The eugenics movement, as Chesterton predicted, became a wretched story of the negation of democratic ideals to serve a utopian vision. “Hence the tyranny has taken but a single stride to reach the secret and sacred places of personal freedom,” he wrote, “where no sane man ever dreamed of seeing it.” Wittingly or not, the eugenic dream unleashed a cataract of deeply rooted fears and hatreds — sanctified this time by a secular priesthood, the scientific community.

In the 1920s, when he was still an agnostic, C. S. Lewis noted in his diary his latest reading: “Began G. K. Chesterton’s Eugenics and Other Evils.”
A controversial English Catholic writer, Chesterton published his book in 1922, when the popularity of eugenics was at flood tide. Respectable opinion on both sides of the Atlantic embraced the concept: a scientific approach to selective breeding to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the category of people considered mentally and morally deficient. From U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, eugenics policies — including involuntary sterilization — were hailed as a “progressive” and “compassionate” solution to mounting social problems.
A hundred years ago, Chesterton discerned something altogether different: “terrorism by tenth-rate professors.” For a time, he stood nearly alone in his prophetic assault on the eugenics movement and the pseudo-scientific theory by which it was defended.
“People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late,” Chesterton warned. “I know that it numbers many disciples whose intentions are entirely innocent and humane; and who would be sincerely astonished at my describing it as I do. But that is only because evil always wins through the strength of its dupes.”
Chesterton declared his aim openly, without qualification or compromise: The ideology of eugenics must be destroyed if human freedom is to be preserved. The eugenic idea, he wrote, “is a thing no more to be bargained about than poisoning.” In the end, it would require the discoveries at the death camps at Auschwitz and Dachau for most of the world to finally reject the horrific logic of eugenics. Yet Chesterton was one of the first to see it coming: when the machinery of the state would invoke the authority of science to deprive individuals — both the “unfit” and the unborn — of their fundamental human rights.
It is hard to overstate the degree to which eugenics captured the imagination of the medical and scientific communities in the early 20th century. Anthropologist Francis Galton, who coined the term — from the Greek for “good birth” — argued that scientific techniques for breeding healthier animals should be applied to human beings. Those considered to be “degenerates,” “imbeciles,” or “feebleminded” would be targeted. Anticipating public opposition, Galton told scientific gatherings that eugenics “must be introduced into the national conscience like a new religion.” Premier scientific organizations, such as the American Museum of Natural History, and institutions such as Harvard and Princeton, preached the eugenics gospel: They held conferences, published papers, provided research funding, and advocated for sterilization laws.
To many thinkers in the West, the catastrophe of the First World War, in addition to the problems of poverty, crime, and social breakdown, suggested a sickness in the racial stock. Book titles help tell the story: Social Decay and Degeneration; The Need for Eugenic Reform; Racial Decay; Sterilization of the Unfit; and The Twilight of the White Races. The American Eugenics Society, founded in 1922 — the same year Chesterton published Eugenics and Other Evils — was supported by Nobel Prize–winning scientists whose stated objective was to sterilize a tenth of the U.S. population.
Read More
Related Posts:

I implore my fellow elders to quit trying to solve denominational controversies in 280 words or less. Let us return to true dialogue and persuasion, taking the time to develop our thoughts and measure our responses. This could be in blogs (remember those), articles, and yes overtures which are meant to be debated in person in the church courts.

A recent dust up on Twitter has me asking, “Where are all the peaceable presbyters?”
Several years ago, I had a personal Twitter account. It seemed like every PCA pastor was using it, and I felt like I was missing out on important debates and issues. I deleted my account after a fellow elder confronted me about something I posted. I appreciated this brother’s courage to call me out. We still disagreed about the substance of what I posted, but as I looked at it again, I saw how my tone was not inviting dialogue or seeking to persuade. Twitter was full of hot takes and quick thumbed retorts, and I, consciously or unconsciously, was replicating what I saw. It was not a space promoting dialogue. Instead of feeling engaged with the issues facing my denomination, I grew increasingly self-righteous and assumed many motives behind what others were posting. A few years later, I created a new Twitter account because I kept receiving links to Tweets and threads. I never interact just observe. My observations have caused me to read Paul’s words to Timothy on the character traits of Elders, specifically that they be “peaceable” (NASB).
“Peaceable” in the NASB is translated as “not quarrelsome” in the ESV. Philip Towner in his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles writes, “This tendency betrays an inability to get along with and accept the views of others, and perhaps deeper personality flaws as well.” This inability to get along must have been a problem in the early church. Paul elsewhere encourages his readers that as “far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men” (Rom 12:18). Our connectional church means that we have to find ways to be at peace with one another. My fear is that we are not living up to the qualifications of our office as we engage with one another online.
Brothers, are we peaceable presbyters? If our church members read our Tweets, would they recognize us? Would they be shocked at the derision we lob at one another? Would they see Christ glorified in our hasty judgments of others motives? The ridicule and scorn we seem to revel in? Let’s be honest are we Tweeting to win a brother or slam him?
Read More
Related Posts:

God is simple and my conviction is that people need to know Him. It is not enough to assume that people know about God nor will it do to throw out a few words like communicable and incommunicable every now and again. As believers we must delight in God. Actually, “must” doesn’t seem like an appropriate word. I should say that we have the privilege of delighting in God. We get to delight in Him!  Personally, I love to preach on the doctrine of God. My heart literally thrills in the moment to proclaim God in all of His splendor. 

Many years ago I was listening to Christian radio. It was in the early 90s and there was a lot of talk about self-esteem. In fact, if you were raised in the 80s and 90s you probably remember the government, media, books and lingo associated with the self-esteem craze.  Maybe you were small enough to have been read, The Lovables in the Kingdom of Self-Esteem!  Maybe your mom read to you over and over again the inside cover, “I am lovable! I am lovable! I am Lovable! By using these magical words, the gates of the Kingdom of Self-Esteem swing open for readers of all ages.”
Yes, well, I remember listening to a radio program during those self absorbed years.  A preacher was preaching, though I don’t remember who it was, and he said something I have never forgotten.  He said if you want to improve self-esteem in a person, I think he used self-worth then you must teach them about the person and nature of God. He said that the only way a person will have any sort of self-worth to speak of is if they understand who God is.  I agreed then and I agree now.
Every once in a while in my preaching I take my congregation to theology proper.  I want them to look at God. I have even preached on the simplicity of God from the pulpit.  Why?  Because God is simple and my conviction is that people need to know Him. It is not enough to assume that people know about God nor will it do to throw out a few words like communicable and incommunicable every now and again. As believers we must delight in God. Actually, “must” doesn’t seem like an appropriate word. I should say that we have the privilege of delighting in God.
Read More
Related Posts: