In Their Own Words XVII: Doors of Warped Perception

[Continued from previous post]

In essence, what we observe in both Aldous Huxley and Bertrand Russell is audacious mental/moral perversions or more specifically inversions of the intended order of things. Russell’s perversions were more perversions of sexuality but because of the pervasiveness of sexuality in his life, his faulty thinking and preceps of reality seem to have bled over to all other aspects of his life. Huxley’s perversions on the other hand were more intellectual and were akin to inversion of proper biblical thinking. Not only are things perverted or inverted in both men’s writings, they advertised their warped philosophies publicly and forced their distortions on the public square. It is one thing to be immoral, it is another to broadcast corrupted perceptions to others that might wish to be avoid them. Sadly, some of the writings from these men are considered literary classics by so-called modern experts and are literally forced on our children in English Literature classes both at the high school and college level.

What we also see is two men from the early twentieth century that have a profound effect on where we stand morally (or immorally if you prefer) now. Their advocacy along with others of like mind (Romans 1:31) have morally debased a once good nation. Russell did so though his overt sexual perversion, Huxley through inverted thinking and what appeared to be moral dystopia or hedonistic nihilism. These mindsets are essentially false religions because they replace God. Hedonism, humanism, secularism, scientism, materialism, positivism, evolutionism....they're all the same. All pagan, all demonic. They're all mindsets on which to formulate a flawed worldview and philosophy for living. Their mindset has infected hundreds of millions worldwide. It now allows for Christians to live in cultures that accept divorce for nearly any reason. Laws created by men possibly influenced by these literary works have trivialized marriage and poor morals have further eroded the institute of marriage to the point where marriage licenses have become practically disposable. Huxley even made a comment seeing the deontological end of his own thinking in his own writing when he penned the following in his Introduction to Brave New World:

"...nor does the sexual promiscuity of Brave New World seem so very distant. There are already certain American cities in which the number of divorces is equal to the number of marriages. In a few years, no doubt, marriage licenses will be sold like dog licenses, good for a period of twelve months, with no law against changing dogs or keeping more than one animal at a time. As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase." ~ Aldous Huxley-Brave New World: Introduction

The immorality ushered in or exacerbated by these two allows for abortion on demand and preteens getting birth control. It allows for rampant premarital sex and infidelity or adultery that is socially acceptable or at least a social norm.

What is absent from Huxley’s and Russell’s views? The God of the Bible, Scripture and righteousness. It is a glaring omission too. They had no king in their lives. At least they had no moral king or moral guiding principle. In this way, both men were kings unto themselves and many have followed them as if they were kings.

Judges 17:6 ~ In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

With no purposeful God in their lives they are not capable of proper reasoning or thinking. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. What do we see a surplus of in both men’s lives? Sexual perversion and an inversion of proper moral thinking. Both had a twisted view of what proper sexual relations were at some point in their lives. Both were a product of modern biblical illiteracy. First there is Russell who overemphasized and overvalued sex. Then there is Huxley who downplayed and instilled little or no value in proper sexual relations. 

It is also clear Huxley did not frown upon turning the proper sexual roles and other roles within within marriage completely on their head in Brave New World (BNW). In BNW intercourse was referred to as recreational sex (just as it is today). In BNW, sex is a social activity, rather than a means of reproduction within marriage and, as part of the conditioning process and it is encouraged from early childhood (sick). The maxim: "Everyone belongs to everyone else" is repeated often (also sick). The idea of a "family" is considered pornographic. Marriage, natural birth, parenthood, and pregnancy are considered too obscene to be mentioned in casual conversation. Therefore in BNW, Huxley imagines a society where biblical relationships do not exist and neither does biblical morality...and he doesn't appear to pass judgment on the absence either.

Huxley’s view was the sociocultural view of hedonistic nihilism which came out in his writing. Both men's views were/are dangerous, but Huxley’s was more dangerous because he was harder to pin down morally. At least Russell was obnoxious and overt about where he stood. In Russell's overt manner at least a Christian would know what they were up against. When it came to Huxley, it was like tacking Jell-O to a wall. I suspect this is the case with many modern Christian’s today concerning hot-button subjects like abortion, sexual immorality and adultery. Many have become "Christianized Huxleys". By not saying anything and taking a morally apathetic approach to these two issues the Christian manages to stay neutral socially but from a spiritual point of view they are in the wrong. Many are not willing to take a position for fear of being socially ostracized. By not taking a position against these issues they are essentially allowing it to become pervasive. For evil to triumph, good people only need to do nothing.

To surmise: When we slam the door on God or remove God from a man’s thinking he will automatically revert to sin and continue to spiral deeper into it (Romans 1). The more complete the abandonment of God in one’s thinking, the more complete and depraved the immorality in that person’s life. Both of these men wanted to remove sexual immorality’s guilt and basically succeeded. One did so wittingly and vehemently, the other by attempting to devalue and discredit it. We see two men esteemed by society who were godless and debased. Both men were exalted by their generation and subsequent generations but by Godly measure they were both fools (1 Corinthians 1:20-25). Russell seems to have maintained a downward spiraled deeper into physical sin in his activism for sexual immorality. Huxley on the other hand seems to have spiraled deeper into the spiritual void of idea-based sin in his pursuit first of Nihilism and then Universalism.

In the end both men walked wide circles around God in an attempt to avoid Him. In so doing they led way too many down the path to Hell. Both men used improper or perverted thinking as a means to an end. What they thought or conceived, they wrote down. What they wrote down they tried to pass off as knowledge but any knowledge devoid of God is mere foolishness. Toxic ideas from toxic minds. Their ideas birthed sinful actions and sinful actions have consequences. We now see the maturity of the ideas from men like this in the actions of the society around us. We indeed live in a new world but it is not brave...it is depraved because of the warped perceptions of morally destitute people. We collectively have passed through doors of perception that probably should've remained shut...just like the books these men wrote.

Hosea 4:6 ~ “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.”