Notes: The Christian Family Conference 2010 (Part 2)

My wife, oldest daughter and I attended the Christian Family Conference in Denver this past week. It was an amazing time of encouragement with other Christian parents – most of whom are devoted to homeschooling and home-training their children to be godly men and women, prepared to take on the world with a multi-generational vision. I’m posting some of the notes I took from the conference sessions. Some are sure to fly in the face of the traditions and cultures which most people would consider normal in today’s culture. But these men who spoke to us used the Scriptures, and their lives and the lives of their children are a testament to their integrity and boldness on these topics. Their words motivate me to continue to raise my children in a radical, counter-culture, God-fearing way.

******************************

“The Rise And Fall of Western Civilization” by Kevin Swanson

· Is there such a thing as getting an “education with a Biblical worldview”? Or do we think of education in the same way we do about gasoline? No one would pay extra if the local convenience store sold “gas with a Biblical worldview”. So do we really believe that an education with a Biblical emphasis is possible? We should.

· The average Christian does not realize that they are being affected by the non-Christian worldview that constantly surrounds them.

· For example, scientists just recently stated that spanking will permanently damage the psyche of a child. This clearly goes against what the Bible teaches. So, who do we believe – God or man?

· In our culture today, we give God no credit for sovereign control over realities such as hurricanes. Now, it’s all about science and the environment. When did God get removed from thinking about things like natural disasters…or the wonder of the atom?

· Consider Bobbie Carlyle’s statue of a man carving himself out of stone… how did he get started without hands? Someone had to make his hands. It’s an analogy to “The Self-Made Man” – men want to believe that they are the authors of their own lives, but where would they be without God?

· Sex education is best taught in the context of what God wants – not in the context of how to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases! Because without God, STD’s are viewed as something that can be readily fixed. God’s view on sexual purity is for entirely different reasons (and the consequences are not so easily fixed).

· When you separate God from the chemistry classroom, you run the risk of polluting your life with a humanist worldview.

· Aristotle’s big mistake – he didn’t mention the fear of God in his rhetoric.

· For history class, give your children a synopsis of all history, and how every single empire has eventually fallen. But God is building a kingdom that never dies.

· Humanist worldview shows up even in some of the most famous and classic books. In The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne never once mentions Jesus Christ, nor repentance. Instead, he brings an element of awe to the letter “A” that Hester wears. It’s as if Hawthorne is looking forward to the day when there is no absolute morality – I think that day has arrived – it’s the very definition of post-modernism. It’s okay for our children to read books like The Scarlet Letter, but someone needs to be there to explain the worldview and to counsel for God’s view on such things.

· “I want my children to be Christians. I don’t want them to be compromised.”

· Idea – Google “greatest Christian books” and give them to your children to read

***********************

Back to Notes: The Christian Family Conference 2010 (Part 1)
...

Worldview Class #2 – Part 10 – New Age Biology

While teaching a Sunday morning class on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************

Cosmic Humanists wants nothing more than for man to fulfill his ultimate purpose of ushering in the New Age (their words, not mine). Consequently, they require a theory of science and the origin of man which allows for a constant self-improvement plan – a spiraling upward of man’s abilities and “consciousness”. The problem that faces this theory is that each individual clearly progresses at a different rate. How do they overcome the possibility that some will progress toward their desired end state more quickly than others?

Their answer lies in the concept of individualism vs. collectivism. Marilyn Ferguson has said, “The proven plasticity of the human brain and human awareness offers the possibility that individual evolution may lead to collective evolution. When one person has unlocked a new capacity its existence is suddenly evident to others, who may then develop the same capacity.” Thus, the “growth” of one person may be enough to drag all others along to the higher state. In all seriousness, I see very little difference between such a society and that of the Borg from Star Trek. The aim of both movements (I know, I know, one is fictional!) is to achieve perfection by adding biological and technological improvements to the species.

So, evolution is fundamental to the New Age movement. But how does the Cosmic Humanist see such a change occurring – as gradual steps over time, or as something else? Like Marxism, the New Ager believes that such collective changes will likely happen in surges. When one individual breaks through with an evolutionary change, society will quickly copy it and bring everyone else along, one step closer to enlightenment. David Spangler describes this - “In this [evolutionary] context, civilizations, like individuals, go through profound changes from time to time which represent discontinuities; that is, a jump or shift is made from one evolutionary condition to another. The New Age is such a shift.”

Once again, the mechanism to achieve this state is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. A surge of biological improvement will quickly be created and adopted within the species. And while this theory is supported by few observations (as well as entirely violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the convenience it provides is too tempting to be ignored. As we pointed out in the section on Marxist biology, bad science backed by insubstantial proof is completely trumped by a theory - if that theory allows one to believe whatever they want.

Why is this theory so popular, even though science sees little proof of such a mechanism? For the New Ager, it solves two problems.

1) It promises a shared future divinity

2) It solves the worry of sin – by denying any original fall of Man

The promise of one day becoming gods ourselves is very tempting for some. Indeed, the New Age philosophy says that we are gods today – just imperfect ones. Like Marxism, this worldview is rooted in the desire to deny the existence of a single Creator of everything. Instead, a magical “force” drives the New Age movement along, gaining continual improvement and harmony (perhaps I’ve now moved from Star Trek to Star Wars?).

So, I ask a question. If we are constantly marching toward enlightenment and peace, then why is there still war and disease and starvation and cruelty? Have these things become better over time? I would make the case that they have not. In fact, the world seems to have become a much worse place in which to live than the 1950’s, when the Leave It To Beaver family lifestyle was popular. Cosmic humanists see this world as Paradise, which is slowly being unveiled. Joseph Campbell explained the disconnect between theory and observation of this world by saying, “That is the way it feels, but this is it. This is Eden.” Humans need to “see not the world of solid things, but a world of radiance.”

My advice – be very careful. The pull of New Age thinking is everywhere around us, and the danger in it is that it often lies very close to the truth. To see an example of this, reference Dan Brown’s latest book The Lost Symbol. This book progresses along a fascinating path of science and in some places, Biblical teaching, nearly ending in absolute Christian truth, only to take a final diversion away. It is so close to God’s truth at times – but close is not correct. That is why real truth must be absolute.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 11 – Biblical Christian Biology
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 – Part 6 – Cosmic Humanist (New Age) Philosophy

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************
We have defined philosophy as the “rational investigation of the principles of knowledge.” Put more clearly – How do we know what we know?

While secular humanism philosophy glories in naturalism (nothing is spiritual), and the Marxism worldview believes in a variant of that called dialectical materialism, the Cosmic Humanist (or New Age) philosophy goes completely in the opposite direction. For a New Age follower, everything is considered to be spiritual rather than material – people, rocks, light, methane gas – you name it. This philosophical belief is called non-naturalism.

This belief system admits to a God – and we are it. All things, living or otherwise, are considered to be part of a larger “God-force”. David Spangler, a principal proponent of New Age writing, says, “From a very early age, I was aware of an extra dimension or presence to the world around me, which as I grew older I came to identify as a sacred or transcendental dimension.” Such thinking pervades our society at every level today – in public schools, colleges, and community activities.

A popular bumper sticker seen around town proclaims that “The Earth is your mother” (something I’m pretty sure my mother, who endured a great deal of pain to bring me into this world, might find offensive). This New Age thinking comes from the Gaia Hypothesis (pronounced “guy-uh”) – a belief system that considers the earth to be alive. In fact, Gaia enthusiasts believe that the earth behaves like a living organism, able to regulate its own conditions and adapt for its own survival.

Consider the Gaia thinking around something as common as the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the air. From a Cosmic Humanist standpoint, here are some “known” facts:

· At one time, the earth had no atmosphere – it was a big, cold ball of rock circling the sun
· To create an atmosphere, the evolution of photosynthetic life forms was required
· Molecular oxygen is a waste product of plant photosynthesis – plants use carbon dioxide and water to create oxygen, while gathering sunlight during photosynthesis
· Atmospheric oxygen is now at a very convenient 21% level, and appears to have remained stable for “millions” or even “billions” of years
· If this concentration were to edge up to as little as 25%, forest fires would be raging across the globe (oxygen is a great catalyst for fires)
· Carbon dioxide is created by combustion, exhalation, volcanoes and plants at night (when there is no sunlight for photosynthesis)
· The oxygen/carbon dioxide balance seems to maintain itself very well, and has done so for a very long time

The conclusion that a New Age proponent reaches is that the earth is “alive” and takes charge of regulating this gaseous mixture – because that is what is good for its own survival. It all sounds very neat and tidy. But I have a couple of questions. Looking back to the second bullet point, how did the earth “know” that it needed an atmosphere? Why wasn’t it “happy” just being a cold rock? Does the earth “regret” its move now that evil man is trying to destroy the environment?

New Age philosophy often gets very close to the truth, but then veers off down an unfortunate path. They see the beauty of balance in the way things work – in this case, the regulation of our atmosphere, even when changes are introduced into the system. But instead of seeing this as a great and grand design by an all-powerful God, they attribute the wonder of such things to “smart” matter and material. In short, New Age thinking talks about us being God, but never about God being God.

Romans 1:20-23 bears repeating:

“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

When a person sees the handiwork of God, but fails to attribute the grandeur to God, they become fools. Join with me in prayer, that these people’s eyes can be opened once again to the wonder of God’s creation – and that they will proceed down the path of giving God the glory.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 7 – Biblical Christian Philosophy
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 – Part 5 – Marxist/Leninist Philosophy

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************
We have defined philosophy as the “rational investigation of the principles of knowledge.” Put more clearly – How do we know what we know?

Frederick Engels, a founder of Marxist thought, said, “The real unity of the world consists in its materiality, and this is proved…by a long and protracted development of philosophy and natural science…But if the…question is raised: what then are thought and consciousness, and whence they come, it becomes apparent that they are products of the human brain and that man himself is a product of nature, which has been developed in and along with its environment.” To the Marxist, everything is reduced to the material.

Marxists view matter as the thing that is indestructible and eternal, the same classification that Christians would give to God. In essence, this puts matter in the place of God for a Marxist. Marxism has been called a “godless theology” for this very reason. But this explanation of materialism is not quite enough to fully satisfy the proponents of this philosophy, and so they add one more element to the mix.

Marxists believe that matter is meant to be pitted constantly against other matter – with the result that things are ultimately and progressively improved (their scientists seem to overlook that this violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics). This philosophical approach is called dialectical materialism. A dialectical conversation can be thought of as two people arguing opposite sides of an issue with the intent of ultimately establishing a higher truth. The same thought applies to dialectical materialism, with matter taking the place of conversation.

In dialectical materialism, a thesis is proposed (such as “all mankind should be treated justly”). An opposite anti-thesis is then offered (“all mankind is unequal and should be treated with various levels of justice”). The experiment is put into play, and the two sides oppose each other, using history as a lab, and involving real people and real occurrences. Ultimately, the result is a new synthesis (“some new form of justice is invented”). Then, the new synthesis is proposed as a thesis, and the process begins again. Marxists believe that this process repeats over and over throughout history, with the result being an increasingly improved society. This is precisely why they have invited the proletariat uprising against the bourgeoisie for so long. And should the proletariat classes eventually win this battle, they will just have to be pitted against the next “better” thing.

Marxists use this philosophy to create theories which support their beliefs. Evolution’s punctuated equilibrium is a good example of this – where evolution supposedly takes a huge leap over intermediary evolutionary steps and new species just “happen”. Just as they have written the possibility of God out of any of their thinking, they can create theories such as this to overcome facts – such as the lack of evidence of intermediate species in the fossil record.

Above all, Marxist thought absolutely rejects the existence of God as a possibility. All of their theories must be crafted and adjusted around this belief. And, like Secular Humanism, such a philosophy leaves little hope for those who long for something more after this life. After all, to a Marxist, we are just “matter”.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 6 – Cosmic Humanist Philosophy
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 – Part 4 – Secular Humanist Philosophy

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************

Philosophy is defined as the “rational investigation of the principles of knowledge.” Put more clearly – How do we know what we know?

The secular humanist views all parts of philosophy through the lens of naturalism – the theory that everything in the world is made up only of natural elements and forces. From this viewpoint there is no possibility that anything spiritual or supernatural can exist. This follows the same line of thought as that of organicism – where society and individuals are thought to behave much the same as a biological organism. In essence, the secular humanist may not regard mankind as much more than a fancy paramecium.

Indeed, the Humanist Manifesto II (1973) states, “We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.” The humanist relies on science as the foundation for all discoveries and knowledge – and science, to them, may only reveal things that are of the natural world. The supernatural cannot be measured, and thus, cannot exist to a humanist.

Yet, even in this worldview, the act of faith seems to be required. Take, for example, the Higg’s boson particle. I’ve written about this scientific experiment before, with the Large Hadron Collider being built in Europe for the express purpose of discovering a particle which has never been observed. But, scientists are so sure that it does exist that they’ve invested $4.5 billion into a huge particle accelerator to prove the theory. Isn’t this a faith of sorts? Can science be termed a religion of its own?

Even the humanist will admit to this. Corliss Lamont, the twentieth-century socialist philosopher, said, “Faith in the methods and findings of science, it is said, is just as much a faith as faith in the methods and findings of religion. In answer to this we can only say that the history of thought seems to show that reliance on science has been more fruitful in the progress and extension of the truth than reliance on religion.” Is such a statement true, though? Hasn’t science been guilty of “changing its mind” over periods of time, as theory and knowledge changes? I can think of the flat-earth theory, naming atoms as the smallest particles of matter, and the global-cooling-wait-global-warming-wait-global-cooling-again debates as examples of science’s inability to get at the truth.

Further, secular humanist philosophy is embodied in the concept of monism – the idea that the mind (or personality, or soul) is nothing more than a physical phenomenon. It’s all neurons firing, chemicals reacting, and flesh decaying – nothing more. Monistic theory gives man no hope for anything beyond death. It also postulates that the human mind is just one step along an infinitely long evolutionary change. To many humanists, the human mind may soon be replaced by something better – the computer. Victor J. Stenger has said, “Future computers will not only be superior to people in every task, mental or physical, but will also be immortal…”

Clarence Darrow, famed American lawyer, summed up the secular humanist viewpoint in this short paragraph:

“The purpose of man is like the purpose of the pollywog – to wiggle along as far as he can without dying; or, to hang to life until death takes him.”

What a sad view of life. By denying God and his supreme existence, the humanist not only lives a life of hopelessness, but exchanges an eternal promise of life praising the Creator for an everlasting condemnation. And science cannot save him from that.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 5 – Marxist/Leninist Philosophy
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 – Part 3 – Sacred and Secular

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.



*********************



A number of the topics in this class are rather intimidating. When we mention that a worldview must contain opinions on all ten of the listed topics – theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics, and history – it may tend to drive some people away. This feels too much like reliving some of my least favorite college classes.



After all, aren’t these subjects of a more worldly concern? Topics like economics, biology and psychology surely don’t belong in a Sunday morning Bible class, nor should they be a great concern to professing Christians. Shouldn’t we spend our life on more spiritual matters? Aren’t there really two compartments in our lives – one secular and one sacred?



Actually, the follower of Christ should be concerned and knowledgeable about these subjects and should profess a godly opinion for each. Each item should be rooted in biblical truths, straight from God’s word – not just a high-minded opinion of each. We should search the scriptures for God’s stamp on each of these issues.



The first nine chapters of Genesis alone deal with all ten of the topics listed above. For example, Genesis 2:9 tells of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”, clearly dealing with the topic of ethics. Genesis 1:28 says “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it”, which gives us some direction on the topics of sociology and ecology. The Bible is filled with references which spell out God’s design on each of these topics.



An excellent verse to memorize and commit to heart is Romans 1:20-23:

“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

Pay particular attention to the part of the verse in bold, that is, that we can glean God’s design by looking at what has been made. From a Christian worldview, the ten topics mentioned above are reflected in aspects of God's nature and the creation and order that He established…which makes all of these topics sacred, and not secular.



That’s right – our viewpoint on a subject such as psychology should reflect what God has revealed to us about the science of human behavior. Similarly, we should treat economics with knowledge given to us by God on the best way to deal with finances. Does the Bible talk about these subjects? It absolutely does.



Dietrich Bonhoeffer says, “There are not two realities, but only one reality, and that is the reality of God, which has become manifest in Christ in the reality of the world.” And so, we conclude that there are not two distinct compartments in our life, but rather, there is just one. Everything created by God is sacred and set apart for His purposes. We do not live dual lives – a “religious” one on Sunday, and a worldly one the rest of the week. Instead we “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” This is no small task, but it is important for us to realize that every good thing is sacred in God’s eyes.



**********************

Next: Worldview #2 - Part 4 – Secular Humanist Philosophy

-- or –

Back to the start of this series

-- or --

Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 - Part 2 - Cat Murder and Ethics

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************

In the last installment, I mentioned how critical it is that we recognize this fact – there is only one truth. To further emphasize the point, let’s consider a premise given by the New Age community – that truth is different for everyone. In this case, the New Agers will contend that each individual has the ability to “define their own truth”. So for one person, truth might be that cats are inherently ugly. Another person will contend that cats are preferable to any other living being, including humans. The New Age worldview will say that both are right, and that there are two truths in play (I recognize that this may be a tough example for some, considering how opinionated people tend to be about cats!).

Moving up the spectrum a bit, let’s leave the topic of feline physical beauty, and put into play whether it is ethical to kill a cat. This example may elicit a different answer from people, as many in our society are invested in the rights of animals. Others have no qualms about drowning cats. Again, New Age says that both viewpoints can be correct, as truth is different for each individual.

So, it’s time to take the example to the extreme. Consider the topic of premeditated human murder and where people might classify it – as an acceptable practice, or an act that must be punished by law? With very few exceptions, people will say it is the latter. The New Age movement will, in general, say that premeditated murder is inherently wrong and against societal norms. We can draw the following spectrum diagram:

There are two questions that beg to be asked here. Number one – where does an issue go from becoming one of personal preference (cat beauty) to one of ethics? And, number two – along the ethical point of the spectrum, where is the concept of multiple truths supplanted by one single truth for all? That is, can I definitively locate the gray arrows in an absolute place – for all people?

But, to do so requires the admission that somewhere there is an absolute truth. And the next question must be, “Where does that absolute truth come from?” The answer from the Christian worldview is obviously, “It comes from God”. But what is the answer offered by other worldviews?

This clearly causes a dilemma for other worldviews, who must struggle under the weight of a changing or arbitrary definition of right and wrong. It is much easier to believe that God set right and wrong in the hearts of men and that, for matters relating to ethics and not personal preference, there is a defined line of good and evil that pertains to all men. “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20)

**********************

Next: Worldview #2 - Part 3 - Sacred and Secular
-- or --

Back to the start of this series

-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 - Part 1 - Introduction

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************

A worldview is an acquired and developed “filter” which each person possesses (whether they want to or not). Each person’s worldview may be slightly different, but it is this filter which determines how we view most everything that we experience. When we read the newspaper, our worldview determines how we interpret data and articles, and is the driving force behind the formulation of our own opinions on almost every subject. In our class, we will touch on four different worldviews (though there are more than this which could be considered) – 1) the Christian worldview, 2) the Secular Humanist worldview, 3) the Marxist/Leninist worldview, and 4) the Cosmic Humanist (or New Age) worldview.

Consider this example – Saint Peter reads an article in the newspaper about new abortion rights being granted to mothers and is horrified at the prospect. This rails against his perspective that all life is sacred and should be preserved. Madonna (the singer, not the painting) reads the exact same article and is filled with satisfaction that the universe has reached a new level of progressive achievement. How can two people read the very same article and yet come away with such radically different conclusions? It all has to do with the worldview that they possess.

This subject is timely. The Christian worldview has largely been removed from the public square, and is even condemned at times by our own laws and practices. But our nation did not start out this way. Consider these words from some of our founding fathers:

“Whoever will introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world.” – Benjamin Franklin

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.” – Patrick Henry

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” – James Madison, fourth President of the United States

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: that it tied together in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” – John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States

“God has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers” – John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Can we imagine a politician or Supreme Court justice uttering these words today? Clearly, the worldview lens at the political level has changed in the last two hundred years.

There is much to support a Christian worldview. The idea of a soul is engendered in many other worldviews, including that of New Age supporters, but it is often not thought of as a “real” item to possess, but as more of an ethereal concept. Consider these words from Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

“There is a disaster…which has already been under way for quite some time. I am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness. If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature.”

Throughout this class, I will reveal several articles of faith to be declared emphatically as elements of a Christian worldview. The first is this:

THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH

Once we arrive at the understanding that truth is not different for each individual (a common misperception in the New Age arena), it drives us to seek and understand what this truth is. This element is not an easy one for many people to accept. Many professing Christians will falter on this issue as they unintentionally compromise their belief or their moral position in order to be more accepted by others, and so live to fight another day. But this concept is one that must be adhered to if one is to successfully defend the ideal of Christian Theism.

Next: Worldview - Part 2 - Cat Murder - Ethics and Truth

or

Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class – Part 12 –Christian Ethics

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

Ethics are defined as “the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc." Specifically, the study of ethics attempts to answer the question “Who makes the rules – God or man?”

Christian ethics differ from those of other worldviews in at least two significant areas. First, they are rooted in the revealed nature of a supernatural source – God. Second, they are universally applied and unchanging over time. God’s ethics are used to delineate true right from true wrong. And these rules, properly applied by the Christian, should be argued without apology. Waffling on God’s stated principles only gives rise to doubts about His supremacy. “Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels” (2 Timothy 2:23).



The Christian has a distinct advantage in the ethical realm, because rather than rely on man’s ever-changing mood, and noting that no two people are created alike, the Christian’s ethical definition is derived from a single question – what conforms to God’s character? The answer is not random, nor is it open to man’s interpretation. God left three sources to assist man in understanding His moral compass. The first is general revelation – the revealed nature of God displayed in His creation around us. Because this revelation is often interpreted differently by different individuals, God also left additional help in special revelation – the Bible. No other worldview can claim such a solid, unified historical source as the Bible – thousands of years old and corroborated by multiple archaeological discoveries.

For the Christian, the guiding moral code given by God is a real, non-changing entity – like the law of gravity or the speed of light. It is a proven, solid moral direction, and is not to be ultimately challenged. Violation of God’s ethic entails very real consequences – sin which is left unresolved carries a death penalty. And this brings into play the third source of assistance from God – the life of Jesus Christ. His crucifixion provided the fulfillment of God’s promise that sin must be followed by death (Romans 6:23), but for the benefit of mankind the punishment was not given to those who deserved it. We sinned – but Christ was the one who died to make atonement – so we can enjoy the benefits of an eternity spent with God. It’s a wondrous plan, and speaks volumes about God’s character and how much He wants to be involved with us, His creation, for all eternity. But beware – the person who leaves their sin unresolved and refuses God’s gift of atonement must pay the ultimate price, which is eternal separation from God.

What is the purpose of God’s plan? Why doesn’t He simply “wind up” the universe and let it play out on its own, like some sort of cosmic video game? Because Christian ethics, unlike other worldviews, have one grand purpose – to glorify God. The whole plan and its fulfillment serve to show how loving our God is. Those that would argue that ‘a truly loving God would never send people away to eternal damnation’ are not seeing the simplicity of God’s plan. He offers a free gift – Jesus’ sacrifice to atone for our sins - followed by the promise of eternal life with Him. How much more generous must He be? Would you insist that not only the gift be free, but it should also be enjoyed by those who refuse to accept it? God is the Creator and He sets the rules. People may question Him and try to impose their rules on Him, but that will not change the fact that His plan will reign. A humble acceptance of this point is what He demands. The Christian is broken before Him, and bows to God’s wishes, His moral code, and His eternal plan. In the words of D. James Kennedy, “When a person makes up his own ethical code, he always makes up an ethical system which he thinks he has kept. In the law of God, we find a law which smashes our self-righteousness, eliminates all trust in our own goodness, and convinces us that we are sinners. The law of God leaves us with our hands over our mouths and our faces in the dust. We are humbled before God and convinced that we are guilty transgressors of His law.”

Christian ethics (and indeed truth) are unique in five ways: 1) they are whole (no additives needed), 2) they are never-changing (not situational), 3) they are revealed (given by God through nature, the Bible and the life of Jesus Christ), 4) they are required (ignoring them entails consequences), and 5) they are one (well-defined and universal).

Go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***

Worldview Class – Part 11 –Cosmic Humanist (New Age) Ethics

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

Ethics are defined as “the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc." Specifically, the study of ethics attempts to answer the question “Who makes the rules – God or man?”

In previous posts, we have seen that some supporters of Secular Humanist ethics have defined a set of absolute truths, to exclude acts such as murder and rape from accepted morality. Marxist ethics are well-defined, and are pointed at a specific goal of class elimination. In contrast, New Age ethics are the very definition of personal free-for-all. True New Agers are held to no standard, but live under whatever truth they define for themselves at any given point in time. Added to this is the fact that they are free to change their own ethics at any time, to suit their changing needs. This lifestyle is a form of boundless ethical relativism, and is the foundation of the New Age ethical premise.

While truth cannot be pinpointed in this worldview, even more disturbing is the fact that no individual is ever allowed to judge another’s ethics. Judgment of another person’s beliefs and values would imply that there is an absolute truth to be applied to all individuals. Paradoxically, this belief opens the door for one case in which this rule does not apply: tolerance of all viewpoints is allowed except for the one that insists on an absolute truth. Put another way, anyone who judges the ethics of another person is immediately judged as being intolerant and wrong. This is the only instance where a New Age follower is allowed to judge another individual. The circular logic is a bit mind-boggling. It’s enough to make your head spin.

According to New Age proponents, setting limitations on ethical beliefs is equivalent to denying a person their quest for godhood. The moral implications are limitless under this lack of authority. How does the New Age movement view the Ten Commmandments? They see them as a list of boundaries which hinder the “evolutionary growth” of the individual. Each person’s growth is dependent on the ability to change and adapt in an ever-changing system of design-your-own ethics. For this reason, there are no New Age books which tell a person how to live a moral life – only books which encourage you to break free and follow your heart.

Marianne Williamson says, “Adam and Eve were happy until she ‘ate of the knowledge of good and evil.’ What that means is that everything was perfect until they began to judge – to keep their hearts open sometimes, but closed at others….Closing our hearts destroys our peace. It’s alien to our real nature.” Indeed, she may be right in saying that our nature is to open our hearts to everything. But the Bible tells us that “the heart is deceitful above all things…” (Jeremiah 17:9). It is precisely this realization that separates New Age from Christian ethics. One relies on and actually encourages the reference to a misleading source (the heart); the other denies that fallible internal source and points to a perfect, supernatural source outside of the individual.

Of all New Age positions, the concept of unity of good and evil may be the most disturbing. Because right and wrong are defined differently for each individual, it becomes impossible to distinguish between good and evil. David Spangler takes this premise to the extreme when he says, “Christ is the same force as Lucifer…..Lucifer prepares man for the experience of Christhood…..Lucifer works within each of us to bring us to wholeness as we move into the New Age.” This idea is the acute result of the progression of a philosophy that starts with desirable and simple ideas such as “unity”, “harmony”, and “world peace”. When held forth as a final goal, these ideas appear to be virtuous and are embraced by impressionable people seeking a higher purpose in life. But they get twisted when seen through the New Age lens, and end up in ridiculous statements such as Spangler’s.

One of the best ways to approach a New Age believer is to appeal to the innate sense of right and wrong that God instilled in each of us (Romans 1:18-20). Ask them, “Do you believe that murder of a child is wrong?” When they hesitate or even agree, follow up by asking them “Where does this internal sense of wrong come from?” While they may get creative in their answer, the fact is that God placed the idea in the hearts of men. If the New Ager does not recognize the act of murder as having absolute moral implications, it could be that they are too far removed from truth to be brought back easily, if at all. God promised that men would be misled and would “exchange the truth of God for a lie”. It is not an easy thing for a person to admit this possibility in their own life. The Christian should continue to boldly point it out, in the hopes of making the New Age believer meditate on it the next time they have a flash of internal moral truth. God may be speaking to them in that moment.

To Worldview - Part 12 - Christian Ethics

Or go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***

Worldview Class – Part 10 –Marxist/Leninist Ethics

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

Ethics are defined as “the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc." Specifically, the study of ethics attempts to answer the question “Who makes the rules – God or man?”

It is a frequent accusation by many that Marxists have no ethics. This is likely an extension of the premise that Marxists do not believe in God. But make no mistake – Marxist ethics are well-defined, far more than those of the Secular Humanist and New Age camps. They are rooted in two principles. The first is dialectical materialism, the theory that the universe is ever-changing, and everything changes with it, including society and the ethics that govern it. The second is class struggle, the idea that the working man’s class (the proletariat) must eventually overthrow the oppressive ruling class (the bourgeoisie). Marxists believe that the next phase of societal evolution is for this overthrow to occur, thus moving the world from a capitalist society to a socialist one (Hmmm….I think I’ve heard something about this recently…).

The current goal of the Marxist is to create a classless society. To do this, they propose a system where equality trumps individuality. The Communist Manifesto calls for the abolition of individual freedoms such as ownership of property, child-rearing by parents, and home education. Under a Marxist rule, it is assumed that the state knows best, and so they dictate the rules of society, even to the point of encroaching on parent-child interactions and who owns property. Marxists hate the Bible and its commands such as “Thou shall not steal” precisely because it implies that someone owns property and someone does not. Their aim is to eliminate this inequity and return to a world where no one has more possessions than any other. This equality will eliminate jealousy and envy and the crimes that go along with these feelings. Nikita Krushchev summed it up when he said, “So long as classes exist on the earth, there will be no such thing in life as something good in the absolute sense. What is good for the bourgeoisie, for the imperialists, is disastrous for the working class, and, on the contrary, what is good for the working people is not admitted by the imperialists.”

Under a Marxist plan, the world will move toward such a society, but this move will necessitate a shift in morality, that is, the line between right and wrong will change. Karl Marx wrote these words in The Communist Manifesto – “Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?” This is the very nature of dialectical materialism – the world, society, and ethics are in constant flux. There is no possibility of a single truth for all time.

An excellent question to ask an average Marxist is this – “If we achieve a classless society in our lifetime, what is the next step in the Marxist plan?” I have done much research to ascertain this answer, but cannot find the next step in their plan. Were Marxism to take root globally, there would surely be a new initiative, and the ends and means would change with it. Curiously, it is a worldview without a clear final goal, other than world domination by Marxism.

Finally, it should be understood that the ethical code of Marxism includes hatred as an acceptable expression of the individual. If hatred, or an act of hate furthers the cause of Marxism, then it is perfectly fine. It is, in fact, demanded by their code. Krushchev said it best when he stated, “Our cause is sacred. He whose hand will tremble, who will stop midway, whose knees will shake before he destroys tens and hundreds of enemies, he will lead the revolution into danger. Whoever will spare a few lives of enemies will pay for it with hundreds and thousands of lives of the better sons of our fathers.” The rule of Marxism has left a trail of death, imprisonment, and slavery – all in the name of furthering the Marxist cause. It is estimated that 20 million Soviet citizens died at the hands of Stalin and his Marxist rule between 1924 and 1953. Rather than deny that these murders occurred, a good Marxist would admit to them and claim that they were necessary to win the fight for a classless society. Thus, murder is an acceptable ethic under Marxist rule.

As with other non-Christian worldviews, the Marxist ethic is disturbing in that it does not claim that there is a single moral truth on which we can depend. Living in such a world has disturbing and unpredictable consequences. It is this fact that we should reference to appeal to the Marxist. It is far better to live in a world where the rules are stable, known, fair and created not by man, but by the God of the universe.

To Worldview - Part 11 - Cosmic Humanist (New Age) Ethics

Or go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***

Worldview Class – Part 9 –Secular Humanist Ethics

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

Ethics are defined as “the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc." Specifically, the study of ethics attempts to answer the question “Who makes the rules – God or man?”

The fundamental foundation of ethics for Secular Humanists rests on their theology – that is, that there is no God. As ethical and moral standards must originate from somewhere, the humanist is left with no choice but to assign the authorship to man. This would end their argument if each of them agreed on the same definition of “right” and “wrong”. However, since there is much disagreement over what is morally acceptable and what is not, the humanist community is saddled with a divisive issue which makes their ethical stance difficult to defend. One of these dilemmas is stated as the “ought problem”, and summed up by Mihailo Markovic – “It remains quite unclear where this ‘ought’ comes from. It is one thing to describe a variety of actual historical patterns of conduct and moral habits. It is a completely different thing to make a choice among them and say that we ‘ought’ to observe some of them. Why some and not others?”

Indeed, even their foremost proponent Paul Kurtz admits, “I can find no ultimate basis for ‘ought’.” Are Secular Humanists living in a worldwide “free-for-all”, much like the New Age philosophers who proclaim that truth is whatever is defined by each individual? While there are some in the community who hold this position, most cannot accept such a vagary and so they claim that reason is the thing that more closely defines right and wrong. The British Humanist Association says, “Humanists believe that man’s conduct should be based on humanity, insight, and reason. He must face his problems with his own moral and intellectual resources, without looking for supernatural aid.” Corliss Lamont is quoted thus, “As long as man pursues activities that are healthy, socially useful, and in accordance with reason, pleasure will generally accompany them; and happiness, the supreme good, will be the eventual result.”

The process of reasoning figures prominently in the humanist’s belief in the theory of evolution. As man evolves, so does his power for reasoning, and thus to determine right from wrong. Unfortunately for them, the purpose of evolution flies in the face of this logical, pragmatic way of thinking. The ultimate goal of evolution is for the species to survive. And if survival is the final instinct, then bloodshed, war, and even murder have some justification under the humanist ethic. Most humanists will have no counter-argument for this flaw. In order for the species to survive, some must perish, and few modern-day humanists want to admit that killing or capital punishment is sometimes necessary.

Under the Secular Humanist system, ethics may change over time as man becomes wiser and more evolved. Experimentation is the best way to achieve this ethics basis, and the practice of this is called ethical relativism. Joseph Fletcher says, “Rights and wrongs are determined by objective facts or circumstances, that is, by the situations in which moral agents have to decide for the most beneficial course open to choice.” And Herbert W. Schneider has stated that morality is “an experimental art...the basic art of living well together. Moral right and wrong must therefore be conceived in terms of moral standards generated in a particular society.” But who determines the results of the experiment, and who defines what is correct? Again, the dilemma hinges on full agreement and there can be none of that in this broken world. Lamont has been quoted as saying, “For the Humanist, stupidity is just as great a sin as selfishness; and ‘the moral obligation to be intelligent’ ranks always among the highest of duties.” Thus, he would leave the arbitration to the smartest people in the race, though this fights with one of the basic humanist tenets of equality for all (see the Humanist Manifesto I, point fourteen or Humanist Manifesto II, point eleven). In addition, history shows that the smartest people are not always victorious, especially if the less intelligent are more determined, braver, or simply possess a bigger weapon.

Finally, one must ask what the true goal is for a Secular Humanist, since peace and agreement seem out of reach. There are clues all around, but one major hint would be the words of Paul Kurtz, when he states that “traditional supernaturalistic moral commandments are especially repressive of our human needs. They are immoral insofar as they foster illusions about human destiny (heaven) and suppress vital inclinations.” It is the use of the term “vital inclinations” that intrigues me. Lamont was earlier quoted about man’s search for “pleasure” and seeking it to fulfill the “supreme good”. It is clear that unrestricted sex is a clear goal of many humanist institutions. The Humanist Manifesto II, item six states that, “short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire.” Humanists are responsible for funding the studies that “prove” that men can be born as homosexuals. They seek the same ruling on the topics of pedophilia and incest. “Sex without guilt” is one of their mantras. One Planned Parenthood representative was quoted as saying that their goal is to help “young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage…By sanctioning sex before marriage, we will prevent fear and guilt.” The goal of pleasure without the burden of sin becomes evident.

Secular Humanists endure a problematic viewpoint on ethics. Without agreement from all, it is hard to know what is really right and wrong. Isn’t it easier to accept a moral code given by a God who loves us and wants the best for us? Most of us – humanists included – have an innate sense that certain acts are wrong. Murder is an example of this – most of us know inside that premeditated killing of another human being is immoral. Where does this innate sense of ethics come from? It cannot come from man, because mankind is not always in agreement on the subject. It must, and does come from God.

To Worldview - Part 10 - Marxist/Leninist Ethics

Or go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***

Worldview Class – Part 8 –Christian Theology

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

Theology is defined as “the study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions”. Every worldview takes a stand on God, whether it is to believe in one Creator of all, or to say that no God exists. A critical understanding of each worldview pivots around the position taken regarding the existence of God.

To this point, we have reviewed the approach of three different worldviews to the subject of theology – Secular Humanist, Marxist, and Cosmic Humanist (New Age). The first two subscribe to the concept of atheism, while the last tends in the opposite direction – toward pantheism, where everything and everyone is god. The Christian worldview embraces theism – the concept that there is one God, who created everything and has existed for all time.

The Christian worldview rests on two foundations – general revelation, and special revelation. General revelation tells us that God is revealed through nature and the complexity, beauty, and intricacy of the world around us. By studying the “irreducible complexity” of biology, astronomy and any number of other observable systems in our universe, it becomes clear that random chance is far less believable than simply accepting that all things were created by God. William Paley gave an excellent analogy for this belief in his book Natural Theology, where he poses the idea that a man finding a watch while in the wilderness would never conclude that the watch simply existed due to a fortunate series of random events. Rather, the man would be forced to conclude that the watch was made by someone, and likely had a purpose for its creation. How much more true is this conclusion when measuring the vast complexity of the universe around us! When looking at the facts in a rational manner, it seems impossible to conclude anything other than that we were made by someone far more powerful than we are. A true scientific approach, unhindered by humanistic bias, would draw the conclusion that there is a Creator. Romans 1:20 tells us that “since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

While this general revelation points us in the direction of God, it does not answer specific questions that we might have, such as “What happens in eternity?”, “How can I be saved?”, or “Will there be a judgment?” This is where the second foundation enters, that of special revelation. Unlike other worldviews, Christian theology claims a divinely inspired Bible, which is thousands of years old and is corroborated to be accurate by countless archaeological discoveries. And while the Bible was authored by many men over large periods of time, it is amazingly consistent in its approach to morality, history, and theme. Christians also point to these consistencies as further proof that the Bible is divinely inspired by God Himself, as a directive for us to follow and teach. The claim that these words come from God is a critical underpinning of the Christian faith. For the Christian, this is also considered a significant advantage over other viewpoints. Revealed truth is better than the constant floundering and rediscovering of truth that is evident in the other worldviews.

The combination of these two foundations tells us a great deal about God and His nature. Special revelation through the Bible and the life of God’s Son, Jesus, tells us that God is personal and that He desires to be known and have a relationship with us. That is no small thing. God could have decided to “wind up the universe” and let it play out to its own ends. Instead, He chose to reveal Himself, not only in nature around us, but in words and history that tell us who He is and what His ultimate plan for us will be. On balance, the Christian worldview is a far more hopeful and meaningful approach when compared to the other competing humanist worldviews. This hope and the fact that God wants a relationship with us should be enough to turn the head of anyone who is truly seeking the meaning of life.

To Worldview - Part 9 - Secular Humanist Ethics

Or go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***

Worldview Class – Part 7 – New Age (Cosmic Humanist) Theology

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

Theology is defined as “the study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions”. Every worldview takes a stand on God, whether it is to believe in one Creator of all, or to say that no God exists. A critical understanding of each worldview pivots around the position taken regarding the existence of God.

The New Age worldview is often stated in ethereal words of transcendental gobbledy-gook. I must confess that the majority of statements made by many New Agers escape logic – at least, my logic. For example, Marilyn Ferguson attempts to describe God in this way - “In the emergent spiritual tradition God is not the personage of our Sunday school mentality….God is experienced as flow, wholeness….the ground of being….God is the consciousness that manifests as Lila, the play of the universe. God is the organizing matrix we can experience but not tell, that which enlivens matter.”

I just read this quote to my fourteen-year-old daughter Molly and she called it “a load of waffle”. I don’t think I could describe it any better.

There are many problems with Cosmic Humanism (New Age thought), but one of the most disturbing is the absence of a clear truth or an absolute right and wrong. In fact, New Age theology teaches that one must look within oneself in order to search for truth. And what is true for one person may not be true for another. By searching individually for truth, the New Age follower strives to achieve godhood. That is their individual goal, and the collective aim of all New Agers is for all people to achieve godhood together. By doing this, they achieve what they call “consciousness”. In the final state, God is everyone and everyone is God. Beverly Galyean said, “Once we begin to see that we are all God, that we have all the attributes of God, then I think the whole purpose of human life is to re-own the Godlikeness within us; the perfect love, the perfect wisdom, the perfect understanding, the perfect intelligence, and when we do that, we create back to that old, that essential oneness which is consciousness.”

Another disturbing belief that is prevalent in New Age thought is that of reincarnation. They believe that souls are in a constant state of movement from one form to another as a part of the quest for godhood. And they also maintain that it is important for a person to discover “who” they were in past lives in order to gain some understanding of why they are the way they are, and what must be done to achieve godhood in the future. There are even some who claim to make “soul contracts” with other individuals in one life, with the agreement that these individuals will “help” each other in future lives. Claims are made that you can tell when you have a soul contract with another individual because of an unusually strong feeling of familiarity when you look in that person’s eyes. A lot of money is made in the psychic world to help people “discover” their soul agreements. So I’ll ask this question – is it possible that people who believe they were Emperor Nero or Abraham Lincoln in a past life are being deceived by an evil spirit? What may seem to them like fact and truth may simply be the deception mentioned by Paul in Romans 1:21 – “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.” The quest to know who they were in a past life begs the act of inquiring information of the spirit world – an extremely dangerous enterprise.

Finally, an added danger to the New Age belief system is their treatment of Jesus Christ and his role in history. Rather than deny Jesus’ existence, as other worldviews tend to do, New Age followers believe Jesus existed, and was a perfect man. By living such a life, he demonstrates that godhood can be achieved. Jesus is used as an example of what New Agers want to become, and he gives them hope for the possibility. From the New Age publication Science of Mind, we read “The significance of incarnation and resurrection is not that Jesus was a human like us but rather that we are gods like him – or at least have the potential to be.”

The sum of these dangers makes Cosmic Humanism much more difficult to combat from a Christian worldview. Unlike other worldviews like Marxism and Secular Humanism, the Cosmic Humanist offers a form of afterlife, even if it is a false one. They promise a happier ending than Marxism does, and they hold to the belief that things can work out in another life if we don’t do so well in the current one. The belief in reincarnation gives the New Ager something to live for and something to look forward to beyond this life.

The key to winning over a New Age follower is to impress upon them that the Christian worldview preaches a personal God – one who cares deeply and intimately about the individual. At some point, a New Age person is certain to cry out for more, when things in this world are falling apart around them. Can they say that someone died for them long ago in order that God’s plan could be fulfilled and we could live forever in heaven with the Creator of the universe? In talking with former New Age believers, I found this to be the thing that was missing in their former life – the promise of a personal, caring God who already has the answers and who doesn’t require us to achieve godhood at His level. This is the God that I believe. I am content to let Him be God, while I remain His servant.

To Worldview - Part 8 - Christian Theology

Or go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***

Worldview Class – Part 6 – Marxist Theology

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

Theology is defined as “the study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions”. Every worldview takes a stand on God, whether it is to believe in one Creator of all, or to say that no God exists. A critical understanding of each worldview pivots around the position taken regarding the existence of God.

Like the secular humanist, those who proclaim themselves to follow Marxist/Leninist theology do not believe in the existence of God. In the words of Lenin himself, the Marxist “propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.” And like the secular humanist, man is exalted as the supreme divinity by Marxists. However, Marxism pivots on an additional item – the state. Under ideal Marxist circumstances, the state (or government) becomes the authority for all things. Parental authority in education, religion or even the family is removed, since it is believed that the state will supply an integrated, superior guidance. Indeed, the Communist Manifesto states that “Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality”. Ostensibly, this statement is made because the common man’s class struggle against the oppressive bourgeoisie class will ultimately free him from their rules – and those rules include morality, religion, and law.

It’s interesting to note that the elimination of the bourgeoisie laws must be replaced by the new laws of the state, and there is very little difference between this and the original design (at least, in my mind). The state will eventually take control and provide mandates to the common man – and the state will certainly not stay true to the freedoms and rights of the individual, but will be corrupted by its own power. This was clearly in evidence during the rule of Stalin, Krushchev, and Breshnev. Communism eventually fell in the Soviet Union, but still lives today in places like China and Cuba. It remains to be seen if this model will outlast other models in place, such as democracy. In many ways, our own culture in America is displaying tendencies toward the Marxist model. For example, the Marxist tenet that the ruling class should be stripped of their power and wealth and then have it evenly distributed amongst the working man’s class sounds suspiciously like things I hear in our own presidential debates. This paradigm of “fairness” is attractive to those in the working class, and is increasingly pervasive in many democratic societies today.

Marxism relies heavily on the promise of science to save us, as increasing human knowledge is the goal to strive toward. This introduces the concept of scientific atheism, as opposed to just plain atheism. Under scientific atheism, man’s knowledge is the prize and it allows truth to “change” as man acquires new discoveries. The Atheist Handbook, published in 1959, says “Science has long since established that Jesus Christ never existed, that the figure of the alleged founder of Christianity is purely mythical.” Fortunately, the proof has gone wanting, as this is nothing more than a false statement made for propaganda purposes.

To sum up, Marxist theology can be presented in two statements – 1) God does not exist, and 2) Man is the supreme divinity. I find it distressing to think of the many millions of people who have lived under this philosophy, because it offers no eternal hope. The Marxist state can only offer up a few years on earth to enjoy (if it can really be called enjoyment), and then there is nothing to hope in beyond death. This seems like a natural place to begin the argument against Marxist theology. The Christian has an offering of hope, and a promise of eternal life spent with the Creator of the universe. A discussion along these lines has a good chance of producing fruit. I find it difficult to believe that a person can spend their whole life without wondering about the possibility of something that follows death.

Ludwig Feurbach, one of Karl Marx’s contemporaries, made the statement, “It is clear as the sun, and evident as the day that there is no God; and still more, that there can be no God.” It saddens me that he was not able to see the evidence that is overwhelmingly in favor of a Creator. Romans 1:20 tells us, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” The Christian’s hope, and testimony, pivot on this fact.

To Worldview - Part 7 - New Age (Cosmic Humanist) Theology

Or go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***

Worldview Class – Part 5 – Secular Humanist Theology

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

Theology is defined as “the study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions”. Every worldview takes a stand on God, whether it is to believe in one Creator of all, or to say that no God exists. A critical understanding of each worldview pivots around the position taken regarding the existence of God.

For those in the Secular Humanist camp, the most accepted viewpoint (with rare exceptions) is that the universe is self-created, and that no God exists to rule over eternity. Paul Kurtz - professor, philosopher, and author of many humanistic tenets over the last thirty years – said, "Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe." To be more specific, God, Satan, angels, demons, souls, and consciences, do not exist according to humanists. These entities are grouped together as the “supernatural”, and are denied existence according to any one of the three Humanist Manifestoes. I must confess, if someone has asked me if I believed in the supernatural a year ago, I would have thought twice about it. The word evokes pictures of ghosts, goblins, and magic. But, strictly speaking, those of us who believe in Christian Theism believe in the supernatural. Get used to it.

What evidence do Christians have to support this belief? We have the Bible, which is well-documented to have existed for a very long time, and has been supported by countless archaeological finds. To me, the most obvious basis for a belief in God is that there is simply no conceivable way that the universe “created itself”, as the humanists would have us believe. To believe that the order and complexity found in living entities just “happened” as a matter of chance requires far more faith for me than to simply accept that there is a Creator of all. Look into the concept of “irreducible complexity” if you want to know more (I may cover this topic in a future post).

Conversely, what evidence does the secular humanist give to deny the existence of God? I have consulted their Manifestoes and read their quotes to a great extent, but have been unable to glean any backing for this stance. In fact, the closest I have come to answering this question is a quote from Isaac Asimov, noted science fiction author and director of the American Humanist Association from 1989 to 1992. He says, “I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.”

Insert the equivalent of a pregnant pause here.

Asimov, and all other humanists are willing to gamble that they have no eternal souls based merely on a suspicion that God doesn’t exist. Perhaps that doesn’t seem crazy to some. Let me pose an example which I believe to be equivalent. Suppose I wake up feeling “lucky” tomorrow. So lucky, in fact, that I’m willing to drive the eleven miles to work at exactly forty miles per hour without regard to other vehicles or pedestrians on the road – I won’t slow down or speed up for anything. So lucky that I’m going to drain my brake system first, since I simply won’t be needing it. I will even let my eight-year-old daughter do the driving, because I so strongly believe in my luck, that to consider any other option is a waste of my time. Is this any more ridiculous than risking eternity on a whim?

Simply put, the pursuit of knowing and understanding the existence of God can never be considered a waste of time. And this is the appeal we must make to the secular humanist. Many of them believe strongly in their own brand of theology. But it is a belief system devoid of hope or eternal meaning. The third Humanist Manifesto professes to “finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death”. By their own admission, death is the end of everything for each human being – nothing follows, and there is nothing to anticipate or for which to live after dying. What better place to start than this when discussing theology with a humanist?

Christians – we have something that they desperately need. This should be our starting point with every humanist we meet. The Christian life offers hope, eternity, and a loving God who wants to spend an infinite amount of time with us. This is not such a hard thing to promote, especially in comparison to what the humanist has to offer.

To Worldview - Part 6 - Marxist Theology

Or go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***

Worldview Class – Part 4 – Mixing Politics With Religion

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

In Part 3 of this series, we learned that separating the sacred from the secular is an incorrect approach to weighty topics such as psychology, law, and economics. These topics should be considered entirely sacred, where they touch on ethical issues. But, something has happened to me several times in developing the worldview class for my church – I become hesitant to share a topic because it doesn’t seem “biblical” enough.

In developing some quotes and examples, I find myself second-guessing whether or not I should be presenting these in a church environment. This is especially true in the area of politics, which I often find myself addressing. Something inside me still struggles to mix these two. Could it be that my own worldview has been affected by my upbringing – especially where I’ve been taught (incorrectly) about the concept of separation of church and state? I think this is partly to blame for my hesitance in addressing politics in a church setting. A piece of me still thinks of politics as belonging strictly in the “Secular” box.

The apostle Paul was an excellent example of someone who was not afraid to share the gospel in a place other than a typical “church” setting. His speech in Acts 17:16-31 was given in the Areopagus, a kind of Roman high council venue, and a true political situation. Paul preached Jesus crucified and resurrected in this place, without apology. He was well-spoken and convincing in his argument.

‘While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."’

Paul’s example demonstrates that politics and a religious worldview can be presented in the same context. To some degree, our culture has tried to pry these apart and make the claim that they cannot coexist. But it should be understood that God’s grand design flows down to a great number of subjects – even politics. Our founding fathers knew this, and if you still doubt it, go back and read some of their quotes on the subject (from Part 1).

To Worldview - Part 5 - Secular Humanist Theology

Or go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***