Mr. Webb.

    My experience of dealing with libertarians in the US has been that there is a tendency to push individualism to the point where the fact, one might say the necessity, of society gets lost. There is also a notable hostility to religion which is not too surprising in view of the influence of Ayn Rand, an avowed atheist, and of some earlier New Englanders who were, at best, Unitarian. Having thus unmoored themselves from both tradition and religion, libertarians (at least most of the ones I have encountered) manage to be quite dogmatic about a moral system which satisfies them but floats in a social and metaphysical vacuum space. I saw this most clearly in a months long email debate with followers of Andrew Galambos and Jay Snelson.

    Libertarians too often seem eager to cut themselves loose from the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, the Golden Rule, etc. , thinking they can replace all that stuff with the non-aggression principle. But (again, this has been my personal experience), they have no reason to offer why I should prefer, or even accept, to live by their non-aggression principle. They have no argument worthy of the name why I should not follow Nietzsche instead.

    Even a relatively statist American founder, John Adams, is credited with saying that the plan of government offered in the Constitution of 1788 was only fit for a religious and moral people, implying that it would not be workable for people not generally self-responsible and self-restrained. To put this more clearly. people are not so constituted as to to live in utter solitude and they will not willingly tolerate chaos. If they cannot depend on their neighbors generally doing the right thing on their own, they will demand that government compel them to do so. And a government powerful enough to fill this role will assert itself to impose its own will over that of the people.

    Which brings us back around to the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration was not groundbreaking in denying the principle of monarchy (American libertarians are fond of saying this, but it isn’t so), nor did it make a case for democracy (which Americans Left and Right are prone to argue). What it did do was to set forth the proposition that there is a core of personal rights which are the natural gift of God, that these rights pre-exist all forms of government and do not rely upon any government for their authority, that the just cause for the formation of governments is to assist in securing to individuals their enjoyment of those God-given rights, and that when government becomes destructive of their enjoyment of their rights the people have the right to alter or abolish such goverrnment and erect new safeguards for their liberties.

    Reply

  5. I try to ignore Paul Marks’ constant trolling – but J. Keen Holland, you are wrong to think that Paul Marks “set the record straight on Woodrow Wilson”. Why do we have to have these constant mulish fact-free discussions as if we were heirs to a civilisation that valued ignorance and illiteracy? See https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8TZrTkeXSq4C&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=You+must+not+speak+of+us+who+come+over+here+as+cousins,+still+less+as+brothers;+we+are+neither.+Neither+must+you+think+of+us+as+Anglo-Saxons,+for+that+term+can+no+longer+be+rightly+applied+to+the+people+of+the+US.&source=bl&ots=_jR_bsz15I&sig=oNKtaO5CZxY_4sNQ2lul5NzshR4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FrWOVLX3Csm4Ud-Fg9gN&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=You%20must%20not%20speak%20of%20us%20who%20come%20over%20here%20as%20cousins%2C%20still%20less%20as%20brothers%3B%20we%20are%20neither.%20Neither%20must%20you%20think%20of%20us%20as%20Anglo-Saxons%2C%20for%20that%20term%20can%20no%20longer%20be%20rightly%20applied%20to%20the%20people%20of%20the%20US.&f=false for the exact quote from Wilson:

    ‘You must not speak of us who come over here as cousins, still less as brothers; we are neither. Neither must you think of us as Anglo-Saxons, for that term can no longer be rightly applied to the people of the US. Nor must too much importance in this connection be attached to the fact that English is our common language …no, there are only two things which can establish and maintain closer relations between your country and mine: they are community of ideals and of interests’.

    Reply

    • My apologies, Mr. Webb, that I did not make it sufficiently clear that the “setting the record straight” (as I described Mr. Marks’ remarks on Woodrow Wilson) did not refer to the narrow issue of “Anglo-Saxons” but to the broader issue of marginalizing Black Americans which Mr Marks added to the discussion in his comment. Anglo-Saxon is not a term much controverted these days in American political discourse; I am afraid that I entirely missed its significance for your thesis.

      In fact, the last time I remember anyone using the term “Anglo-Saxon” in my presence was a particularly obtuse professor of American history at UVa (c. 1969) claiming to have found the origin of slavery in the US to have been “the horrifying connotations of blackness for the Anglo-Saxon mind.” One simply doesn’t encounter the term very often. “Anglo,” however, appears not infrequently when Latino political activists wish to speak dismissively of the native born white population of the US. This is rather like our remnant populations of German pietists referring to all other white people as “English,” which wasn’t terribly accurate when their ancestors came here in the late 17th and early 18th centuries and is very much less so today.

      If it helps, I did think enough of “England’s Choral Culture” to share it on Facebook where a number of my friends are interested in music. BTW, you omitted a date for Charles Wesley’s “Come, Thou long-expected Jesus.” According to my copy of the Common Service Book of the Lutheran Church (United Lutheran Press, Philadelphia, copyright 1917), the date should be 1744.

      Reply

  6. I was not “trolling” Mr Webb – I TOLD THE TRUTH. You should consider doing the same – as should your master Sean Gabb.

    Woodrow Wilson did indeed try and appease other ethnic groups in the United States and elsewhere (hence his comments) – but it was Woodrow Wilson who rejected the universal principles of the Constitution (such as the Bill of Rights) and went for cultural evolution instead – the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim Mr Webb. And, as I have told you before, it is NOT an innocent error on your part Mr Webb.

    As for the other comments.

    Aynak – I wonder what group you mean when you say a group convinced Mr Balfour and Mr Wilson to oppose Germany. Are your referring to Methodists? For your information many Jewish people were pro German in 1914 – 1918. The idea that there is a Jewish conspiracy controlling Western policy is a depraved fantasy of yours and of other Nazis.

    I also note that Mr Webb does not attack the Nazi “Aynak” – you just attack me, falsely accusing me of “trolling”. That you attack me (attack me for telling the truth) and do NOT attack the Nazi “Aynak” (for his lies) shows all that needs to be known about you Mr Webb.

    Still Mr Holland makes a valid point – some (not all) American libertarians are very odd.

    Broundly

    Reply

    • Isn’t it very interesting how quickly the frothing at the mouth name-calling begins whenever certain views are aired. ‘A Jewish conspiracy controlling Western policy’, whoever could have thought of such a thing?

      I would agree that many – perhaps most – Jewish people were pro-German in 1914-18 – I wonder what changed their mind? There’s a chap called Benjamin Freedman who might possibly have thrown some light on it – read him here: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/benjamin.htm

      No doubt he’ll be dismissed as just another ‘Nazi’, even though he’d be a Jewish one!

      Reply

  7. Somehow I cut myself off – bad temper and heavy fingers.

    Mr Holland does make a valid point (and if Mr Webb makes it in his later paragraphs then YES Mr Webb has also made a valid point) – some (not all) American libertarians are very odd.

    Broadly speaking those people in the United States who support a smaller government and a stronger civil society (based on voluntary cooperation in such things as churches and so on) are “Tea Party” people – whether or not they are actually members of local Tea Party groups.

    But as Julie (and others) have often pointed out to me, some American “libertarians” are “sniffy” if not outright hostile to such pro civil society people – either, in the case of the “libertarian left”, preferring radically ANTI civil society people. Such as union thugs engaged in what W.H. Hutt called the “Strike Threat System” – with employers not being ALLOWED to employ other people if existing employees are “on strike” (i.e. have chosen not to turn up for work). Or even “Occupy” thugs – who want to burn and smash everything, and even rape members of their own movement. The state of a park, or other such, after an “Occupy” event or a “Tea Party” event is instructive – the park (or whatever) looks utterly different. The left (for want of a better word) destroy and defile – the Tea Party people do not.

    Or, the Reason magazine libertarians and so on, keeping their distance from the collectivists (Red Flag or Black Flag collectivists) – but still being “sniffy” about Tea Party people, or pro civil society people generally. Not saying “these people are on the right lines – but there are some things we know that they do not, just as there are some things that they know and we do not, let us talk” – but acting as if ordinary people smelled bad or something.

    Frank Meyer (oh no – another circumcised person, the Nazis round here will be so upset), correctly argued that without the great mass of “conservative” Americans (or “conservative” British people and so on) the libertarian movement was NOTHING of importance. Without the people who cared about their families, who were active in business and in their local churches and secular clubs and societies and so on – and NOT just as a matter of habit, but because they understood (perhaps not as well as a “professional in the realm of ideas”, or whatever, – but well enough, and often BETTER in practice) the UNIVERAL PRINCIPLES involved.

    When Alfred Roberts (the father of Mrs Thatcher) denounced, in the 1930s, the “totalitarians” (both Nazi and Communist) for violating the universal principles of natural justice, based on the value of the human person as a moral agent (freedom of choice – free will, without which such things as the Bill of Rights, British or American, are meaningless), he understood the matter at least as well as (indeed perhaps rather better, in terms of core principles) as F.A. Hayek did (after all Alfred Roberts could have read out all of “The Road To Serfdom” without crossing his fingers behind his back at certain key points).

    Also, like a Tea Party person today, Alfred Roberts put principles into practice – in local affairs. Perhaps not in group singing (as Mr Webb mentions – and it is a valid example of his), but in many other ways. Nor was Mr Roberts just concerned with “freedom up to the edge of the sea” – he understand that universal principles of freedom and justice were just that, universal. Any “Christian” who denies that is no Christian at all. They, those who deny the universal principles, might as well join the “League of German Christians” in the 1930s who may have been German, but were certainly NOT Christian.

    If libertarians cut themselves off from the good people in society, and side with the evil (or just stay as a tiny group – looking down their noses at everyone else), then libertarianism has no future.

    If that is the point of Mr Webb – then Mr Webb is CORRECT.

    Reply

  10. I’ve just noticed in the youtube version linked above of Joy to the World verse 2, “Joy to the World, the Lord has come” – when anyone familiar with this hymn will know the words are “Joy to the World, the Lord **is** come”. Why do they destroy the English of these hymns to simplify everything down for the illiterate? Yet another reason to close down the BBC.

    Reply

    • One might be forgiven for suspecting that there exist other, perhaps even better, reasons for terminating the remit of “the venerable Beeb.” And, before we condemn this alteration of the hymn text, we might wish to ask more precisely what it signifies.

      If it is simply a matter of grammar, a completed action in the past might properly be termed “has” rather than “is.” One suspects this is as far as the typical, well-educated BBC employee might inquire. It requires some appreciation of theological subtlety to see the error here.

      As a theological proposition, and that would seem the proper viewpoint from which to examine the text of a hymn, Christ’s mission is seen as both once and for all time. From this perspective, the Lord’s coming is forever “is” – that is, always a present reality; not a completed act in the past, but a completed activity eternally.

      It seems to me more likely that the Beeb’s sensibilities in this regard were simply not attuned to the theological point of view, although I suspect the same decision would have been made if the theological significance had been apparent.

      Reply

      • Yes, there is a theological distinction. See also John 10:10: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

        Reply

Leave a Reply