In the study of logic there is a fallacy called equivocation. The following story is one of my favorite examples to demonstrate this fallacy. In 1952, from the floor of the Mississippi State Legislature, State Representative Noah Sweat defended his position on the prohibition of alcohol. As an aside, the sheer length of the first two sentences contained in Sweat’s speech are as impressive as any I’ve seen, a real tour de force of the King’s English. At any rate, his speech begins,
“If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it. . . But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it. This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.”
THE NATURE OF HISTORY
Awareness of equivocation is always relevant to the debate over eschatology in general and to the nature of social change in particular. For example, the amillennial position often looks to the past and sees that progress and decline are cyclical by the very nature of human history. These ups and downs reveal the fundamental pattern of history.
Discussions— regarding the possibility of meaningful social change in history— rarely arise without mention of the People of Israel during the time of the Judges. They point to Old Testament cycles that feature the sparks of cultural blessings, which are then predictably rolled back through corruption and sin. This cycle is seen as the fundamental fixture of history. They then say that the future, in this respect, will be much like the past. The cycle is repetitive, repentance followed by blessings which are never culturally lasting. Society eventually falls into the same sinful position that it previously occupied. This cycle will continue until the end of time, progress is transient and will be swallowed up by a culture of sin. Before this debate can move forward in any sort of meaningful way, we must come to terms with what exactly is being meant by the use of the word “cyclical.” If by cyclical, it is intended to mean that past obedience does not negate the real possibility of future apostasy, then I agree. But if by cyclical, a disconnection between these various so-called cycles is intended, then I disagree.
Even if a pattern of cycles was firmly established, it still remains to be proven that the patterns are ethically disconnected from the next “repeating” pattern. Indeed Covenant Theology seems antithetical to a belief in pure repetition. And the historical development of the gospel, through revelation in time, dispels this notion all together. To whom much is given much will be required. If this is true, then each “cycle” reveals the blessing, or the wrath of God in history. By this revelation of authority God upholds the covenant, for this revelation man is held responsible. With historical sanctions comes a greater responsibility for obedience, after all God has made a judgment that further reveals himself. A judgment of which we are not free to be ambivalent. Historical judgments are connected to God’s authority. If each “cycle” reveals God, then progressively more and more must be required of man.
From the perspective of the individual, judgment for sin is dispensed to differing degrees. Some shall be beaten with many stripes, while others shall be beaten with few. It seems to me that there is a connection between knowledge and punishment. For example, a baptized man’s sin is different, in some respects, than the sin of an unbaptized man. The baptized man has been shown real grace, requiring a higher degree of responsibility. He now sins against that grace and risks the real possibility of apostasy. To this, the degree of his punishment would be worse than that of an unbaptized man. On the individual level this seems to make some sense, personal responsibility exists because all men are without excuse. I’ve yet to hear anyone say that the nature of the Christian life is inherently cyclical. The Christian position should be that each moment of life is ethically connected to the next; life isn’t a series of ethically disconnected cycles. My question then is this, if there are ethical connections between the moments of an individual’s life, are there not also ethical connections between the moments of a culture’s life? Whenever history is seen as mere repeating cycles, this ethical connection between time and culture is destroyed. Repetition entails the idea of sameness, but progressive revelation and common grace given to man never allow him to sin in the same way twice. Cycles of sin are never the same, the increase of historical revelation makes responsibility and punishment progressive. In Matthew chapter 11 Jesus rebuked Capernaum saying “thou. . . which art exalted unto heaven, shall be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. . . it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgments, than for thee.” Responsibility is connected to revelation; and time cannot be separated from revelation. More time equals more responsibility.
TIME IS NOT NEUTRAL
A cyclical view of history assumes that time is ethically neutral. But the Christian perspective must be that time itself is a gift of God. And for this time, man is held responsible. If time were neutral, it may be more plausible to accept a cyclical view of history. As this view assumes that time is disconnected from ethical responsibility, in a way that allows man to sin in the same way day by day, or cycle after cycle. But the reverse is true, more time equals more responsibility. While man’s actions in time are often emphasized as being the primary ethical aspect of history, this overlooks the reality of time itself being ethical in some sense. While it’s impossible to actualize, imagine that a man could exist without acting, this man still exists in time and is held responsible for that gift of time, which in itself reveals God. Time is revelational, not ethically neutral, it binds together the particular events of history. A Christian theory of history must be that time is linear. A created beginning and progression through time towards a created end.