The desire to treat nature as a playground that can be rearranged into any orientation, to treat human nature as malleable and deny its objective nature. To treat human beings like meat robots with parts that can be replaced, to treat biology as a cold and detached practice without any transcendent meaning. To deny that reality is typological, that it is given meaning by a Creator, and it cannot be made in our own image. This is the sin committed by doctors who tell children they can transform them into something they are not. It’s demonic in origin, and it can bring nothing but harm. By attempting to cut ourselves into a new shape, we are attempting to pull ourselves up to heaven, to attain the right to define our existence. We’re tampering with the demonic, and in the process, we will pull down deep heaven upon our heads. Those who would seek to seize control of gender will make contact with the gay gods, and will discover that these gods will not be as tolerant as they had hoped.

The Modern Fairy Tale of Science Disordered
Jurassic Park is one of Steven Spielberg’s great films. Not only was Jurassic Park a milestone achievement in both digital and practical effects, but it also remains a well-crafted story about mankind, and it explores vitally important themes in an engaging way. If you were to ask the average viewer, however, who the villain of the film is, most would probably tell you that it’s the terrifying and dangerous Tyrannosaurus Rex that acts as the primary threat for much of the movie. This answer would be wrong. The central villain of Jurassic Park is not the loose T-Rex, the velociraptors, or any of the other dinosaurs wreaking havoc throughout the film’s runtime – the dinosaurs, if anything, are victims too. The true villains of Jurassic Park are the modern scientists, who in their hubris believe that they could make the natural world their private plaything. The film (and Michael Crichton’s novel) is an example of the horrors unleashed when science is unmoored from a transcendent standard. The pursuit of “science” unhitched from an ordered cosmos, the pursuit of knowledge and domination unhitched from a moral guide, is a dangerous endeavor.
C.S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength, the third novel in his Ransom Trilogy, deals with the same themes, and in a more robustly Christian manner. The pivotal chapter thirteen in the book is aptly titled “They Have Pulled Down Deep Heaven on Their Heads.” The title alludes to the scientists of the “National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments” (N.I.C.E. for short) who, much like the scientists in Jurassic Park, have endeavored to manipulate the natural world in a way unmoored from traditional guidelines. Lewis’s central thesis of the book (and of the Abolition of Man) is that the pursuit of knowledge without a moral framework is the sin of Babel, it’s an attempt to pull ourselves up to be gods.
That Hideous Strength displays in no uncertain terms that when we attempt to pull ourselves up to heaven, all we do is pull heaven down atop our own heads. We tamper with forces beyond our understanding – demons in the case of N.I.C.E. – and our hubris is our downfall. Tampering with forces beyond our reckoning is a common theme in horror literature, and horror seeks to warn us that when we play god and attempt to assemble the natural world according to our own desires, the results are disastrous.
Medieval cosmology understood the cosmos to be an ordered thing, one with a moral hierarchy and inherent meaning that should not and could not be ignored. The modernist understanding of the cosmos is not a cosmos at all, but a “universe,” a totality of natural phenomena detached from a creator. This kind of understanding is a dangerous one, and it’s one that the ancient principalities and powers of the air prefer us to believe. Demons in disguise are certainly more effective than ones that can be marked and avoided.
The N.I.C.E. in Lewis’s novel take orders from a severed human head, through which a being they describe as a “macrobe” issues commands. The goal of the Institute was to transcend human experience – they hated the messiness and uncleanness of biological life. They much preferred the moon to Earth, as it was clean, scrubbed of all growing things. They wanted to scrub the Earth clean in the same way, to create a sterile environment that could be detachedly and coldly ordered to their whim. Because the rational, modern scientists of the Institute didn’t believe in primitive superstitions like demons, they were perfectly willing to take orders from them as long as they called them “macrobes” – which of course, they are. Macro-natural is simply a polite and materialistic euphemism for supernatural. The N.I.C.E. pulled the gods down upon their heads by committing the same sin that occurred at Babel: trying to pull humanity up to heaven. Lewis sums this up beautifully through the words of Ransom when he says,
“The Hideous Strength holds all this Earth in its fist to squeeze as it wishes.  But for their one mistake, there would be no hope left… They have gone to the gods who would not have come to them, and have pulled down Deep Heaven on their heads.”
This sin is of course central to humanity throughout the ages, but during the past few centuries of modernity, it has begun to manifest itself uniquely. The Enlightenment created a world in which science, knowledge, education, and society are seen as detached from any kind of transcendent character, it has created a disenchanted world. This is why so many of the great stories of modernity are about this very danger, why these stories explore how far is “too far” in scientific research – from Frankenstein to Jurassic Park. This is also why That Hideous Strength is the greatest dystopian novel of the twentieth century. It’s Lewis’s most potently prophetic and important work of fiction because it understands where science unmoored from morality inevitably leads. That Hideous Strength gets right at the heart of modernity and is a dire warning: scientific pursuit that denies an ordered cosmos is demonic, and leads us to our own destruction.
Demons and Devils
Christian theology in the twentieth century, especially in the West, is tainted by modern presuppositions. Most churches don’t speak about demonic activity often, and even traditions such as Roman Catholicism – until recently a stubborn resistor of all materialist assumptions – has begun to cave on many issues to cater to a disenchanted laity (for example, as of 2020, only 57% of Catholics in America believe in the existence of demons at all) and treat demonic forces as a thing of the past.
There is of course a delicate theological balance needed. Certain traditions like the more charismatic branches of Pentecostalism are prone to over-demonizing the world and attributing every sickness, affliction, or sin to Satan himself. Satan is certainly not behind every sin, or even most sins in any direct sense. We must remember that Satan is finite, not omnipresent, and has a limited influence. His efforts are probably best directed at the highest levels of government and society. While demons are certainly all around, and we do wrestle with them according to Paul, we must also remember that we are “dragged down by our own evil desires” and can’t blame every sin we commit on demonic power. Demons answer to the King of Kings like all creatures.
However, the problem of overattributing phenomena to demonic activity is a small one compared to the much more common issue of ignoring demonic activity entirely. Many worldly sins, conditions, and social trends are certainly demonic in nature, and this should be recognized. But demonic activity in the world almost certainly functions similarly to the way it does in Lewis’s novel – behind-the-scenes influence of the direction of institutions toward harmful ends, rather than through explicitly satanic rituals underneath Washington D.C. (though I’m not excluding the possibility). So now the question becomes: just what exactly can be said to be demonic in nature, and where are Satan’s efforts being directed?
Read More
Related Posts:

While peace in the church is necessary and should be sought by all believers, it cannot exist while false teaching is tolerated. Therefore, Christians must contend for the Gospel against all false teaching that perverts it. This is done by first understanding and holding fast to the true Gospel then identifying and fighting against any teaching that distorts it. The Gospel is the most precious possession of any Christian and is therefore worth our utmost effort to defend.

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.  For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
– Jude 3-4, ESV

The last three New Testament epistles (letters) are also some of the shortest, but they are also linked by a common theme.  Second John, Third John, and Jude all warn their recipients against false teachers who distort the Gospel.  Jude’s warning is the strongest, but Second and Third John also contain similar warnings, which are also stated by Peter (2 Peter 2:1-3) and Paul (Philippians 3:3, Titus 1:10-16, etc.).  Jude spends most of his letter describing these false teachers in graphic detail.  Why?  In verse 3, he appeals to his readers to contend for the faith.  His use of “contend” implies a fight or struggle, which is echoed by Paul (Philippians 1:27, 1 Timothy 6:12).  I recently wrote of the need for unity in the church, but clearly there is an appropriate time to fight.  It is important for every Christian to know when and why we must fight, who we must fight against, and how we must fight.
What to Contend for and When
First, since Scripture is filled with calls to maintain peace whenever possible (eg. Romans 12:18), it is important to know what we must contend for and when it is appropriate to fight for it.  Jude makes it clear in verse 3: “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”.  This is clearly the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which Paul says is “of first importance…that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).  This is the Gospel: salvation by the grace of God alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone to the glory of God alone as revealed in Scripture alone.  Anything contrary to this is a false gospel that must be opposed.
When should we fight for the Gospel?  Jude answers this by stating that people “pervert the grace of our God…and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ”.  Jude accentuates this by describing the Gospel as delivered to us “once for all”.  This precludes any distortion of the Gospel that adds anything to or subtracts anything from the Gospel as it is clearly taught in Scripture.  This means that any gospel that subtracts from the person and work of Christ or adds any requirements other than the work of Christ (such as good works) is a false gospel.  Thus, we must fight for the purity of the Gospel when it is threatened.
One could argue that the Gospel is always threatened, as unbelievers frequently attack the Christian faith.  This is typically what we think of as the greatest threat to the Gospel.  However, Jude does not have external threats in view, since he says these enemies have “crept in unnoticed”.  Later, he calls them “hidden reefs at your love feasts” (Jude 12), referencing communion and therefore revealing these as enemies within the church.  This means that we are called to contend for the Gospel whenever its purity is threatened within the church.
It is equally important to note what Jude doesn’t mention: anything but the Gospel.  While we must contend for the Gospel, we are not fight over secondary doctrines (like the specifics of baptism and eschatology) or personal preferences.  Scripture explicitly commands us not to fight over such things (Romans 14:1).  This is why my theology page focuses on core doctrines rather than secondary doctrines and controversies. Still, even that goes a bit beyond core doctrines, so we must rely on what Scripture clearly teaches as the Gospel, which has been recognized throughout the history of the church and concisely stated in various creeds such as the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Aaron M. Renn |
Monday, June 12, 2023
Do we, can we, should we trust the government, other institutions, or other citizens? There are multiple dimensions of this: trustworthiness (ethical dealings), competence, delivery of results (a product of trustworthiness and competence applied to a defined mission). If you have this trust, it operates as a force multiplier that makes everything else work better. When it’s lost, it undermines everything else you try to do.

One of the most challenges passages in the Bible is the Parable of the Talents. In it, initial resources are distributed to the servants in a highly unequal manner, with a 10x ratio between the highest and lowest recipient. And then that which was held by the least endowed servant was redistributed upward to the person with the most resources. It concludes with the famous line, “For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.”
Let’s be honest, doesn’t this seem to be how the world actually works? It does seem that there’s a natural concentration toward the top, which is only reversed with great effort (or great calamity like war).
We see this on display in a recent study in Medellin, Colombia. Chris Blattman, one of the researchers, tweeted an interesting thread with findings and a link to the full study. In Colombia, policing is a national function, so cities that want to do something about crime and disorder have to employ civilians to try this. (Former Bogota mayor Antanas Mockus famously sent out an army of mimes to try to encourage better driving).
This study involved randomly assigning civilian liaisons to various Medellin neighborhoods, creating a task force to address needs identified by the liaisons, and putting on a public services fair. The net result of this was “No change in crime. No fall in emergency calls. No increase in perceived services. No gain in legitimacy.” This was after a “60-fold intensification of street-level staff + a 3-fold increase in central attention.”
But this headline finding obscured something going on under the covers. Some of the neighborhoods started off with better services, better policing, etc.
Read More
Related Posts: