Modern Curses Once Again - Glenn Conjurske

Modern Curses Once Again

by Glenn Conjurske

I have recently read with very great interest an article in The Presbyterian Magazine for 1851, in which some of those things which I have characterized as “the curses of modern Society” are rather glorified as great blessings to the race—-though many of the things which I have so characterized did not exist in 1851. This article is of course written from the postmillennial point of view, according to which the progress of civilization is often very nearly identified with the progress of the kingdom of God, whereas premillennialism must rather identify it with the progress of the mystery of iniquity, belonging not to the kingdom of God, but to the great image which the Stone from heaven is yet to grind to powder. Speaking of what we now call “automation,” the article says, “The first illustration may be taken from the extent to which the labour of production has been transferred from man to machinery, with a corresponding augmentation of the means of subsistence. Nothing is more evident than that man was not originally designed to be a toiling drudge, but to have dominion over the other, inferior, works of God. And yet how many millions of our race have in all ages been doomed to toil at mere manual occupations, which animals or machines might accomplish as well or better.”1 We suppose the author correct in asserting that man was not originally designed to be “a toiling drudge,” but he has overlooked several of the most important factors in the matter. In the first place, man does not now exist in his “original” estate. He is now fallen, and prone to sin. And it was God who said, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,” and said it at the very time when man fell from his “original” estate, and as a direct result of that fall. That man should eat by the sweat of his brow is part of the curse which God has inflicted, but that curse bears a blessing on its back. It is for sinful man’s good to be obliged to toil. It is good for him both physically and spiritually. “Fulness of bread and abundance of idleness” (Ezekiel 16:49) belong to “the iniquity of Sodom.” Such a state of things may have suited man in his “original” condition, but it does not suit sinners, and on the day in which man fell from his sinless estate, God “doomed” him to toil.

But the author overstates the case in contending that man was not designed to be a mere “toiling drudge.” Nobody thinks he was. This is emotional language which only serves to obscure the issue. Man may work hard, and eat bread by the sweat of his brow, and yet have time enough and powers enough to love life, and to serve his God and his neighbor also.

The article continues, “But such has been the degeneracy of our race that this state of things [`to toil at mere manual occupations’] seemed necessary to its proper restraint. As, however, in the progress of society, it became safer to relieve these masses from this drudgery, Providence has been gradually unfolding laws of nature by which a large portion of mere mechanical toil may be transferred from human limbs to the natural forces with which we are surrounded. …

“By the application of science to the useful arts, man is compelling nature to do much of the drudgery of producing, to which he was formerly subject, and with far greater results.

“And while he is relieved from a great amount of mechanical toil, the necessities and comforts of life have become cheaper, and he may enjoy an increasing amount of leisure for higher employments, and mental and moral improvements.”2

But there is nothing more in this than the usual pipe-dreams of post-millennialism. Where, how, when did it become “safer” to remove this “proper restraint” which God Almighty placed upon man, so soon as ever he became a sinner? Has “the progress of society” cured the heart of man of its natural depravity? Is “the degeneracy of our race” a thing of the past? Are there now no “wars and rumors of wars,” no bombs and terrorism, no crime-ridden cities, no battle of Armageddon looming on the horizon? Wherein is it now “safer” to relieve man of his manual toil? Is the world now “safer” than it was when man was obliged to labor? Is it better? It is more comfortable, more affluent, that we know. But is it better—-or have “perilous times” come upon us?

Well, but, relieved of his toil, man has more “leisure for higher employments, and for mental and moral improvements.” Yes, yes, of course, but you forget that man is a sinner. He has not used his leisure for higher employments, but for lower employments. He is given up to materialism and worldliness, to sports and recreations, to gambling and lascivious entertainments—-in short, to everything godless. “The necessities and comforts of life have become cheaper, and he may enjoy an increasing amount of leisure,” the article says. Translate this into the language of Scripture, and we shall have nothing other than the atmosphere of “the iniquity of Sodom”—-“fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness.”

After saying much with which we can agree concerning the promotion of health by draining marshes, ventilating houses, providing pure water, good diet, vaccination, etc., none of which belongs to the sphere of the modern curses of which I have spoken, he continues, “Another illustration may be drawn from the more general diffusion of knowledge, and the attention that has been given to the education of the masses. The state of things we have already considered has itself greatly increased the demand for popular education. Such relief from physical toil, and such an increase of the comforts of life, will almost necessarily create a desire for mental improvement. And perhaps no subject has engaged a greater share of public attention of late years than that of encouraging and satisfying this demand. Once study was the privilege of the few; but now common schools are established almost throughout Christendom. … The key of knowledge is thus proffered to every individual. And the proof that it has been grasped and employed to unlock the stores of literature and science, is afforded by the wonderful demand for popular reading which characterises the present day.” In a footnote on this glowing account he names the publishers of a number of cheap and popular papers, but is obliged to add, “It is to be regretted that the influence of these gentlemen is so much on the side of indifferentism, or something worse, in religion.”3

In plain English, the profusion of popular literature, made possible by modern inventions and rapid travel, has proved a curse. It is on the wrong “side.” “To be regretted,” of course, but did he expect sinners to be saints? Did he expect a “popular demand” for godly literature? We know what the popular demand is, and we know what the popular literature is, and it could scarcely be any exaggeration to affirm that it is “only evil continually.” Not that it is all profane or lascivious, but it is all worldly, and contrary to godliness. The existence, then, of the modern means for the profusion of “popular literature” can only be a curse, and a very great one. The same is true of “popular education.”

And after all the author has to say of “human progress,” he is yet obliged to add, “But this, unless accompanied with `a new heart and a right spirit,’ may prove a curse instead of a blessing.”4 But how are we to give a new heart and a right spirit to the world? The Lord’s “little flock” has that right spirit. The world has it not—-does not desire it—-cannot receive it. Those modern inventions and discoveries, then, not “may,” but must prove a curse to the world. The author of the article from which we have quoted lived at the beginning of the era of modern technology. He could therefore speak of what “may” be its effect. There is no longer any need to speak so. A century and a half of experience have settled the matter.

But a valued correspondent tells me that the things which I call curses are a blessing to him. Very likely—-and to me also. Yet the fact remains that they are curses to modern Society. That is, they are curses to the world, and this was my original thesis. But consider further: though many of the same things which are a great curse to the world may prove blessings to the godly, I believe none of them are unmixed blessings. Hard work promotes good health. Those things which eliminate our toil also undermine our health. Those things which ease our burdens also largely remove us from the place of conscious dependence upon God, and so weaken our faith. Those things which provide for us a profusion of cheap goods contribute to undermine our contentment, for they undermine our ability to appreciate and enjoy the things which we have. I grew up in poverty, yet nothing compared to the poverty in which my parents were raised. When I was a boy I asked my mother if she had gotten presents for Christmas when she was a girl. She told me she had. I asked her what kind of presents, and she said, “Oh, maybe an orange.” Well, is there more contentment, more happiness in the world—-to say nothing of godliness—-since children have learned to expect a house full of electronic wonders?

Glenn Conjurske