There are many who find the study of Humanities an exercise in futility; especially among evangelicals.  So, it comes as no surprise that many Southern Baptists are baffled as to why students at the College at Southwestern are reading the likes of Plato and Aristotle.  Akin to the early church father Tertullian, parishioners wonder what connection Jerusalem has with Athens.  More pointedly, they wonder what connection the history of ideas has with evangelism and missions.  These questions, when left unanswered, often lead to misunderstanding and division.

My goal in this essay is simply to respond to Tertullian’s rhetorical question–to show precisely what connection Jerusalem does have with Athens.  In so doing, I hope to demonstrate why the history of ideas is absolutely crucial to evangelism.  It is my ardent belief that a solid background in the history of ideas and worldview thinking creates better pastors, better missionaries, and more importantly, better evangelists.

Schaeffer’s Challenge to the Modern Evangelist

In Francis Schaeffer’s influential book, The God Who is There, he explains how North America and Europe underwent a tremendous shift in thought in the early half of the twentieth-century.  This dramatic shift revolved around the very nature of truth.  Schaeffer explains that there was a time when virtually everyone understood truth to be absolute—universal or objective—however the modern mind views things quite differently.   The new view of truth is one of total subjectivity—one completely relative to the individual.  It represents the total abandonment of the idea of antithesis—that if a proposition A is true then its converse (not A) is necessarily false.[1]

In the old days Christians could communicate the Gospel in a straightforward way that would resonate with the average individual because everyone accepted the notion of antithesis; sadly, under the new way of thinking, this is no longer the case.  As Schaeffer explains:

Thirty or more years ago you could have said such things as “This is true” or “This is right,” and you would have been on everybody’s wavelength.  People may or may not have thought out their beliefs consistently, but everyone would have been talking to each other as though the idea of antithesis was correct.  Thus, in evangelism, in spiritual matters and in Christian education, you could have begun with the certainty that your audience understood you.[2]

Needless to say, the new shift in thought drastically diminishes the effectiveness of traditional evangelism; even straightforward statements like, “Jesus is the truth,” or “do what is right,” which used to carry much weight, no longer have any meaning.  Such statements, however true they may be, are simply not understood.

To put it plainly:  I am not effectively communicating the gospel in today’s society by simply pointing out that, “Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.”  I have to explain what I mean when I say he is the “way,” and what I mean when I speak of “truth.”  Otherwise, the hearer will not understand how Jesus leads to life.  In the current generations mind, such an absolute statement merely amounts to this: “Jesus is a way, and a truth, and is one of many possibilities which lead to life.”

At this point, you may be wondering what all of this has to do with the history of ideas.  Allow me to explain.  Schaeffer never could have come to these important conclusions if he had not taken the time to read and understand the basic underlying philosophy of the culture in which he lived.  Quite simply:  the history of ideas is an indispensable component of evangelism.  For it is the evangelists chief responsibility to understand how and why people think the way they do in whatever culture he is sharing the gospel message.  This is because he has an obligation—a Biblical mandate—to ensure that everyone hears the message of the cross.

Paul poses the question in Romans 10:14, “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed?  And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?  And how are they to hear without someone preaching?”[3] If you share the gospel to a postmodern and all he hears is, “Jesus is a way, and a truth, and may lead to life,” he has not heard the gospel!  To be a good evangelist is to understand the worldviews of others with the goal of understanding how to communicate the gospel in a way that they can understand.

Jerusalem Meets Athens

Perhaps no one in the Bible demonstrates this as well as the Apostle Paul.  In Acts 17, Paul finds himself stuck in the ancient city of Athens—the intellectual center of Rome.  While there he begins to dialogue with both Stoic and Epicurean philosophers—and before long is taken before the Areopagus to explain his “strange” teaching. (Acts 17:19,20)  In Paul’s famous Areopagus speech we find a practical example of how the history of ideas connects with evangelism and missions.

Paul begins his speech by appealing to an altar erected to an unknown god he discovered while exploring the city (this gave him the perfect lead into discussing the One True God who created everything.)  As Paul’s speech progresses he cleverly quotes Stoic and Epicurean philosophers and poets to communicate the Biblical worldview and introduce the listeners to Jesus (it is of significant note that Paul is able to communicate all of this and win several converts without once quoting from scripture.)

What can we learn from this story?  Clearly, that understanding the ideas, thoughts, and culture of the people God has placed in our lives to minister to is of great importance.  Paul had obviously taken the time to study Greek Philosophy—to such an extent that he was able to quote their own writings in an effort to make the Gospel understandable to a group of Athenian philosophers.  Why did he do this?  Because he wanted them to hear—understand, comprehend—the good news of the kingdom of God.

He realized he had to speak to them on their level, using a vocabulary they where familiar with, or else they would not understand the message.  Indeed, it was for the very sake of the gospel that he did so. Paul later communicated this principle in a letter to the Church in Corinth:  “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.  I do it all for the sake of the gospel…”  (1 Corinthians)  As Christians we are commissioned by our Lord to share the gospel with all people—by all means–and as such are obliged to follow Paul’s example.

Jerusalem Meets Chiang Mai

These ideas became crystal clear to me while on mission in Chiang Mai Thailand.  My training at the College at Southwestern has given me a solid foundation in the history and ideas of both Eastern and Western traditions.  However, I was a bit skeptical about the relevance of such training in Thailand.  How could my training in philosophy and apologetics possibly help me reach the people of Chiang Mai?  True to form, God shattered my doubts and proved me wrong.

It didn’t take much interaction before I realized that the Buddhist monks were highly intelligent.  Many of them had a profound interest in studying variant philosophies and understanding other religions.  Often, the first thing they would ask me to do was to explain to them the difference between Eastern and Western philosophical thought.  This, of course, provided a great lead into explaining the fundamental differences between Buddhism and Christianity.

I found myself, on the other side of the world, in a completely different culture, hashing out the classic rules of logic, debating the finer points of epistemology, and discussing such varied topics as evolution and big bang cosmology.  In a nut shell, God was putting my college education to good use.  For many of the monks these issues presented serious roadblocks and for them to understand the gospel I had to provide them with intelligible answers.  Like Paul’s study of Greek Philosophy, my training in the history of ideas allowed me to share the gospel in a coherent way to the monks of Chiang Mai.

Concluding Remarks

It seems to me that the study of Humanities is both intellectually and aesthetically enriching, and immensely practical.  Those who fail to see this—especially among evangelicals—seem to be blinded to the reality in which they live.  The point of evangelism is to share the good news of Jesus Christ—presumably this entails ensuring our audience understands what they are hearing.  Consequentially, nothing could prepare the evangelist more than having a thorough grasp of the history, ideas, and culture of his audience.  This is why the history of ideas is crucial to evangelism.

[2]Ibid., 7.

[3]All Biblical quotations from the ESV.

Cross-posted on the Christian Watershed

I was recently presented with Hume’s famous argument against God concerning evil. The following is my reply. I offer great apologies to Alvin Plantinga as the thought process, the exact wording of the syllogisms, and the argument come from his book God, Freedom, and Evil (though, to be fair, his arguments are really the analytical renderings of Augustine’s City of God). Here was my response to the person:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent.

If he is able, but not willing, then he is malevolent.

If he is both willing and able, then whence cometh evil?

If he is neither willing nor able, then why call him God?

If we grant the first and second premise, then we must deal with the third premise, which is:

(1) God is omnipotent

(2) God is wholly good

(3) Evil exists (why?)

The problem with your syllogism is that, taken prima facie, it’s not contradictory. There is no reason to assume that just because God is willing to stop evil that He will actualize His capability to stop evil. Rather, there are two other implied syllogisms in your argument:

(4) A good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can

and

(5) There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

What do we mean when we say that God is omnipotent though? Does God’s omnipotence mean that He can create square holes, married bachelors, or worlds both do and do not exist? Or does it simply mean that He has unlimited power on all things that are within reason (given that reason is part of His nature)? That is, does it merely mean that He has all power within things that could actually exist? Most theologians would go with the latter understanding of omnipotence. If God wanted to create a unicorn or make it to where a rainbow turned into a pot of gold, then He certainly could because, though these things do not exist, it is not illogical for them to exist. He could not, however, create a world in which He doesn’t exist, or negate His own nature, due to the rationality present within His nature. In short, God follows His own nature, meaning He cannot contradict Himself. Thus, omnipotence merely means that there are no nonlogical limits to what God can do. Thus, our new proposition is:

(5) There are no nonlogical limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

Now, is it necessarily true that if a being is both willing and able to end an evil act that the being will always do so? In short, no. Assume that your friend John has capsized his boat in the Atlantic and doesn’t have a life preserver. He’ll probably only be able to stay afloat for thirty minutes. You have a boat that is fully fueled and you can have it out to John in less than 20 minutes. His plight is certainly an evil one, one that you are capable of eliminating and, if you knew about it, certainly willing to eliminate. But you don’t eliminate it. Does this make you evil?

Of course it doesn’t make you evil. You don’t give up the capability of being good. This shows that the present syllogism doesn’t show a contradiction or render it impossible to believe that God is evil. Here we see a counter-example that demonstrates how the syllogism doesn’t work. Now, we can turn around and say, “Not only is God all powerful, but He is likewise all knowing,” but this is a modification to our current syllogism. Thus, the modified syllogism is:

(4a) Every good thing always eliminates every evil that it knows about and can eliminate

Even with this grouping {(1), (2), (3), (4a), (5)} we do not see a formal or even implicit contradiction. Instead, we must assume that God is omniscient, or all-knowing.

Certainly, this must finally provide the contradiction we are looking for. But is (4a) necessarily true?

Using the previous example, let us add another contingency. Your friend John has radioed you, letting you know that his boat is capsizing. Your friend Mack, however, radios you at the same time and tells you that his boat is capsizing as well. Both John and Mack are too far apart for you to rescue them both. You rescue one, but evil still befalls the other. Does this negate your goodness? It’s not within your logical power to rescue both, but you’re still good. Again, when applied to God this changes, however, it shows that (4a) isn’t necessarily true as there is a counter-example to negate it. There is a situation that the group can be applied to where the group (specifically (4a) isn’t necessarily true).

To use Plantinga’s example:

You’ve been rock climbing. Still something of a novice, you’ve acquired a few cuts and bruises by inelegantly using your knees rather than your feet. One of these bruises is fairly painful. You mention it to a physician friend, who predicts the pain will leave of its own accord in a day or two. Meanwhile, he says, there’s nothing he can do, short of amputating your leg above the knee, to remove the pain. Now the pain in your knee is an evil state of affairs. All else being equal, it would be better if you had no such pain. And it is within the power of your friend to eliminate this evil state of affairs. Does his failure to do so mean that he is not a good person? Of course not; for he could eliminate this evil state of affairs only by bringing about another, much worse evil…It is entirely possible that a good person fail to eliminate an evil state of affairs that he knows about and can eliminate. This would take place, if, as in the present example, he couldn’t eliminate the evil without bringing about a greater evil. (pg. 19).

Thus, (4a) isn’t necessarily true if, by preventing one evil, a greater evil comes about. Put otherwise, if E< will lead to E>,then allowing E< to continue doesn’t disallow for S to be cease being good.

The other problem with (4a) is that oftentimes there is a greater good within the evil. A good state of affairs G can outweigh a trivial evil E; the state of affairs of the conjunction of G and E is still a good state of affairs. In short, (4a) is not necessarily true – our present group has yet to produce a contradiction or even shown the co-existence of God and evil to be an illogical statement.

What if, however, we qualified proposition 4 even further to read:

(4b) A good being eliminates every evil E that it knows about and that it can eliminate without either bringing about a greater evil or eliminating a good state of affairs that outweighs E.

Does this mean that (4b) is necessarily true? Are there any counter-examples to it? Again, we turn back to the example of our two friends, Mack and John. Both of them are in the same situation. You can only rescue one – have you violated (4b) and given up your goodness? No, you haven’t. As Plantinga argues:

In this case you can eliminate one evil without causing more evil or eliminating a greater good; and you are also able to properly eliminate the other evil…here, then, each of the evils is such that you can properly eliminate it; but you can’t properly eliminate them both, and hence can’t be blamed for failing to eliminate one of them. (pg. 20)

Thus, neither (4a) or (4b) are necessarily true. Now, we can say that when applied to God these are different, but it’s a mute point – we have applied them to a situation and within the situation we saw how the person failed to be evil. A person can meet the propositions of the entire group and still fail to be evil.

If we desire to apply this directly to God, we can modify 4 even further to say:

(4c) An omnipotent and omniscient good being eliminates every evil that it can properly eliminate

Now, let’s concede this; let’s agree, for a moment, that (4c) is necessarily true. We are then faced with the following:

(1) God is omnipotent

(2) God is wholly good

(2′) God is omniscient

(3) Evil exists (why?)

(4c) An omnipotent and omniscient good being eliminates every evil that it can properly eliminate.

(5) There are no nonlogical limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

The problem – for you – is that none of this necessarily entails that (3′) Evil does not exist, but instead would entail (3”) There is no evil that God can properly eliminate.

Thus, (3”) is the conclusion, or what we can draw, from the group proposition {(1), (2)(2′), (3), (4c), (5)}. It doesn’t show how evil cannot exist under the group proposition.

In order to get a contradiction out of this group, we must add the following proposition:

(6) If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then he can properly eliminate every evil state of affairs.

But is (6) warranted and/or necessarily true? No, it’s not. It goes back to what was already discussed – how could such a being eliminate evil E without likewise eliminating an outweighing good? Given that some evil E contains an outweighing good G it is not logically possible for God to eliminate E without likewise eliminating G, by proxy eliminating Himself.

Now, can we show where there are cases where the outweighing good is contingent upon the evil? As Plantinga argues:

Certain kinds of values, certain familiar kinds of good states of affairs, can’t exist apart from evil of some sort. For example, there are people who display a sort of creative moral heroism in the face of suffering and adversity – a heroism that inspires others and creates a good situation out of a bad one. In a situation like this the evil, of course, remains evil; but the total state of affairs – someone’s bearing pain magnificently, for example – may be good. If it is, then the good present must outweigh the evil; otherwise the total situation would not be good. But, of course, it is not possible that such a good state of affairs obtain unless some evil also obtain.  (pg. 23)

Thus, what we’re left with doesn’t properly explain how the group propositions cannot exist. We do not see the contradiction nor the illogical aspect of it. Now, even though the propositions don’t prove a contradiction or how the argument is illogical, they likewise don’t allow us to see why God exists, and furthermore how it can be logical.

We can group propositions (1), (2), and (2′) together and call them finding (1).

(1) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good.

Our goal, then, is to see if (1) and (3) can work together through. If we add the following proposition:

(7) God creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for doing so.

If (7) is consistent with (1) (and the additional propositions (4c) and (5)), then we can know that finding (1) and proposition (3) are likewise consistent.

In conclusion, what we have seen is that the original syllogism doesn’t show how belief in the traditional God and a belief in evil are illogical. It doesn’t show how the belief is inconsistent or how (1) and (3) cancel each other out. Furthermore, if a Christian can supply sufficient cause for (7) and show that with the sufficient cause (7) is consistent with (1), it follows that (1) is logically consistent with (3).

The goal, then is to explain (7), which I believe many others have done so quite adequately (such as Plantinga, Augustine, and many others). Likewise, the essay I linked you to (the one I wrote) is my attempt to explain (7) as well. What this does is leave you ground to question our reasoning on (7), but it does take away your ground to explain how (1) is inconsistent or negated by (3).

Does this answer your original question?

APPLIED THEOLOGY SERIES

Introduction | The Incarnation | The Image of God | The omniscience/omnipotence of God

What is it?

One of the central aspects of Christian theology is the belief in the Incarnation – that Christ came down and became human, taking on a human nature, but keeping His divine nature. It is also generally accepted that the incarnation is a mystery, that is, there really is no comprehensive or even adequate understanding of how the incarnation works. The best work dealing with this subject is Athanasius’ On The Incarnation, but even this work only shows how the incarnation works logically – it doesn’t explain how it actually works.

Why is it important as a belief?

One of the better summarizations of why the incarnation – that Jesus is both God and human – is found in Peter Kreeft’s book Because God is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer (Ignatius Press, 2006):

If it’s not possible for Jesus to be both fully divine and fully human, then either (a) Jesus is only the perfect human being but not God, or else (b) He’s only God but not a real human being.

a. If He’s only a human being, then He can’t forgive our sins. He can’t be our Savior from sin. And He can’t rise from the dead or raise us up from the dead. And He can’t unite us to God and take us to Heaven. For no merely human being can do any of that.

b. If He’s not fully human, if His human nature was only an appearance, like a movie or a dream, or “virtual reality”, then He didn’t really grow or tire or feel pain and frustration like us, so He can’t really understand our pains and weaknesses. God was never a human baby. God never had a mother. God was never a teenager. God never had to learn a trade like carpentry. God never got hungry and tired and lonely and angry and frustrated. God never suffered and died.

If either of these two “heresies” is true – if Jesus is not fully divine or if Jesus is not fully human – then we have no hope of Heaven. And that’s as big a difference to our lives as anything can possibly be. (p. 14)

What Kreeft points out is that if Jesus is not God, then He is no better than a righteous human – He holds no authority. If Jesus is not human, then He didn’t really live like us or take on our sufferings like we do, meaning He’s not an adequate example on how to live (or a proper sacrifice).

What scripture supports a belief in the incarnation?

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

The Latin incarnatio (in: caro, flesh) corresponds to the Greek sarkosis, or ensarkosis, which words depend on John (1:14) kai ho Logos sarx egeneto, “And the Word was made flesh”.

In other words, the word “incarnation” is a Latin translation of the Greek word ensarkois, which is the idea presented in John 1:14. The whole of the New Testament, specifically the four gospels, explains how Christ was both God and man. The article linked to the Catholic Encyclopedia does an excellent job of showing the numerous passages that refer to Jesus being both man and God.

How can this belief be applied?

This belief is seemingly hard to apply to our everyday lives because we are not God, have never been God, and will never be God – so how can we be incarnated? We can’t come down as God in human form. Though perplexing, there are applications of the incarnation. The one I can think of the most is Missions. I was speaking with my friend from the Philippines the other day about American missionaries. He said it isn’t uncommon in his country and other countries in Southeast Asia to have American missionaries living like millionaires. They may only get $2,000-$3,000 a month from America, but when the currency is exchanged, they become the equivalent to millionaires in the country they’re “evangelizing.” They live in nice homes, have two cars, and continue to live the American lifestyle while “reaching out” to people.

An incarnational way of living, however, requires a drastically different approach to typical American missions. Just as Christ emptied Himself, took on human flesh, leaving behind the glory of Heaven, so we too must leave behind our wealth, our Americanism, our culture, and seek to embrace the new culture we find ourselves in. When living in a foreign nation we should seek to live amongst the people, adopting their way of life, eating their food, dressing like them, talking like them, and thinking like them. This doesn’t mean we adopt their philosophies, but merely that we learn to think like the indigenous people and understand their thought process and worldview.

We can look at Paul saying that we should become “all things to all people,” not meaning that we act like them or adopt their philosophies, but simply that we take on their culture, learn how to reach out to their culture, and embrace those people.

When Christ took on human flesh, though He adopted human culture (specifically the Jewish culture He found Himself in), He stood on principles of truth. He spoke their language, He knew their thought process, He knew their worldview, He lived amongst them, He ate their food – but not once did He adopt their philosophy. Instead, he took their culture and interjected it with the Truth of God. Likewise, in missions, we should do the same.

What other applications to the incarnation exist? There must be applications in everyday life, I was merely pointing out one.

What was I to say?  What was I to do?

Sure, I do not agree with what they believe and yet I feel a sort of connection with them, for I myself have doubts. I remembered days in my life when I had to shut myself in my room and weep. Weep for uncertainties, for confusion, for perplexity. I too have felt the world crumbling beneath my feet. I too felt the agony of being uncertain of what the future holds. I too have stared at the void in my soul.

“My tears have been my food day and night, while they say to me continually, ‘where is your God?!’” (Ps. 42:3 ESV)

I sympathize with these people I’ve met and I weep as they, one by one, “leap into the void”. The void does not have to remain. There is an answer to the emptiness in man’s soul. A solution is available, redemption and peace can be found. Wallowing in sorrow will not remove sorrow. I once lived in a void but now I have found hope, but more so, joy and peace. It is not a sin to raise questions, but it is foolishness to not pursue an answer. To our emergent friends: give truth another shot, argue with us, contend with us, fight us, but this I ask, let us be your friends. 

I attended an event in Waco, TX this evening sponsored by the VOID. Peter Rollins (How (Not) to Speak of God andThe Fidelity of Betrayal) was there as well. I got an opportunity to speak with him after the event, but I want to share my views on what transpired.

This was the first Emergent event I’ve been to in a long time that I actually enjoyed. Moreover, it showed the absolute importance of having doubts and questions about Christianity. My heart broke that these people had at one point been made to feel ashamed of doubting certain aspects of their faith. I’m glad that the service was geared to expressing these doubts and admitting that we have doubts.

I think we, as Christians, are fearful of our own doubts and especially of other people’s doubts. Doubts open us up to uncertainty; we don’t know the outcome of a doubt. What if the answer to a doubt is more devastating than the doubt itself? Doubt can be a very scary thing.

Doubt, ultimately, is a good thing if that doubt isn’t cynical. Often times we doubt simply for the sake of doubt – we don’t want to believe something or trust in someone because we don’t want to be let doubt. Thus, in spite of all the evidence or reasons to abandon our doubt, we cling to it as a security blanket. Doubt, when true doubt that honestly questions a certain belief, is always a good thing if an answer is pursued. I think of Francis Schaeffer in True Spirituality, how he prefaces the book stating that he doubted his faith in the 50’s, which led him to explore it and see if it was actually true. True Spirituality was the answer to his doubts.

Another good example is that of (doubting) Thomas. In fact, they used him as an example of someone who doubted. At the introduction, they brought up that maybe Thomas was the greater because he sought to put his fingers in the holes in Jesus’ hands, rather than just sit back. The lesson though is that Thomas had doubt and he sought an answer to that doubt.

However, what worried me is that some may have doubted without trying to find an answer. One thing that sticks out is when someone said, “Questions define my faith, not answers.” Now, I’m not naïve enough to believe that we will find the answer to every question. Sometimes the answer is, “I don’t know” or “it’s just a mystery.” I doubt that I’ll ever find an answer to exactly how God functions as a Trinity; I’m satisfied with mystery. I do, however, plan on finding out if God exists (I have figured that out by the way).

I look to 2 Timothy 3, which warns about people who are always learning or questioning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth. What is interesting is he says such people come into houses with people who are already captive. That is because doubt, if left unanswered or not dealt with, can make us captive and cold. We become cynical. Doubt is good, it must be brought out, we must admit to having doubt, but we must also find an answer to that doubt.

After the event, I was able to talk to Peter Rollins. To put it shortly, Rollins is one of the nicest people I’ve ever met. What impressed me was his willingness to hear my critiques of his beliefs. He even said that he thinks honesty with each other is important, that it’s okay to fight with each other on stuff as long as we’re friends afterwards. I couldn’t agree more with him.

What I also appreciated was his view of conservative Christians. He said what he likes about conservatives is that they understand Christianity is more than a belief, but also a lifestyle.

Overall, it’s impossible to dislike Rollins after meeting him. He’s an extremely likable guy and if I lived near him he’d certainly be one of my friends. I certainly disagree with his viewpoints and I still find some of his beliefs to be dangerous – some of what he says leads to Nihilism, other parts make me wonder why followers of his teachings should even call themselves Christians. I think his beliefs lead to despair. At the same time, he is a very nice guy and if given the opportunity, I’d certainly hang around him more and discuss my views on his beliefs and vise versa. 

The “new” Christians wave their banners, touting “love” and “toleration,” while truth gets tossed in the waste basket.  Sadly, they ignore the impact this maneuver has on the virtues they cherish so dearly.  To remain consistent with their own worldview, the “new” Christians must admit such terms as “love” and “toleration” have no definite meaning.  What’s more, they must deny human beings have intrinsic value (for this would entail absolute truth); and of course, this only compounds the problem of love.  Why should humans love (whatever that means) each other when they are not intrinsically valuable? 

There’s no getting around it; love/hate, good/evil, right/wrong—each of these terms find their meaning in absolute truth.  To teach a gospel of love without truth is not to teach love, to speak of the good without truth is to speak nonsense, and to teach the nature of God without truth is utterly vain and contrived.         

Thankfully, the writer’s of the New Testament did not share the “new” Christian’s distaste for truth.  Consider this greeting at the beginning of 2 John 1-3:

“To the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all those who have known the truth, because of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever:  Grace, mercy, and peace will be with you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.”  

Here, the author uses several distinct combinations of the words “love” and “truth” which demand our attention.  He says, “To the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth.” Notice he didn’t say, “whom I love according to the cultural, social, standards I was raised to believe.”  He says, “whom I love in truth.”  Lest anyone claim that John did not understand truth to be absolute, take a look at verse seven:

“For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.”

John clearly believes that Jesus Christ came in the flesh—this is an absolute truth—otherwise, he would not be bothered with “deceivers” who teach a different gospel.  If truth is subjective, one cannot deceive; one simply puts forth his or her own unique point of view.  One can only deceive if truth is absolute.  John clearly believes Jesus came down in the flesh and that to deny this is to speak falsely. 

Thus, John states that he loves this anonymous Christian lady and her children in truth; and of course the truth that he speaks of is the truth of the gospel; as he relates, “not only I [love you in truth], but also all those who have known the truth [the gospel], because of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever.” 

Another distinctive use of the words “love” and “truth” can be found in verse 3:

“Grace, mercy, and peace will be with you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.” 

Here, John prays for the grace, mercy, and peace of God and His Son Jesus to be with this Christian lady in truth and love.  Again, the absolute, objective, propositional truth, John speaks of is the good news of Jesus Christ: coming down in the flesh, dying for our sins, resurrecting, and ascending to the right hand of the Father; so clearly demonstrating the Father’s love for his creation.  The truth of the gospel is the vehicle by which God’s grace, mercy, and peace is imparted to mankind and is the ultimate display of the Father’s love. 

 If these examples were not enough, John makes yet another explicit connection between love and truth in verse six:

“This is love, that we walk according to His commandments.  This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it.”

In this verse John explains a crucial part of what love is; grounding it in the absolute truth of the gospel.  He encourages this lady to love, to walk according to the commandments of God; but more specifically, to walk according to the original gospel message she had heard from the very beginning.  Not to stray from the truth of the gospel.  Once again, love is tied to truth; more specifically the amazing truth that Jesus came to earth in the flesh and died on the cross for our sins. 

One cannot love without truth; to argue otherwise is both illogical and unbiblical. 

Why is it that even though modern technologies are everywhere easing the work load it seems like everybody has become much busier? This is a question everyone in the 21st century should ask themselves. The rise of modern innovations has made it so that man’s life would be as comfortable as possible. There are modern tools for every imaginable work, but there is still an insatiable appetite in the hearts of men that hinders them from rest. Thus, even with all these advances, they find themselves more exhausted, stressed, and weary than ever. This woeful predicament is caused by a flaw in the modernist worldview: for real satisfaction does not come from the accumulation of material treasures but from a realization of wretchedness and a dire, desperate need for God’s intervention. This paper will examine how modern civilization arrived in this predicament with a specific focus on the attitude of the church towards it. In the end concluding that, as Pascal wrote, “It is then perfectly possible to know God but not our own wretchedness, or our own wretchedness but not God; but it is not possible to know Christ without knowing both God and our wretchedness alike.”

The Global Subdivision

Modern day technological innovations have lifted human life into heights beyond human imagination. New developments in the sphere of telecommunications, computer science, and in both industrial and medical engineering have made the world a more convenient place to live in. The rise of these modern innovations has made the human world, in the words of Thomas Friedman, “flat” – one big global subdivision. “Globalization” is term used by cyber analysts to refer to this phenomenon, personally however, the term “flat” seems to be a more appropriate term to use. Modern man has successfully torn down the walls which divide nations through three successive epochs in World History.

The first part takes place roughly in between the 1400’s and the 1800’s marked by globalizing countries. The main agenda in this era is getting one’s own country known globally. This era is known for the explorations and the conquests of Columbus and the other explorers; for the scientific revolution spearheaded by Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton; and for the spark of the industrial revolution. Nationalism plays a big part in the expansion of the countries. The national pride of each of the countries was largely determined by the magnitude and the number of its territories. Colonialism and slavery became a symbol of power and political might for most European countries while the inventions of the Industrial revolution became a symbol of development and cultural supremacy. To have a sense of pride in this era, one has to be a part of a global nation.

The second part involves the rise of capitalism in the 19th century and the invention of cyber space in the 20th century. Although plagued by two World Wars and the Great Depression, this era from the late 1800’s to the year 2000, has shrunk and flattened the world even further. The dynamic force behind this global innovation was the establishment of multinational companies. Because of the effect of the industrial revolution and a series of revolutions, the manipulation of wealth by the aristocrats was broken. High demands of goods caused a high demand of jobs which in turn led to the prosperity of some workers and the establishment of the middle class. This era saw the rise of multinational companies and franchises and because of the major developments in the fields of telecommunications and transportation.

The first half of this era is marked by falling transportation costs as a result of the invention of the steam-engine, the railroad, and some primitive version of cars. The second half is marked by falling telecommunications costs through the invention of the telephone, the personal computer, satellites, and a primitive version of the World Wide Web. These developments created a paradigm shift from nationalism to capitalism and corporationalism. People became more concerned about having their companies known worldwide, thus the rise of global companies like McDonalds, Coca-cola, and Microsoft. To have sense of pride in this era, one has to be connected to a global company.

The third phase of this three step progression takes place from the year 2000 to the present day. The colossal developments in technology in the second phase were enhanced and exploited even further in this era. The founding of the internet, in particular, has opened new horizons of possibility for every individual. At this time the individual was allowed to “become the author of his or her own content in digital form.” Every technology in this era has been personalized and it became possible for every individual to have a world of his own. In this era, each individual is a corporation of his own. A businessman can sit in one of the Starbucks franchises in Texas, sip coffee, turn on a MacBook and finish a transaction with another person sitting in a park in Kuala Lumpur.

This era introduced individuals to the global platform. Through the internet, any person can have access to anyone in the planet regardless of space and time. This paved the way to a new plethora of opportunities for companies but more significantly for every individual. To have a sense of pride in this era one has to be a global person.

These three phases has broken down the walls that divide humans, creating a neighborhood of multiple ethnicities through a global link. This fact is epitomized by an article in the Herald Tribune entitled “Want Fries With Outsourcing?” about a McDonald’s restaurant near Cape Girardeau, Missouri which is outsourcing its drive-through orders to Colorado.

Cheap, quick and reliable telecommunications lines let the order takers in Colorado Springs converse with customers in Missouri, take an electronic snapshot of them, display their order on a screen to make sure it is right, then forward the order and the photo to the restaurant kitchen. The photo is destroyed as soon as the order is completed, Bigari said. People picking up their burgers never know that their order traverses two states and bounces back before they can even start driving to the pickup window.

Today, through modern technologies, boundaries have been torn down and new possibilities were opened for man’s exploration.

Virtual Virtue

Technology has forever changed man’s way of life. Modern gadgets made it possible for the modern man to increase his productivity and efficiency, yet in so doing, it also pave the way for a paradigm shift to occur with regards to the values that govern his life. Individualism, development, and efficiency have become the social norm and the effects of these are catastrophic. A large percentage of people are trapped in a room illuminated by artificial lights, filled with artificial air, and surrounded by myriads of command buttons. Their days are spent in front of screens of different sorts, projecting images of their friends and love ones’ faces. They speak but do not communicate, they have ideas but never knowledge nor wisdom, and they have acquaintances but have no relationships. They are content to be in this room full of nothing and have no idea of the wonders of the world beyond.

The man’s reaction to the convenience of modern technology has forever altered his definition of virtue. Virtue today is defined as productivity, innovation, efficiency, and development replacing the ancient virtues of truthfulness, intimacy, excellence, love, justice, and honesty. Quentin Schultze, about the modern virtues writes: “Information technology are not just tools but also value-laden techniques that we rely on increasingly to organize and understand nearly every aspect of our lives.” In itself, technology is amoral, but the people’s reaction of distraction and isolation causes the demise of morality.

Distraction

It is an irony, technology is supposed to make human life simple and people today with all the conveniences offered by modern innovations seems to have a shortage of time, as if twenty-four hours a day is not enough. Just when it would be expected that life would be simpler, it became far more complicated. Just when life would be expected to be peaceful, it has become more chaotic. The reason for this peculiar situation according to Pascal is, “that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room.” The modern man needs distraction because his life is too much of a bore. He, to alleviate the void that is left by idleness creates avenues to divert his attention. He does this to spare himself from any serious contemplation that will reveal or remind him of his emptiness. Thus, simply stated, modern man chooses to live a busy and chaotic life rather than a peaceful life.

Technology is a big avenue for distraction. It is like a tool box filled with tools to create distraction. The internet is the door to cyberspace, a magical world where a person can be whoever he wants to be. It is a gateway to escape the “real” world and to traverse an imaginary land where anything is possible. Virtues of moderation, discernment, and humility are irrelevant in this virtual world, for all that matters here isinformationalism, “a non-discerning, vacuous faith in the collection and dissemination of information as a route to social progress and personal happiness”. Everything herein operates on instinct and feelings. Here, one can find all the distraction he needs to have momentary happiness.

Isolation

Isolation is one of man’s responses to modern technology. What is meant here by “isolation” is not that a person would lock himself in a room, all alone without any communication with those outside, although it is a part of that which is alluded to. Rather, it refers to a newer form of isolation: being in a crowd, conversing with other people but simultaneously being detached from personal communication and involvement. Modern isolation is the deprivation of intimacy.

Advances in telecommunications have made it possible for anyone to be connected with people anywhere and at anytime. In fact, a phone provider advertisement says, “It’s time to say goodbye to goodbyes”. The issue today is not communication. The issue is: through the availability of modern telecommunications, intimacy has been substituted by synthetic communication. Communication today has lost that personal touch that is the avenue for a meaningful conversation. In fact, talking is gradually being outdated. It seems today, people would rather type than talk, thus, the popularity of text messaging and email.

This isolation is not merely social in nature but it extends to the modern’s outlook of the world. Most people are locked in rooms not only away from outside communication but also, away from the world itself. Most people are satisfied to look at the world through screens, satisfied by second hand information from people who themselves see life through screens. The television, the internet, and the cellular phone have replaced personal exploration, travel, experimentation, and observation. The modern man is contented with mere information and not with personal knowledge. Schultze writes, “we have become impersonal observers of the world rather than intimate participants in the world,” further, “the glut of information at our disposal creates the illusion that we understand our predicament.”

These two reactions are but the tip of the iceberg concerning the universe of deadly responses to modern technology which for the expense of space in this paper were not written. Suffice it to say, these two are the most obvious and the most vicious of all the reactions to technology. These have rendered the olden virtues, which are the foundations of human life, insignificant in the eyes of the majority of the human population. It has abolished the necessity for a healthy personal introspection and a vigorous social interaction. It will thus be unsurprising if twenty or thirty years from now, human existence too will be considered primitive and it too would be subject to technological innovations. It will not be a surprise if robots take the place of man in the near future.   

The Techno-Savvy Church

The church is the only institution available to modern man that is able to confront this dire predicament, and yet, instead of addressing this cultural paradigm shift, the church has become in itself techno-savvy. Instead of addressing ills of this technological nuisance, most churches have learned to thrive on the situation, riding the wave of the times rather than redirecting the deceptive cultural flow. The church has long been enslaved by the Hegelian principle of dialectic, where there is an anti-thesis to every thesis which necessitates a synthesis. This methodology has long been the church’s standard means of addressing culture, Jose Miguez Bonino, a proponent of liberation theology which is a synthesis of Marxism and Christianity writes:

It is my thesis that, as Christians, confronted by the inhuman condition of existence prevailing in the continent, they have tried to make their Christian faith historically relevant, they have been increasingly compelled to seek an analysis and historical programme (sic) for their Christian obedience. At this point, the dynamics of the historical process, both in its objective conditions and its theoretical development have led them, though the failure of several remedial and reformist alternatives, to discover the unsubstitutable relevance of Marxism.

Such is too, the case between the Church and Postmodernism, David Ray Griffin in God and Religion in the Postmodern World: Essays in Postmodern Theology, writes, “In this context, a reassertion of the authority of the scriptures (and perhaps tradition) appeared to be the only way to maintain ‘a faith worth having.’ A significant theology seemed to require a conservative method. Postmodern theology shows that this is no longer true.”

Most of the churches today have fallen into either of two demonic pitfalls: liberalism and legalism. The former emphasizes culture over doctrine while the latter emphasizes duty over virtue. Liberals have adapted the church into culture that a distinction cannot be made between the two. They soften the gospel message and seek to turn it into a motivational speech. The concept of sin as rebellion towards the justice of God is deemed irrelevant to cater to the individualism of modernists. The legalists, on the other hand, have emphasized duty over virtue to the point that their form of Christianity ceases to address the culture. Virtue and duty are almost synonymous, yet there is a slight distinction of the two. Josef Pieper differentiates the two in this manner:

With a doctrine of commandements or duties, however, there is always the danger of arbitrarily drawing up a list of requirements and losing sight of the human person who “ought” to do this or that. The doctrine of virtue on the other hand, has things to say about this human person; it speaks both of the kind of being which is his when he enters the world, as a consequence of his createdness, and the kind of being he ought to strive toward and attain to – by being prudent, just, brave, and temperate. The doctrine of virtue, that is, is one form of the doctrine of obligation; but one by nature free of regimentation and restriction. On the contrary, its aim is to clear a trail, to open a way.

The main problem with legalism is that it over emphasizes the duties to the point that the person following the commandments fail to find the reason for such an adherence. Legalism neglects the value of the person, belittling the essence of the virtuous life, which is the chief aim of the movement.

The degradation of churches has caused a great confusion among regular church goers. The downfall has furnished a dichotomized outlook in most of the congregations. A great number of people have succumbed to Screwtape’s (a demonic character in C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters) thought, “Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily ‘true’ or ‘false’, but as ‘academic’ or ‘practical’, ‘conventional’ or ‘ruthless’.” They live in two different worlds at the same time. They live in what Peter Kreeft refers to as the world of values which is set upon the world of behavior.

Our feeling life, our inner world of “values” (no longer real goods), is set on the outer world of behavior, a world governed by social “mores” (no longer morals). “Values” are like thoughts, like ghosts, undulating blobs of psychic energy. “Mores” are like brute facts, like machines, ways people do in fact behave, not ways they ought to. We are like ghosts in machines.

Their values are divorced from their behavior and their practice. Virtue has thus become for them an ideal rather than an everyday standard.

Conclusion

Charles Malik in his keynote speech in the dedication of the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton College said, “responsible Christians face two tasks – saving the soul and saving the mind.” Salvation is an instantaneous event which takes place upon conversion. Sanctification, however, is an ongoing process which involves the “renewing of the mind (Rom. 12:2).” Modernism and dependence on technology is solely based on human pride, an age long attitude and lifestyle. The pursuit of ease, comfort, and convenience are not new quests, but rather, an institutionalized illness extending from the fall of man. Its consequences, together with it, are not new. Adam and Eve were distracted by the allure of the fruit of the forbidden tree and by the cunning and craftiness of Satan’s charming offer of convenience, the offer to be “like God, knowing good and evil (Gen. 3:5).” After the fall, they too isolated themselves. They hid from the face of God and at that moment they lost intimacy with God, the world around them, and with themselves.

Ease is pleasurable is not a necessity for survival and is in itself a vain pursuit. First, ease and convenience were never a factor in human survival in history. The great and women in the past never achieved their status through ease and convenience. They all had to endure conflict, wars, affliction, and technological limitations but their resiliency, perseverance, and their determination through such situations are the ingredients to their greatness. Secondly, the pursuit for comfort is a vain attempt because man is never satisfied. It should be observed that presently, with all the conveniences of technology, modern man have become busier than ever. This is because man has an insatiable boredom. It is indeed true that “we want to complexify our lives, we don’t have to, we want to.”

Distraction and isolation are not the solutions for the wretchedness of man. It is in no way helpful in improving the human predicament. The truth and the realization of this truth is the only means to alleviate man’s wretchedness. The modern man should stop burying his head in the sand like an ostrich in fear of a tiger, but rather he should hold his head up and see the predicament as it really is, a dire hopeless situation. When he has done this he would be able to accept the reality that, “It is then perfectly possible to know God but not our own wretchedness, or our own wretchedness but not God; but it is not possible to know Christ without knowing both God and our wretchedness alike.” It is only at this point that he would cease to try, repent of his sins, and turn to the one who is the way, the truth, and the life, and in deep reverence accept Him as savior and Lord. Then and only then will he find the eternal rest that he has long been searching for.    

Cross-posted on The Christian Watershed:

I have no problem admitting that I am fascinated by early Islamic philosophy. I love reading the philosophy of Ibn Sina (Aviccena), al-Farabi, find the “rational theology” (Ilm-al-Kalam) fascinating, and find that I agree with much of what these early teachers say. I also appreciate many aspects of Islam, specifically in the Qur’an. I think there is much to be learned from it.

At the same time, though I believe there historically was a Muhammad and find much truth in Islam, I deny its central tenets and even some of its auxiliary beliefs. Though I agree with some of what Islam teaches, I also disagree with parts as well. In light of this, I can’t call myself a Muslim.

This brings me to my bigger point – why do people continue to call themselves Christians when they deny the central tenets of Christianity? There is no Peter Rollins for Islam, saying that we must merely live as Allah wants us to live and forgo the beliefs. Why is there one for Christianity? 

If someone is going to deny that Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity, that the Bible is infallible and inspired, that Christ died for the sins of the world, then why keep the ‘Christian’ title? If you don’t like the organization, then don’t go by its name. 

My question, then, is if a person denies the central tenets of Christianity, why do they continue to claim the name?