intellectual integrity - remote-learner · harry blamires argues that there is no longer a...

Intellectual Integrity

Richard B. Ramsay

Do not copy without permission.

2

CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 5

INTELLECTUAL SCHIZOPHRENIA ..................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER II .............................................................................................................................................. 17

THE WAR FOR THE TRUTH ................................................................................................................ 17

CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 33

ATTACK OR RETREAT?........................................................................................................................ 33

THE CHRISTIAN AND HIS RELATION TO SOCIETY..................................................................... 33

CHAPTER IV ............................................................................................................................................. 47

CURRENT SELF-DESTRUCTIVE WORLD VIEWS........................................................................... 47

CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 60

A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF POLITICS ..................................................................................................... 60

CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................................... 72

A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF ECONOMICS............................................................................................... 72

CHAPTER 7 ............................................................................................................................................... 81

A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS............................................................. 81

CHAPTER 8 ............................................................................................................................................... 90

A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF ART................................................................................................................ 90


3

PREFACE Although I grew up in a Christian family, I began to doubt my faith during my first course in philosophy at the university. In the midst of my spiritual pilgrimage, the Lord showed me His presence one night in the multitude of bright stars. I gave my heart to the Lord and returned to my dorm room as a renewed person. Nevertheless, I was unaware at the moment that I still needed to give my mind to the Lord also. I was attending classes in which they were teaching me subtly that I myself was the judge of the truth, that the truth was subjective and relative. I was being slowly brainwashed. I continued living a duality between my "spiritual" life and my intellectual life. I woke up to this reality when I took a course on ethics several years later. First I thought my professor was a profound thinker, because of the way he asked good questions. He always said, "Why do you think that?" He made me aware that I needed to learn how to defend my point of view. But one day we went to listen to a well-known philosopher give a conference on ethics. I was surprised by the fact that he made no effort to defend his views. He simply spewed out his opinions about one topic after another. I returned to class disillusioned, and certain that our professor would criticize him severely for that. When he asked our opinion of the conference, I held up my hand, convinced that everyone would applaud my analysis. I said, "It was interesting, but he didn't defend his views." What do you think his response was? He replied, "Why do you think he should defend his opinions?" I couldn't believe it! In an instant, everything became clear. The professor had been playing with us the whole semester. He had no answers, and he was only pretending to be wise, making us defend every comment with his simple question, "Why?" Furthermore, with this methodology, he was continually insinuating that any point of view was just as valid as another. After this revelation, I began to question the fundamental presuppositions of my university education. The books of Francis Schaeffer and Cornelius Van Til helped me to see the relativism and pretended subjectivity of the truth. They led me to give not only my heart, but also my mind to Christ. It was really like a "second conversion." Don't misunderstand me. The Bible teaches that there is only one conversion, theologically speaking. However, some of us live our lives in such a divided way, between our Christian faith and our non-Christian thoughts, that we need a radical change in our way of thinking, so radical that we could call it an intellectual conversion. After my struggles, I promised the Lord I would help others who were doubting their faith. In fact, that is what motivated me to enter the ministry. I would like to offer this book as partial fulfillment of that promise that I made.


4

All Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard translation, 1995 update, unless otherwise indicated.


5

CHAPTER 1 INTELLECTUAL SCHIZOPHRENIA 1 "There is no Christian mind." Harry Blamires 2 Evangelicals often suffer from what I call "intellectual schizophrenia." When we deal with a subject that we consider theological or "spiritual," we seek answers based on the teachings of the Scriptures, but when we deal with other topics such as politics, economics, or art, for example, our opinions frequently have little to do with our Christian faith. The result is that we develop a kind of "double personality" in our thinking. At the moment I am writing this, there is a topic discussed heatedly around the world: the war between the United States and Iraq. Some are in favor, and others are against it. I don't pretend to solve the question here, but what surprises me is the way in which Christians dialogue about the issue. I hear simplistic comments on the one hand like, "This is imperialism!", and "Iraq is a threat to us!" on the other hand. Some claim that Iraq had no resources to be considered a nuclear threat, and others consider that they did. Some think if we hadn't attacked them, they would have attacked us. The curious thing is that I haven't heard much talk about a Christian perspective on when a war is justified. There is much literature on the subject, and many biblical passages that orient our thinking about war, but this doesn't come up in the conversations. I am just as guilty as anybody else. ¿Why don't we form our opinions on this important debate in the same way that we form our theological opinions? I have the impression that many Christians just repeat what they have read in the paper or heard on television. I also think that many opinions about current events reflect more pragmatism than Christianity. That is, instead of asking, "What are the biblical ethical principles regarding this?", we ask, "What would happen if ....?" We base our decisions on possible consequences. I remember when I lived in Costa Rica in 1977, the missionaries were arguing about the Panama Canal. Some thought that the United States should not turn it over to the Panamanians, because they wouldn't manage it well. I didn't hear much talk about what would be the just and right thing to do. When I went to Chile in 1978, there was a wide difference of opinions about president Pinochet. Some defended his heavy handed tactics during the first years of his regime, saying that it was "necessary" to control the opposition. I repeat that my purpose is not to give definitive answers to these polemical issues, but just to show that the way in which we form our opinions is often based on conjecture about the results, and not on ethical principles.

1 When I was in Chile (1978-1999), one of the classes I taught in seminary for several years was

called "Christian Philosophy." A large part of this book is based on the content of those classes. 2 Harry Blamires, The Christan Mind (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Books, 1963), p. 3.


6

Try an experiment: talk with a Christian friend about some political candidate in their state or in their country. It is probable that they will make pragmatic comments (either positive or negative) regarding what would happen if they are elected. "If he is president, our economy will improve." "If such and such is elected, crime and immorality will increase." There is nothing wrong with speculating about the possible consequences of electing somebody, but this is not sufficient; we also need a more profound reflection based on biblical principles. We should ask questions like: What are the biblical guidelines about economics and politics? What is the purpose of civil government, according to the Bible? What is the position of the candidates regarding these issues? A. The lack of intellectual integrity I remember my shock when I first played basketball with my fellow students at seminary. I couldn't believe the change in personality in some of these future pastors when they walked onto the basketball court! Suddenly they were pushing and shoving and shouting at each other. They called the ball out of bounds when it wasn't really, and they became angry when they lost. I fell into the same pattern. While it didn't seem to bother us, we had regressed to our childish manners. I see something similar in the intellectual area. Just as we often lack moral integrity, we lack intellectual integrity. We suddenly change identities when we walk on to the field of economy, art, music, or science. In part, this inconsistency is due to the secularization of public education. They insist that we leave God outside the science classroom. They teach the theory of evolution as if it were proven fact, but if a student dares to speak of creation, he is accused of mixing religion with science. They teach us the conclusions of psychologists regarding the nature of man, and we have no right to question them. In my first year of university studies, on the first day of classes, my philosophy professor asked how many of us believed in God. Out of several hundred students, only half of us raised our hand. Then he declared his purpose for the course: "I hope that by the end of the semester you will realize that there is no good reason to believe in God!" His plan worked with my older brother, but it was exactly this challenge that made me draw closer to God. I have asked myself many times, what would happen if a college professor declared that his intention was to convince all the students to believe in God? I am sure they would fire him! We can also blame Thomas Aquinas for having made a separation between faith and reason, between the "spiritual" and the "secular." According to his view, we use our reason to study nature up to a certain point, then afterwards we use faith and study the Scriptures in order to understand spiritual things. For example, we can come to believe in God through the testimony of nature and the use of our reason, but we need to read the Bible and exercise faith to believe in the Trinity. This dichotomy permits a separation between faith and reason, between the


7

spiritual and the natural, which has been damaging. Many Christians think that they can talk about science without referring to the Bible, and others think that they can exercise their faith while rejecting science and reason. Kant also highlighted this separation. He distinguished between the "noumenal" realm and the "phenomenal" realm, between the metaphysical world and the physical world. "Pure" reason functions in the physical world that we experience with our senses, but in the metaphysical world, "practical" reason functions. Religion, morality, freedom, and ethics are in the world of the "noumenona," an unknowable realm.

Thus a dangerous dichotomy was formed. Science becomes reasonable and objective, while religious issues are unknowable. Some deny the use of faith in the interpretation of nature, and others deny the use of reason in the interpretation of "religious" matters. Nevertheless, educational institutions are not the most guilty. Thomas Aguinus and Kant are not the most guilty. We ourselves are the most guilty! We have abandoned the battle for the truth. Naively we have put on the eyeglasses of the unbelievers to investigate the creation of God. We have handed the world over to the non-believers. Harry Blamires argues that there is no longer a "Christian mind," that Christian thought has been secularized. By "Christian mind" he is not referring to individuals that think in a Christian manner, but rather a "collectively accepted set of notions and attitudes,"3 a current of Christian thought to guide us, a school of thought with which we can dialogue. His experience is that we have to look for non-Christian friends to talk profoundly about current events or serious literature.4

3 Blamires, p. vii.

4 Blamires, p. 4.


8

I would like to say that he is wrong, but I think that his observation is fairly accurate in general. Nevertheless, there are exceptions, and I believe that the situation has improved in recent years. Permit me to mention just a few examples. One of my favorite authors is C.S. Lewis. His children's stories have been translated and read in many countries of the world. His theological and philosophical books are of the highest level of scholarship. Lewis was a brilliant example of a Christian who expressed his Worldview. He proposed that our influence is even stronger when we deal with issues that are not exactly "spiritual," but with any kind of issue, giving it a Christian focus.

I believe that any Christian that is qualified to write a popular book about any science can achieve much more than any directly apologetic work. The difficulty that we face is this: We can (frequently) make people listen to the Christian point of view during a half hour or more; but as soon as they leave the room where we were giving the lecture, or lay aside our article, they are immediately submerged again in a world in which the opposite position is taken for granted.

What we want are not more books about Christianity, but more books written by Christians about other subjects – with the Christianity latent. This can be seen more easily when we look at it backwards. Our faith is not easily shaken when we read a book about Hinduism. But if we were to read a basic book about geology, biology, politics, or astronomy, and we found that the implications were Hindu, that would shake us. It’s not the books written directly in defense of materialism that turn modern man into a materialist; it’s the materialistic presuppositions of all the other books. In the same way, it is not the books about Christianity that really concern somebody. Rather, he is concerned when he looks for a brief introduction to some science and finds that the best book on the market was written by a Christian.5

There are many other authors stimulating a Christian Worldview. Francis Schaeffer was a model to many of us in his way of analyzing western thought and culture from a Christian perspective. (The God Who is There, He is There and He is Not Silent, Art and the Bible, Genesis in Space and Time). Many Dutch thinkers have been doing Christian reflection about different aspects of culture. H. R. Rookmaaker taught us about art (Modern Art and the Death of a Culture). Herman Dooyeweerd analyzed philosophy, and Cornelius Van Til made an important contributions to apologetics (The Defense of the Faith). Abraham Kuyper became Prime Minister of Holland. In Latin America the authors of Editorial Certeza made an impact on Christian thought (René Padilla and Samuel

5 God in the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 93. Quoted by John Fischerman in

Fearless Faith (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 2002), pp. 146, 147.


9

Escobar). A current Spanish writer, Antonio Cruz, has made an important contribution in the areas of science, sociology, and philosophy (Postmodernidad, Sociología, Bioética cristiana, ¿La ciencia encuentra a Dios? ¿Darwin mató a Dios?) Much has been written in the area of psychology (Larry Crabb, Norman Wright, Jay Adams). Charles Colson is analyzing current events and schools of thought from a Christian perspective (How Now Shall We Live?). William Romanowski (Eyes Wide Open; Looking for God in Popular Culture), Kenneth Myers (All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes), Douglas Groothuis (Truth Decay), and John Fischer (Finding God Where You Least Expect Him) are examples of Christian reflection about recent cultural trends. I could mention many more, but my purpose is not to make a complete list of authors. Neither am I suggesting that I agree with everything these authors say. However, I think we should thank them for making a contribution to a “Christian mind.” Some of the most famous thinkers of western history have been Christians: philosopher-theologians such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, writers such as Dante, Dostoyevsky, and Tolstoi, artists like Rembrandt, and musicians like Bach. Nevertheless, in our age, few Christians would be named among the most famous. Evangelicals have lost our voice in the cultural vanguard. B. The biblical challenge The Scriptures urge us to think Christianly, to “renew our minds” and to “take every thought captive.” Romans 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. 2 Corinthians 10:5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. The first piece of armor that we are to put on is the “truth.” Ephesians 6:14 Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth… When God created man, He gave him the task of “ruling” over the animals and “subduing” the earth. Genesis 1:26-28 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the


10

earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Let’s imagine that man had not sinned. What would have happened? I think he would have developed a perfect society. He would have populated the earth, and he would have created ways to feed himself and subsist, making some forms of organization necessary. We have to consider a world without sin, but also a world of millions of people. For example, man would have established guidelines for the interchange of products, or the buying and selling of goods. People would have learned to cooperate in the care of sheep, cattle, and other animals, possibly in the education of their children, and in the cultivation of crops. Man probably would have organized social structures to supervise the activities of the growing population. That is, man would have done many of the same things that man has done now, after the Fall, but without the damaging effects of sin. This we would call the “Kingdom of God.” The command to be administrators of the creation has been called the “cultural mandate”, because it suggests an ongoing process of dominion over every aspect of human life. The problem is that man sinned and put an end to the perfect development of the Kingdom of God. Now the Kingdom of God must be established by means of a previous spiritual renewal. Jesus Christ had to give Himself in our place to receive punishment for sin, in order to reconcile us with God. The Holy Spirit must renew our spirits before we can begin to constuct the Kingdom of God. The salvation that Christ purchased for us includes more than eternal life insurance; it includes the restauration of all the negative effects of the Fall. Ephesians 1:7-10 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. … Colossians 1:19-20 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. The first “scientific” activity of man was the process of naming the animals.


11

Genesis 2.19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. This was probably not a simple game, or a random procedure. I imagine that it included some kind of classification, something similar to what biologists do today, but of course much less detailed and less sophisticated. Jesus is the Lord of everything. There is no aspect of life, and no area of thought, that is outside of His territory. As Christians, we desire to see Him glorified in everything. C. How to develop a Christian Worldview A Christian Worldview is a mentality formed of biblical presuppositions to think about all areas of life. It has been called a “Christian mind,” a “Christian philosophy,” a “Weltanschaung” (German) or a “Christian cosmovision.” It is a process in which the Lord heals us of our “sickness” of “intellectual schizophrenia.” A Christian Worlview does not include all the answers, but rather guidelines for reflection, based on biblical teachings. It takes us back to the reference point of our Christian foundation for talking about any topic. It means reflecting in a Christian way about everything. In a phrase, it means putting on Christian “eyeglasses” to see the world.6 1. The Christian concept of the truth A Christian Worldview presupposes a Christian concept of the truth: -Truth is not relative, but absolute. It is not different for different people. It does not change from one day to another. It continues being the truth, whether we understand it or not, and whether we believe it or not. -It is not subjective, but objective. It does not depend on my mind, but rather on the mind of God. It is not within me, but within God. -It is not independent of God, but all truth comes from the mind of God. -There are no “loose” truths that I can know without the help of God. Truth is not something that man finds on his own. If God does not reveal it to me, I will never know it.

6 John Calvin used the illustration of eyeglasses in the Institutes, Book I, Chapter 6, Paragraph 1.


12

-It is not dialectical, but exclusive. Whatever is not in agreement with the mind of God is false. Truth is not a “soup” in which more ingredients made the flavor better. It is rather a perfect “filet” steak. Adding other inappropriate ingredients will just spoil its flavor. -Truth does not evolve; it is eternal. “Newer” things are not necessarily better in this case. In fact, if I think of something really “original,” it is not true! Anything true has already been thought by God Himself. -The truth is revealed to man in the Bible and in creation. The two sources do not contradict each other. Therefore, to think correctly, we should “think God’s thoughts after Him” (Cornelius Van Til) 7, and to think God’s thoughts, we need to think in agreement with the Bible. 2. The use of the Bible in a Christian Worldview The Bible gives us the presuppositions, the guidelines, for studying creation. It orients our reflection about every aspect of life. It adjusts our lenses to see the world more clearly. We might not always find Bible texts that deal directly with our topic of study, but biblical principles will always give us a foundation.

3. The relation between Christian philosophy and theology Christian philosophy, or a Christian Worldview, is one of the branches of theology. What are the differences between the various aspects of theology? 1) “Systematic theology” studies the Bible in order to systematize its teaching about topics such as God, man, and salvation. It seeks to answer questions by arranging and harmonizing the teachings of the Scripture around the particular subject.

7 Cornelius Van Til, Nature and Scripture, p. 278, also in Common Grace, p. 28, quoted by Greg

Bahnsen in Van Til’s Apologetic (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 1998), p. 225. See also The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979), pp. 47,48. Van Til also says that Christian thought should be «analogical» (In Defense of the Faith; Doctrine of Scripture, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967, pp. 12-15, y Defense of the Faith, 1979, p. 44). In another place he says that «...our notions or our concepts are finite replicas of the notions of God». (Introduction to Systematic Theology, quoted in Jerusalem and Athens, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971, p. 325).


13

2) “Biblical theology” studies biblical themes in the order of the history of revelation and in the context of the plan of redemption. For example, it may study the theme of the development of the Kingdom of God, or it might study the different ways in which God reveals Himself in different periods of history. 3) “Historical theology” studies the history of the development of doctrines. For example, it may study how the Church came to understand the doctrine of the Trinity. 4) “Apologetics” studies the defense of the Christian faith in response to non-Christian challenges. 5) “Christian philosophy,” or “Christian Worldview,” takes biblical guidelines to study themes related to culture, the sciences, humanities, and the arts. Systematic theology and biblical theology concentrate more on the Bible itself, while historical theology focuses on history, apologetics emphasizes philosophy, and Christian philosophy uses biblical principles to study topics such as politics, economy, art, music, and the sciences. Therefore, the Bible does not always give such clear answers in establishing a Christian Worldview, as it does for example in systematic theology. Nevertheless, the Bible is fundamental in all areas of theology. It provides the presuppositions to orient us. For example, although the Bible does not explain which economic system is best, or which form of government, it does give us some guidelines about the use of property, about good stewardship, and about the authority of the state. To say that it does not explain specifically which economic system is best does not mean that the Bible is somehow lacking or at fault; it simply means that this was never the purpose of the Bible. The Scriptures give us an orientation, but each one must draw his own specific conclusions and make the corresponding decisions, in harmony with these principles. This implies that there will be more “gray” areas in Christian philosophy than in systematic theology, and that we should be more flexible regarding the opinions of fellow Christians in these areas. Where the Bible is not specific, there is more freedom. 4. How to do it The prerequisites: To develop a Christian cosmovision, we must first know the Scriptures. The Bible is the main source of our convictions. However, we must also know the world in which we live. The process of cultivating a Christian Worldview is not just a theoretical exercise; it is related to everything around us: the government, the arts, the supermarket, and the schools. Finally, we must be familiar with the thoughts of others on the subject, both Christian and secular. This is because we are always in dialogue with others. Steps:

a. Ask yourself questions. Before doing our research, we begin with some concern. Without questions, we won’t find answers. For example, we could ask ourselves, “What are the


14

best economic policies for our country? What is the best political party? What should we think of contemporary music?” b. Examine the biblical teachings. After formulating the question, we research the biblical teaching on the issue. We may not find passages that answer our question directly, but they may give us more general principles. c. Read what others say. We should inform ourselves of the opinions of others, Christians as well as non-Christians. During centuries of study, tons of volumes have been written about the most important issues. d. Examine the Bible again. After investigating the ideas of others, go back to the Bible again. The writings of others will probably help you see new things in the Scriptures, or help you see the same teachings in a new light. e. Meditate and reflect. Now the process requires reflection and meditation. Ask the Lord to guide your thought process. This is not just an intellectual exercise. It is a spiritual exercise. We must present our thoughts to God and ask for His wisdom. f. Draw your own conclusions. Finally, we must come to some conclusions. Possibly they will not be our final conclusions, because we will probably modify them over the years. Nevertheless, we must live in this world according to our Christian convictions as well as we can, and we must make the wisest decisions possible.

Example For example, our question might be regarding the best economic system.

a. We might ask whether socialism or capitalism is better. b. First, we look at the Bible. We find passages such as Leviticus 25, 2

Corinthians 8, and Acts 2-4, for example, that talk about property, justice, and the stewardship of money.

c. Many books have been written about the issue of economics, such as The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism by Michael Novak, and Neither Poverty Nor Riches by Craig Blomberg. There are classics such as The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and Capital by Carl Marx. It will take time, but we need to do the appropriate reading.

d. Then we take another look at the Scriptures, comparing what we have read from other authors with the teachings of the Bible.

e. We reflect on the subject, we pray, we write down ideas, and we try to think Christianly about the issue.

f. Finally, we make a decision. Our conclusion may be tentative and uncertain at first, but as we continue studying and reflecting over the


15

years, we gain a greater confidence in our position. We continue to dialogue with others and study the issue, always humble enough to modify our view.

This is a continual process of analysis. Our reflection revolves around both the world and the Bible. The more we know the Bible, the better we understand the world, and the more we know the world, the better we understand the Bible. The good thing about this adventure is that we are always discovering some new aspect of the truth! We are like mountain climbers that come closer to the top of the mountain. The higher we climb, the better the view. D. We have no excuse We can expect non believers to live inconsistently. They are trying to live in a world created by God, but according to a philosophy that denies Him.This will intevitably lead to contradiction. Miguel de Unamuno points to the incongruency between the two volumes of the philosophy of Kant: Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason. He says that there is a Kant philosopher and a Kant “of flesh and bones.” He believes that in the second volume about practical reason, “Kant reconstructed with the heart that which the mind had destroyed.” Whereas rational philosophy denies God, the man of sentiments believes in the “God of the conscience” and the “author of moral order.” 8 Unamuno considers the man of sentiments to be the real man.

Man, they say, is an animal of reason. I don’t know why they have not said that he is an animal of emotions or sentiments. Is it not the sentiments that distinguish him from other animals more than reason? I have seen cats reason more often than I have seen them laugh or cry. Maybe they cry or laugh internally, but then maybe crabs also internally solve second degree mathematical equations.9

However, as Christians, we should expect more consistency of ourselves. We have a philosophy of life with which we can live in harmony. On the one hand, when we don’t do this, we are denying what we say we believe. On the other hand, when we do it, we are a strong witness to the truth of the gospel. We must seek greater integrity in the relation between our theology and our ideas about other areas of life, between our intellect and our sentiments, between our thoughts and our actions. There is a movie called “A Beautiful Mind,” that serves as an excellent illustration of the non believer’s situation. It is based on the life of John Nash, a mathematical genious who received the Nobel prize for his new theory related to economics. He suffered from schizophrenia, seeing people that didn’t exist. (In real life, he didn’t see them, but only heard their voices.) Desiring to do

8 Miguel de Unamuno, Del sentimiento trágico de la vida [The tragic sentiment of life] (Madrid:

Akal, 1983), pp. 59-60. 9 Unamuno, Del sentimiento trágico de la vida, p. 59


16

something important, he imagined that he was helping the government of the United States to dicipher Russian codes and to find messages about spying activities. Among the people that he imagined was a young girl about ten years old. One day Nash discovered an important inconsistency in his imaginary world: many years had gone by, but the girl was still only ten years old! This detail helped him realize that the imaginary world was not real. It was the beginning of a healing process. The non believer has the same problem. I am not saying that he is mentally ill, but that he is trying to live a life that doesn’t coincide with what God has put in his heart and mind. John Nash’s wife is an example to us, because she played a key role in the process of healing. She loved him and helped him, in spite of the difficulties. She was always at his side, living a “normal” life, and did not abandon him even in his worst moments. This should be our role among non believers. We should love them and stay beside them, even when they are inconsistent, living the truth that we espouse. Thus they can see the coherency between our life and thought, in contrast with their own confusion and uncertainty. Intellectual integrity and harmony between our thoughts and our lives are fundamental aspects of our testimony. Review Questions 1. In what sense do we as Evangelicals suffer from “intellectual schizophrenia? 2. In what sense do many comments about current events reflect “pragmatism”? 3. Mention three partial causes of intellectual inconsistency. 4. Who has the greatest share of guilt in permitting a dichotomy of Christian thought? 5. What does Blamires mean when he says there is no “Christian mind”? 6. Mention the first two passages quoted in the chapter that challenge us to develop a Christian Worldview. 7. What is the “cultural mandate”? 8. What does salvation include, according to Ephesians 1:7-10 and Colossians 1:19-20. 9. What was the first “scientific activity” of man? 10. What is a “Christian Worldview”? 11. How do we use the Bible to develop a Christian Worldview? 12. What is the relation between Christian philosophy and other branches of theology? 13. What are the steps of developing a Christian perspective on an issue? 14. In what sense is John Nash an illustration of the non believer? 15. In what sense is the wife of John Nash an example for us? Questions for reflection 1. In what aspect of your life are you acting in contradiction of your beliefs? 2. What areas of study do you have more difficulty harmonizing with your Christian faith? 3. To what extent do you think you suffer from “intellectual schizophrenia”?


17

CHAPTER II THE WAR FOR THE TRUTH 10 Introduction The tragedy in New York of September 11, 2001, has awakened concern among Christians about the intentions of extremist Muslims. Although it was an act of political terrorism, it also reflects their attitude toward the Church. We know that the United States is no longer a country characterized exactly by a Christian ethic or ideology. However, someone like Ben Laden, right or wrong, considers this a “Christian” nation, and therefore promotes acts of violence against it. Actually this should not surprise us. For centuries Islam extremists have been persecuting Christians. In countries like Sudan, they torture believers, cutting off their legs below the knees so they can’t walk to evangelize. It is quite moving to hear testimonies of how they continue to hobble around on the stumps of their legs to share their faith. There are other countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, where Christians suffer daily. I believe that we have underestimated the threat of the extremist factions of this religion when they unite their religion with politics in a theocracy. Christians are suffering more than ever. There were more than 100 million Christian martyrs in the twentieth century11, more than the victims of all the wars combined during the same century.12 In the year 1996 alone, 160,000 lost their lives for their faith.13 Nevertheless, I am even more concerned about another war, less visible, but more dangerous. It is the war of ideas. It is the war between the truth and the lies. Jesus warned us that we would be delivered over to persecution and that we would be despised (Matthew 24:9). But the New Testament also declares that our real struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, rulers of darkness and spiritual hosts. Paul exhorts us,

Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; (Eph 6:13-15)

10

This chapter is a modified version of a talk presented by the author to the Second Congress of Evangelical Teachers in Valparaíso, Chile, July 19, 2002. 11

World Mission Digest, quoted in: http://www.family.org/cforum/research/papers/a0012092.html 12

WEF Religious Liberty Commission, quoted in: http://www.family.org/cforum/research/papers/a0012092.html 13

David C. Barrett, «Annual Statistical Table on Global Mission.» International Bulletin of Missionary Research. January 1997, p. 25, quoted in: http://www.family.org/cforum/research/papers/a0012092.html


18

I have a son twenty years old and a daughter that is eighteen. Sometimes I watch television with them or listen to the music they like, and talk about the message being communicated. The truth is, we are constantly bombarded with subtly deceiptful messages. I’m not thinking about the obvious messages, but the ones beneath the surface. For example, television sitcoms hardly ever have a Christian character. If there is one, he is normally a closed-minded fanatic, probably a hypocrite and not very likeable. Whereas 66% of the population in the United States attend church at least once a month, television indirectly teaches that hardly anybody goes to church. Those watching at home, without anybody saying it directly, begin to believe it. For a young man or woman seeking acceptance by his peers, this influence may produce in him a desire to hide his beliefs or his church participation. I see a hostility toward Christians that is becoming more open and intense. There is a web site called “Losing My Religion,” managed by people who previously shared the Christian message on the university campus. Now they are dedicated to the destruction of the Christian faith. They distribute a pamphlet entitled “Stay Home on Sunday; Save 10%,” in which they explain “Five Reasons Why We are No Longer Christians.” They publish dialogues in which they ridicule naïve Christians, asking them questions they can’t answer. For example, they ask them how God can send someone to hell simply because he doesn’t believe in Him. “What would you think of a father,” they ask, “who said to his son, ‘if you don’t love me by the time you are six years old, I will put you in the oven and bake you’?” Then they ask whether there will be free will in heaven. When the Christian answers yes, they challenge him with the following question: “How do you know that you will not lose your faith in heaven and be thrown out, just like it happened with Lucifer?” Not long ago the news carried a story of a woman who drove a school bus and prayed the Lord’s Prayer with the children before leaving the school. To make sure none of the parents would be offended, she wrote a letter to all of them, asking if they objected. Without exception, they approved. However, a supervisor later prohibited this practice, saying it violated the separation of church and state. Not only did he forbid her to pray with the students; he also ordered her to scold any student if she observed him praying. Another recent article told of a father who sued a school for obligating his daughter to pledge allegiance to the flag, because the ceremony contains the phrase “one nation, under God.” What many do not know is that this girl was a Christian, and she had no problem at all with this phrase. In fact, she and her mother regularly attend a Baptist church. The parents are divorced, and only her father is an atheist. Nevertheless, he has made a public scandal out of our time honored ceremony.


19

We need to learn to defend our faith in this postmodern age. We should “always be ready to make a defense to every one who asks you to give account for the hope that is in you.” (1 Peter 3:15). We must obey Paul’s command:

And do not be conformed to this World, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:2)

We will briefly analyze contemporary philosophical thought, comparing especially the concept of truth with the biblical perspective. I. Contemporary Thought In Modern Times, Paul Johnson suggests that uncertainty is the attitude that characterizes man since early in the twentieth century. He explains that the theory of relativity of Einstein, the instability of the international situation, and the declaration of Nietzsche that “God is dead” have caused man to live in a “world without direction and at the mercy of a relativistic universe.” 14 There is a painting by Francis Bacon (1949) called “Head VI” which expresses the terror of contemporary man. It shows a Catholic cardinal seated within a glass cube as if he were in an exhibition. His head is disappearing from the nose and above, showing only black shadows. The only part of his head that you can see clearly is his mouth, open in a spine-tingling scream. Curiously, this painting reflects a reaction to the philosophy held by previous modern philosophers, including another man by the same name, Francis Bacon, from the 16th century. He was an empiricist who believed in reason, inductive logic, and the scientific method.

14

Paul Johnson, Tiempos modernos (Buenos Aires: Javier Vergara Editor, 1988), p. 59. Translated by author back into English from Spanish.


20

Head VI 15

What happened between the first Francis Bacon and the second? Modernism was replaced by Postmodernism. This means fundamentally that trust in reason and science was replaced with uncertainty. People realized that, if the modern philosophers were right, then man has lost his dignity and meaning. If everything is a result of an impersonal process, as these philosophers had proposed, then in order to be consistent, they must admit that their own thoughts are also part of that impersonal process, and that they mean absolutely nothing. No wonder that the man of the twentieth century is screaming desperately like the picture of “Head VI.” A. The Line of Uncertainty You can observe what I call a “line of uncertainty” in western philosophy. Basically it is a vacillation between certainty and uncertainty.

15

(May 19, 2005). <http://www.francis-bacon.cx/figures/headvi.html>.


21

But it is more complicated than this. Among the Greeks, they passed through five stages: 1) They started with certainty of knowing the truth, 2) then they doubted and 3) fell into despair, losing all certainty, 4) struggled to overcome the despair and uncertainty, and 5) finally began focusing on ethics, while being skeptical of the possibility of knowing the truth.

Thales thought that he could discover basic reality behind everything; he thought it was water (stage 1). But Heraclitus observed that everything was in constant change, that “you cannot bathe twice in the same river” because when you step back into the river, the water you were in before has already passed by. Protagoras agrees with Heraclitus and proposes that truth is relative, that “man is the measure of all things.” 16 (stage 2)

16

Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. I (Garden City, New York: Image Books, 1962), p 110.

Ta

Herá

Gor


22

Gorgias concluded that, if everything changes, you can’t be sure of anything, or communicate anything. In the moment you believe something, it has already changed. Cratylus, being consistent with this view, simply stopped talking! (stage 3) The next stage brings us the giants of Greek philosophy who struggle to save the hope of knowing the truth. While Socrates stated that “I only know that I know nothing,” this was only the starting point for him. He believed that in dialogue with others, we can discover the truth. Plato, in his allegory of the cave, proposed that we can discover the truth by way of mystical experience. He believed that our souls existed previous to inhabiting our bodies, and that our souls can remember the truth. Aristotle put his hope in logic (stage 4). Finally, the next stage of Greek philosophy is dominated by the skeptics and by the Stoics and Epicureans, who emphasized ethics. Notice that man could not live with total uncertainty and despair, but struggled anxiously to find the truth. Notice also that man cannot stop talking about ethics, even though he may be totally uncertain of the truth.

A similar pattern appears in modern philosophy. In stage one, Sir Francis Bacon (scientific method), Descartes (rationalism, “I think, therefore I am”), and Locke (empiricism, what you see is what you know) trust their capacity to know the truth. In stage two, Hume is an empiricist, but skeptical about finding the truth. In stage three, Marquis de Sade and Nietzsche live with despair. In the case of modern philosophy, there is a slight variation in the chronology. Nietzsche (1844-1900), who came after Kant and Hegel historically, represents the low point of despair. He declared that “God is dead” and that nothing makes sense (Nihilism). Marquis de Sade (1740-1814), however, does fit into the chronological scheme, coming before the struggle to redeem the possibility of


23

truth. He is known for his libertinism and his pleasure in sexual cruelty, from whence comes the name “sadism.” In stage four, Kant, Hegel and Kierkegaard try to save the possibility of knowing the truth and to avoid the pit of despair. Kant proposed that knowledge comes from a combination of perception and a mental process imposed on the raw material that passes through our mind. Hegel developed the concept of the dialectic, in which ideas evolve over history as guided by a great spirit. Kierkegaard suggested that truth was irrational, but that somehow we must believe that we can know it. In stage five, liberal theology lost the notion of absolute truth, but still talks much of ethics, especially following Jesus as an example. Liberation theologians such as José Míguez Bonino also empasize ethics (justice for the poor and oppressed), while abandoning certainty of knowing the truth. Finally, postmodernists reject the notion of absolute truth, and although they say they don’t believe in ethical norms, they are seeking primarily their own happiness, much like the Epicureans. In that sense, they do show a definite ethical emphasis, although not in the traditional manner.

Most individuals who are seeking the truth without Christ also go through a similar cycle of certainty, doubt, despair, and struggle, often ending in an inconsistent position of a skeptical view of truth combined with an emphasis on


24

ethics. Curiously it is often a person who blatantly rejects the possibility of knowing the truth who is most adamant about certain ethical issues. The only good thing about this contemporary uncertainty is that it provides an excellent opportunity to speak of the gospel and the Word of God. We have a message of hope and certainty in this confused world. B. Man’s Basic Epistemological Problem Soon after giving my life to Christ, I encountered many people who made me doubt the Bible. While living with this uncertainty, I realized that if I didn’t believe the Bible, I couldn’t really be sure about anything! I wanted to believe it, but could not justify it in my own mind. I went to seminary in search of answers. Thankfully, I had the blessing of taking classes with Cornelius Van Til, who I consider one of the greatest apologists of the twentieth century. It was his exposition of the story of Adam and Eve that convicted me of my problem. He explained that, when God told them they would die if they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they responded in an illigitimate way. As they questioned, “I wonder…., I wonder…. who is right?”, they were arrogantly pretending to be able to find the truth by themselves, independent of God. In fact, they were setting themselves as judges over God. This is man’s basic problem in seeking the truth. Who are we, creatures of God, to question Him? When I read this, it pierced my heart. I realized I was doing the very same thing when I questioned God’s Word in the Scriptures. I was putting myself over God as judge. I asked Him to forgive me and stopped doubting. God became my source of all truth. I thought, “If God says the moon is made out of green cheese, then I will change my idea of the moon and of green and of cheese! If God says it, it’s true! This is the point I want to highlight. It is not just because God is intelligent that He knows the truth. God invents the truth! When God thinks something, it is true simply because He thinks it! The problem of man in seeking the truth is basically that he pretends to be the judge. He sets himself up as the one who decides what the truth is, when in reality he is only a dependent creature who must receive the truth from God. When he thinks he has a right to decide what the truth is, he has two basic choices about how he proceeds: He may assume that truth is outside of himself, or that truth is inside his head.


25

If truth is objective If he thinks truth is objective, outside himself, he can’t be sure he is perceiving things correctly. He also encounters the dilemma of needing to know everything in order to be sure of anything. This is because there are an infinite number of “facts” out there, and he tomorrow he may discover a new fact that makes him change his mind about something he believes today.

When I talk to someone about this, I like to ask a question I know he can’t answer, such as: “Is there a star a million light years directly north of the north pole?” The question is valid, because either there is a star there, or there isn’t a star there. But most people know they can’t answer the question. This highlights the problem of uncertainty. I suggest that there are many things he doesn’t know, and ask how he can be sure there aren’t some important truths that could completely change his perspective of the world. If truth is subjective If he thinks truth is subjective, in his own mind, he must admit that he can’t live consistently with this. He can’t just make something be true by thinking it is true. This position means ultimately pretending to be God, but he knows he isn’t.

If I talked to someone who takes this position, I would ask him to imagine that we are at the railroad tracks and he is standing right in the middle between the rails. I would ask him what he would do if he saw a train coming. Could he simply decide that the train is not coming? I guarantee he wouldn’t try it! He would jump off the tracks just like anybody else in his right mind! What does this prove? Simply that he cannot live consistently with the idea that his own mind generates the truth.


26

If truth is impossible These problems might lead some to deny the possibility of knowledge altogether (such as in Nihilism or Postmodernism). However, this position has an even more obvious problem. In the moment they affirm that nothing can be affirmed, they have obviously contradicted themselves. If I can’t be sure of anything, how can I be sure that I can’t be sure of anything? It is like saying, “Everything I say is a lie!” Again, we come back to Cratylus: It would be better to say nothing! While I was studying in seminary, I worked as a night supervisor in a college library nearby to pay for my studies. There was a student who worked there also and frequently talked with me about my faith. She once said, “You can’t be sure of anything.” When I asked her how she could be sure of that, she became furious and stomped out. Several hours later she returned and blurted, “I think that you can’t be sure of anything.” She abruptly turned around and walked away without waiting for an answer. At least she had become aware of her inconsistency. If everything is true The same problems may lead others to affirm that everything is true. Have you ever heard someone say, “What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me”? In our day it is popular to avoid conflict, and in the name of tolerance, accept anything as true. But if everything is true, then nothing is really true! Truths contain within themselves the denial of other truths. For example, if we say there is only one straight line between two points, then we are denying that there are two straight lines between two points. We can’t believe both. If we begin to say that “A” is true and “A” is also not true, then we are losing our mental sanity. We would be like the young man who appeared before his church leaders to be examined for ordination to be a pastor. When they asked him if he believed in the divinity of Jesus, he said, “I don’t deny the divinity of Jesus; I don’t deny the divinity of anybody!” The problem is, if everybody is divine, then divinity loses its meaning. The very concept of divinity includes being superior to humans. If everybody is God, then nobody is God.


27

II. The Biblical Concept of Truth

A. Truth is revealed by God

The biblical concept of the truth is not centered on man, but on God. Man does not discover the truth on his own. God knows all truth, in fact He is the creator of all truth, and He chooses to reveal some truth to us.

He promises that we can know the truth by listening to Him and believing Him. In spite of the problems of interpretation, human weakness, and a multitude of factors present in any context, God Himself assures us that we will let us know the truth. It depends on Him, not on us. As Francis Schaeffer expressed it, we can know the truth truly, but not exhaustively. 17 Knowing the truth is not only an intellectual process. Of course it includes an intellectual acceptance of the verbal propositions that God puts to us, but it is not only intellectual because it involves a personal trust in God, as well as a willingness to submit to God. Someone has said that truth is like a virtuous woman who undresses only in the context of a relationship of marriage and fidelity. If we are not faithful disciples, we will not learn the truth.

If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.

Then you will know the truth,

and the truth will set you free. John 8:31, 32

...Your word is truth. John 17:17

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge. Proverbs 1:7

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. John 16:13

17

Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1968), pp. 32-33.


28

B. We Should Take Every Thought Captive to Christ One of the consequences of the biblical concept of truth is that all truth is related to Christ. Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). When Jesus became man, He showed us what God is like. He explained the truth about life, about our origins, about our future, about the Father and the Holy Spirit. Since the purpose of history is salvation in Christ, every event is related to Him somehow. Part of our task in studying history and in investigating the creation is to seek Christ and His glory. God created nature with a message engraved in every detail. The stars reveal His glory, the mountains remind us of His majesty, and the ocean tells us of the depth of His grace. As Van Til said in his classes, all of creation has God’s “fingerprints” on it.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1.20)

Just as a painting communicates something of the artist, nature tells us about God. But we need help to interpret creation properly. The Bible is our divine code for this task. G. K. Chesterton says that man is like a survivor from a shipwreck, who wakes up on the beach alone. He has amnesia, but is surrounded by objects from the ship in which he was a passenger: coins, a compass, and clothes. These objects indicate information about the world from which he came, but he needs something more in order to understand what has happened.18 In the same way, creation gives us signs about God and life before the Fall, but we need further explanation. The Bible not only explains the tragedy we have lived, but it also tells us how we can be rescued. Francis Schaeffer helps us with another illustration of a torn book found in the attic.

Imagine a book which has been mutilated, leaving just one inch of printed matter on each page. Although it would obviously be impossible to piece together and understand the book’s story, yet few people would imagine that what had been left had come together by chance. However, if the torn parts of each page were found in the attic and were added in the right places, then the story could be read and would make sense.

18

G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, mentioned by Philip Yancey in Soul Survivor; How My Soul Survived the Church (New York: Doubleday, 2001), pp. 51-52.


29

So it is with Christianity: the ripped pages remaining in the book correspond to the abnormal universe and the abnormal man we have now. The parts of the pages which are discovered correspond to the Scriptures which are God’s propositional communication to mankind, which not only touch ‘religious’ truth but also touch the cosmos and history which are open to verification. 19

Again, the point is that we need the Bible to understand the creation. This means that every area of study, whether it is science, linguistics, history, or art, must be evaluated in the light of Scripture. We need to put on Christian glasses to study any aspect of life or creation. For example, when we study linguistics, we find that the biblical account of the Tower of Babel explains the origin of languages. Different languages did not simply evolve gradually over time from one mother tongue. When we study art, we can take into account the fact that man is creative because he is the image of God. As we study science, we can point to the marvelous beauty of God’s creation. For history, we can refer to the facts recorded in the Bible, and we must see God as the ultimate author of history, interpreting all events under His sovereign guiding hand. You might ask, “What does the Bible have to do with mathematics?” My brother studied math, got his doctorate from Harvard, and taught most of his life at the University of Colorado. He tells me that math is one area of study that is fairly consistent with a Christian Worldview. According to him, when a Christian does math, he is usually being more consistent than a non-Christian when he does math. For example, if a non-Christian believes the world is disorderly and had its origin in chaos guided by chance, then he would have no reason to trust math or expect it to apply to the real world. He also tells me that on higher levels of study, mathematics actually becomes philosophical. Vern Poythress, professor of theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, also obtained a doctorate in math from Harvard. He has written about the differences between the way Christians view math and the way non-Christians view it. He

gives the value of « π » (pi) as an example. This value is used for geometry for

things like calculating the area of a circle (A = π r2). However, it is a value that they cannot calculate exactly, because the decimals continue infinitely (3.141592...) There is an Internet site designed to the calculation of the value of π, in which a series of numbers continue to cross the screen without end. The

question is, does π really exist? Some mathemeticians say no, because we cannot know the value. Others say yes. A Christian can accept the existence of something that man cannot calculate, because he knows that God knows the value.20 I conclude that, if mathematics can lead us to speak of God, then anything can lead us to God!

19

Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998), pp. 137-138 (p. 108 in the first edition of 1968). 20

Vern Poythress, «A Biblical View of Mathematics» in Foundations of Christian Scholarship; Essays in the Van Til Perspective] (Vallecito, California: Ross House Books, 1976), pp. 159-190.


30

Any topic gives us a way to the gospel. Christ is the center of history and the center of the universe. Paul tells us that we must tear down spiritual fortresses.

We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:5).

C. We Must Live the Truth Although I do not share their basic viewpoints, I believe that the liberation theologians have called our attention to an important aspect of the truth: to really know something means also to live it. José Míguez Bonino makes a valid criticism of traditional western theology for being too abstract and theoretical, unattached from reality. He says it is “without conflict and tension, hovering over history and the world,”21 and that it is “introverted.” 22 He thinks that the traditional concept of truth has received a lot of influence from Platonic idealism. This concept separates truth from action. It supposes that one can know the truth by simply formulating the concepts correctly in his mind. The fact that he lives according to these concepts or not does not affect his “knowledge.” The only important thing is that his concept corresponds precisely with “reality.”

In this perspective, the truth belongs to a “universe of truth,” complete in itself, that may be more or less faithfully reproduced or copied in correct “propositions,” in a theory (a contemplation of that universe) that corresponds to that truth. Then, as a second step, there is an “application” of that theory in a particular historical situation. The truth thus exists before its historical effect, and is independent of it. Its validity or legitimacy must be confirmed in relation with that “abstract heaven of truth,” totally apart from its historical appearance. It is this concept of truth that has caused a crisis in Latin American theology.23

Míguez Bonino insists that, according to the Bible, to know the truth is to live it. Knowledge of the truth cannot be separated from obedience. Quoting John 7:17, “If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself,” he argues that if our heart is not willing to obey, God does not permit us to understand the truth, even in an intellectual way. He also argues that biblically, to know God means to have a faithful personal relationship with Him.24 25

21

José Míguez Bonino, «Comments on "Unity of the Church- Unity of Mankind"», Ecumenical Review 24 (enero, 1972): 48. 22

José Míguez Bonino, «The Struggle of the Poor and the Church», Ecumenical Review 27 (enero, 1975): 38. 23

José Míguez Bonino, La fe en busca de eficacia, pp. 113-114. 24

José Míguez Bonino, Christians and Marxists: The Mutual Challenge to Revolution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), p. 40.


31

I agree with Míguez Bonino in his warning. Possibly unconsciously, many Christians adopt an unbiblical notion of the truth. We tend to think that to know the truth means simply to have an idea in our minds that corresponds to reality, as if the truth were a galaxy of propositions floating in space. But the biblical concept of truth does not permit us to say we know something if it is merely an intellectual theory. Jesus says, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:31,32). Knowledge of the truth, faith in the gospel, brings changes in our life. James 2:17 says, “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.” To really believe something means to live according to the conviction. To “know” the truth implies faithfulness in our relationship with God. Satan may “know” many biblical doctrines in his mind, but he hates God and does not live by these truths. Therefore, Jesus calls him the “father of lies.” Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.“(John 8:44b). Even when Satan says words that are direct quotes from the Scriptures, since he uses them to deceive, he is not speaking the “truth.” However, we also want to avoid the other extreme of affirming that the truth has nothing to do with propositions or with intellectual consent. While the truth is not only intellectual, it does include a cognitive aspect. In Hebrews 11:1 we read, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” The heroes of the faith mentioned in this chapter acted according to their conviction that what God had said was true. Paul mentions some propositions that we must accept as an essential part of our faith, facts regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus. 1 Corinthians 15:1-5

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

25

José Míguez Bonino, Ama y haz lo que quieras; hacia una ética del hombre nuevo. (Buenos Aires: La Aurora, 1972), pp. 63-79.


32

Review Questions

1. What is the first piece of armor mentioned by Paul in Ephesias 6:13-15? 2. According to Paul Johnson in Modern Times, what is the key attitude of the twentieth century? 3. Explain how the painting of Francis Bacon, «Head VI», expresses the attitude of contemporary man. 4. What is the fundamental difference between modernism and postmodernism? 5. Explain the meaning of the “line of uncertainty.” 6. What are the five stages of the line of uncertainty? 7. Draw the line of uncertainty and put the examples of GREEK philosophers in their proper place. 8. Draw the line of uncertainty and put the examples of MODERN philosophers in their proper place. 9. What is the main epistemological problem of the non believer? 10. Explain the two basic epistemological options of the non believer and the consequences of each one. 11. Explain the Christian concept of the truth and draw the corresponding figure. 12. Explain the illustration of G. K. Chesterton regarding the situation of contemporary man. 13. Explain the illustration of Francis Schaeffer about the pages of the book. 14. What important biblical principle about the truth can we learn from Liberation Theology? Questions for reflection 1. Have you yourself experienced the stages of the line of uncertainty? 2. Has your concept of the truth changed in any way during this lesson? If so, how? 3. Do you think you are submitted to the Lord in every area of thought? 4. What can you do to help “take every thought captive to Christ”?


33

CHAPTER 3 ATTACK OR RETREAT? THE CHRISTIAN AND HIS RELATION TO SOCIETY

«They are poor, but make many rich. ... To sum up all in one word--what the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world..» 26

Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus,

Second century A.D.

Introduction

When I first arrived in Chile, in January of 1978, the country was still living under the military regime of Augusto Pinochet (From 1973 until 1990). I was told that he had taken over the country to pull it out of an economic and social chaos which the Marxist government had caused under Salvador Allende. However, I had been reading another side of the story while studying Spanish in Costa Rica, the side which revealed torture, oppression, and killings.

When I visited Chile recently in December of 2006, the newspapers and television broadcasts were full of news about Pinochet and his recent death. Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia in which the public edits the articles, had to temporarily close down their article on him, because there was too much activity with conflicting views. Some compare him with Hitler, but for others he was a hero that delivered them from socialism. Naturally, back in 1978, I was curious to hear what the Chileans thought about the situation. But to my surprise, when I began to ask questions, I was told to keep quiet. “Christians don’t get involved in politics,” was a phrase I heard over and over. Once in a while, somebody would share their view of things, but ask me to keep in confidential. I began to see how the church in Chile had developed an attitude of separating their Christianity from social and political issues, due to the intense conflicts which they had suffered. I read an interesting book on this subject called, “Haven of the Masses,” by Christian Lalive d’Epinay. Even though the author admires the Pentecostals in Chile, he points out how the church has become a “haven” from the world, with a lack of concern for current social issues. One of his surveys showed that sixty-four percent of the Pentecostals feel that the church should not be concerned with political and social problems. Of course there are definite changes in the personal lives of these brethren, and they develop a strong unity with the church, yet they seem to withdraw from active involvement in the "world." He postulates that part of the Pentecostal success is due to the transition from an hacienda type of social structure to a democracy. This transition leaves people rather disoriented. They suddenly have no authority over them and have to make more decisions on their own. The Pentecostal churches give them a benevolent authoritarian leader in the form of a pastor. The pastor becomes the

26

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diognetus-roberts.html (Nov. 30, 2006)


34

new "patrón," and the church becomes their new extended society. Instead of working for changes in the society as a whole, they form a smaller sub-culture within which they feel more secure. 27

I thought back on the context in my own country, and realized that Christians were divided on their attitude toward society and the “world.” I grew up in a small country church where we liked to talk about everything, but were given little biblical orientation as to how we should relate to the world. We tended also to separate our Christian faith from the rest of our lives. As long as we were morally wholesome, we were fine. Nobody talked about what the Bible taught about economics, politics, art, science, history and literature. Of course, other churches were even farther removed from the world, living without electricity or automobiles. On the other hand, some churches seemed very involved in social issues, but they didn’t seem to talk about their personal faith in Christ, or even talk much about the Bible. I remember when I was at the university, students were protesting the Vietnam war, advocating zero population growth, and speaking against racism. I would go to church on Sunday and talk about evangelism or predestination, but our topics of discussion always seemed far removed from what was really happening out there in the “real world.” I once concluded in my mind (wrongly, of course) that the church was obviously not the institution that was going to make much difference in the world. The evangelistic presentation I learned to use was totally oriented toward a personal gain of eternal life after death. I tended to separate evangelism in my mind from the transformation of society. In fact while evangelism seemed biblical and important, it almost seemed “shallow” to me. This topic of how Christians should relate to society is very complex and has been discussed throughout church history. One of the books which has been most helpful to me has been H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture. 28 I don’t agree with his non-committal view. I appreciate his trying to find the positive aspect of the different positions, but I would prefer that he express his own convictions, that he make some choices and defend them. Nevertheless, he has left us a classic work on the views. I also cherish the strong biblical and reformed foundation for a “Christian Philosophy” which I received in seminary and in my own personal reading. As I struggled with the situation in Chile, I began to put together some of these ideas and formulate a defense of what is considered the reformed view, the “transforming culture” position. In this essay, I will summarize the five models of the relationship between Christianity and culture, based on Niebuhr’s book, briefly look at the weaknesses in the non-reformed views, and give a biblical-theological defense for the reformed position.

27 Christian Lalive d'Epinay, Haven of the Masses; A Study of the Pentecostal Movement in

Chile, (London: Lutterworth Press, 1969), p. 38. 28

Richard H. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, (Harper and Row, New York, 1975).


35

I. The Five Models of the Relationship Between Christianity and Culture Niebuhr analyzes five historical tendencies with respect to this issue. He actually calls it the issue of “Christ and Culture,” as Christ is made visible through Christianity, or in His body, the Church. The question is, how has Christ’s relationship to culture been manifest throughout the history of the church? He defines “culture” as “the artificial, secondary environment which man superimposes on the natural.” He says, “It comprises languages, habits, ideas, beliefs, customs, social organization, inherited artifacts, technical processes, and values.” 29 There are two basic attitudes toward culture: either it is good or it is bad. From these two basic attitudes, five positions are derived: 1. Christ Against Culture 2. Christ in Culture 3. Christ Above Culture 4. Christ and Culture in Paradox 5. Christ Transforms Culture 1. Christ Against Culture (Culture is bad.) Defenders of this position emphasize the presence of sin in society, and tend to separate themselves from the “world.” Monasticism is a clear example. The conservative Amish who refuse to drive cars, use electricity, or watch television also illustrate this position. Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism generally fall in this category as well. Niebuhr considers Leon Tolstoy to be a representative of this tendency, since he despised the sciences, philosophy and arts, as being useless. 30 Niebuhr calls these people “radicals.” 31 2. Christ in Culture (Culture is good.) These people believe that Christ is operating in and through culture, and minimize the effects of sin. They think we should cooperate with the current cultural tendencies, instead of fighting against them or running from them. Niebuhr calls them “cultural Christians.” 32 One example is the effort in the first few centuries after Jesus to mix oriental religion and Greek philosophy with Christianity, such as in Gnosticism. Syncretism can be seen in many forms, such as the “catholic” celebrations in northern Chile, dancing in honor of the “Tirana,” a goddess worshipped by the pre-colonial indigenous inhabitants. Modernistic theology reflects a similar attitude. A recent representative of this position would

29

Niebuhr, p. 32. 30

Niebuhr, pp. 62-63. 31

Niebuhr, p. 75 32

Niebuhr, p. 106


36

be Teilhard de Chardin, who “christianizes” the theory of evolution. 33 Liberation Theology pretends to mix Marxism with Christianity. 34 3. Christ Above Culture (Culture is good.) Followers of this view believe culture is basically good, as in position #2, but they believe we should add the Christian aspect to culture, in order to improve it. That is, Christ is in culture, but He also goes beyond it. Niebuhr calls this the “synthesis” position. It’s not a question of “either-or” but “both-and.” 35 St. Thomas of Aquinas, and traditional catholic theology, is an excellent example of this tendency. For St. Thomas Aquinas, reason serves us well to lead us to believe in God, but we need faith in order to believe in the trinity. 4. Christ and Culture in Paradox (Culture is bad.) In this case, while culture is basically evil, we must inevitably participate in it. We must submit to Christ, but also to culture, even though they are frequently in opposition. We cannot flee from it, nor can we simply add to it, because it is too powerful and too evil. Niebuhr calls this the “dualist” position. “Hence the dualist joins the radical Christian in pronouncing the whole world of human culture to be godless and sick unto death. But there is this difference between them: the dualist knows that he belongs to that culture and cannot get out of it….” 36 Martin Luther is a key example of this position. Luther taught that man lives in a dilemma, that the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the World are clearly distinguishable, but not separable. 37 For him, “it is impossible for us to live without sinning.” 38 5. Christ Transforms Culture (Culture is bad.) Representatives of this concept believe that culture is evil, but that the grace of God is present too, bringing positive transformation. We should not separate ourselves from the world (like position #1), nor go along with it (#2 ), simply add grace to it (#3), nor reluctantly accept it and submit to it. Instead, we should stay in it and work toward changing it. This change is not just an addition, but a profound transformation. John Calvin is a representative of this position, and reformed theology in general. He expressed this view, not only in his

33

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Comment Je Crois [As I Believe], (Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1969). 34

Here are a few representatives: 1. José Míguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation, (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1975), Christians and Marxists; The Mutual Challenge to Revolution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976).}, 2. Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation, (Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York, 1973), and 3. Juan Luis Segundo, The Liberation of Theology, (Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York, 1976). 35

Niebuhr, p. 122. 36

Niebuhr, pp. 156-157. 37

Niebuhr, p. 172 38

Niebuhr, p. 179


37

writings, but in his life, especially in Geneva. He labored for years to convert the city into a model Christian society. This is the position that will be defended in the rest of this essay. First, I will show the problems in the other positions, then give a biblical-theological defense of the “transformation” view. II. Problems with the Non-Reformed Models Although each of the non-reformed positions contains something valid, each also contains a serious error. 1. Christ Against Culture This attitude isolates Christians from the world, producing arrogance and hostility. Jesus prays, “My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.” (John 17:15) This view does not recognize the “common grace” which God has given to every human being, nor the merciful care and blessings which He pours out on the undeserving world. The Bible teaches that each person is the image of God (Genesis 1:26), and that God makes “his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:45) Neither does this view assume responsibility to change the world. On the contrary, separating Christians and the accompanying work of the Holy Spirit in the world only makes it worse. Jesus tells us we are the “light of the world” and the “salt of the earth.” (Matthew 5.14) When this light is removed, non-Christian influence will dominate society. 2. Christ in Culture This position has the opposite problem; it does not recognize the extent and depth of sin in culture. Since the Fall, the attitudes of pride, selfishness, and hatred contaminate everything.

Genesis 6:5: “The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.” Romans 3:12: “All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Not everything that every person does is totally evil. That would be hell on earth! Thankfully, the Lord saves us from such an unlivable situation by pouring out His grace on even the worst of us. However, there is something evil in everything everybody does, because of man’s fallen nature. Only God is holy and pure.


38

This is why we are given so many warnings not to be carried along by the current of this world. The Lord wants his people to be different.

Romans 12:2: Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will. 1 John 2:15: Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

3. Christ Above Culture This position tends to separate Christ from culture. Since they consider culture basically good, they do not seek to make a radical transformation. The example of St. Thomas makes it clear. He considers reason a legitimate tool to lead us to believe in God; we only need faith to understand complex things like the trinity. However, this fails to take into account the fallen nature of reason. Reason alone will not lead us to believe in the one and only true God. Only the work of the Holy Spirit can lead us to faith.

1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Although traditional catholic theology does not want to separate faith and reason, it gives reason so much autonomy and power that such a separation is inevitable. Reason becomes secular and faith becomes unreasonable. The recent encyclical, “Faith and Reason,” expresses the danger of separating the two, but reaffirms the position of St. Thomas and calls for a “reciprocal autonomy.” 39 In practical matters, this position easily leads people to separate their “spiritual” life from their “secular” life. They may leave their Christianity in church while they go to the work place or to the football stadium. Again, this may not be their conscious desire, but without the proper theological perspective, it is more likely to happen. In contrast, the Scriptures command us to submit all aspects of our life and thought to God’s will.

Colossians 3:17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. 2 Corinthians 10:5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

39

Pope John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, chapter IV.


39

4. Christ and Culture in Tension There is some truth to this position. That is, we do have to live in a fallen world, whether we like it or not, and we will not completely conquer sin until the Lord returns. However, this outlook is pessimistic about improving the world. It fails to take into account the victory of Christ over evil, and it allows us to be passive and weak in our struggle against it. Scripture is much more hopeful.

John 16:33 I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.

Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

1 John 5:4 For everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.

III. Biblical-Theological Support for the Transforming Position I would like to argue for the reformed position, not just in a negative way, showing the problems with the other views, but also in a positive way, showing biblical-theological concepts which point to our call to transform culture. A. The Cultural Mandate Genesis 1:28 has been called the “cultural mandate” because it commands man to develop culture according to God’s will.

God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’

This was a wonderful task given to man even before the fall. He was to rule the earth and take care of it. Man was put in charge over all the other creatures.

Psalm 8:5-6 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet.

God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it, reflecting man’s greater responsibility over the whole earth. But to “subdue the earth” means much more than taking care of the plants and animals first hand. It means organizing things and creating the necessary social structures. He must maintain


40

order as the population multiplies. When there are millions of inhabitants on the earth, not everybody can be a farmer. Some people need to handle the sale of the produce. Others need to prepare food for consumption. This leads us to business and economics. God then passed the animals before Adam while he gave them their names. This suggests a “scientific” activity of classification. This was the beginning of man’s intellectual development, which later became study, research, and education. If sin had not entered, man would have developed a complex and orderly society, a wholesome culture, with social organizations that functioned perfectly. Since this was before the fall, we conclude that this is one of his most fundamental and important tasks on earth. B. Man is the Image of God Not only is developing culture one of man’s basic duties, it is also an innate part of his nature, since he was made in the image of God.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

For man to be the “image” of God means he is similar to God, but not equal. He is a reflection of God. It means he has a personality, a sense of humor, a moral conscience, a sense of beauty, a complex capacity to communicate, emotions, reason, will, and all that distinguished man from the animals. It includes his lordship over the earth and the animals, and also his creativity. Man reflects the image of God in everything he does, in his work, in his play, in relationships, in his thinking, in his art, and in his music. When man fulfills the cultural mandate, he feels good about himself, since he is expressing the image of God. When he cultivates a garden, fixes a machine, or builds a house, he feels a sense of satisfaction. When he paints a picture, sings a song, or writes a poem, he is filled with joy. This concept dignifies cultural activity. We should not discount work, art, and study, as something “secular” or “worldly,” but appreciate them as manifestations of the image of God in man. Even after the fall, man is considered the image of God. Even non-Christians carry the image of God. Of course the image is distorted, but it is still there. Man is like the prodigal son who ran away from home. He wasn’t acting much like his father, but he still must have showed many similarities: gestures, expressions, personality, and physical appearance. Although the image of God in man is not physical, the point is that even while man is far away from God, in rebellion, he still bears his likeness.

Genesis 9:6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.


41

C. Redemption Affects all Dimensions of Life Sometimes we fail to comprehend the vast impact of sin. All relationships were broken as a result of the fall: Between man and God, between man and his neighbor, between man and nature, and between man and himself, within his own heart. Conflict replaced the original harmony in every dimension.

Man thus became incapable of fulfilling the cultural mandate, and the image of God was damaged. This means that the development of culture went of course on a sinful route. Instead of caring for creation, man destroys it. Instead of following God’s will, man follows the dictates of his selfish ego, distancing himself from God and His purposes. However, the bigger we see our sin, the greater we see the grace of God. When we understanding how far sin affected society, we also see how marvelous Jesus’ salvation is. He undoes all the damage of sin. He restores all of creation and all the consequences of the fall. Where God finds the influence of sin, there He makes war against it. In the Bible, to be “saved” basically means to be delivered, like the escape from Egypt. When Jesus saves us, he delivers us from sin and all its consequences. Colossians 1:20

and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Ephesians 1:10

to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.


42

This means that we cannot exclude any aspect of life when we talk of “salvation.” Sometimes we emphasize almost exclusively our reconciliation with God (justification) when we talk of redemption. This of course is the most important aspect, and all the other blessings flow from this renewed relationship. But if we leave out the other aspects, salvation becomes incomplete. Our salvation includes our relationship with other people, our relationship with nature, and our relationship with ourselves - all the relationships which were affected by the fall. As we take the gospel to the world, we are seeking to restore all of society, from the inside out. It starts within the individual heart, moves out to the family, to the church, and to all of society. As the Holy Spirit works within our hearts, we do our job better, we become more creative, we love our family more, and we take better care of the creation. Thus the world becomes a better place.

† D. The Kingdom Has Arrived Someone might ask why the Bible doesn’t talk much about the “cultural mandate.” I would answer that it does, but without using that particular terminology. The same idea is included in the concept of the “Kingdom of God.” That is, the coming of the Kingdom is the fulfilling of the “cultural mandate.” The Old Testament is the history of the Kingdom in shadow form. Israel had it’s time of glory, especially in the time of David and Solomon, when they enjoyed military and cultural dominion. Nevertheless, they fell into idolatry, the nation was divided, and they were humiliated by their enemies, taken into captivity. A remnant returned to Jerusalem and waited four hundred years, without revelation from God. The history of Israel shows the need for the real king.


43

In Jesus, God becomes man, lives a holy life, dies for the sins of His people, is raised from the dead, and establishes the true Kingdom. Even before His death and resurrection, He announces, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” (Matthew 4:17.) Jesus confirms His authority as Messiah with the signs of the Kingdom (Matthew 11:11-19 and 12:28), and explains the parables of the Kingdom. He enters Jerusalem as king (John 12), and confesses before Pilate that He is king (John 18:33-37). He is resurrected with all authority in heaven and on earth. (Matthew 28:18). Just as an earthly human kingdom, the Kingdom of God includes: His Power His Presence His People, and His Place. It encompasses every aspect of life, including social structures, laws, and relationships. As the Kingdom of God extends throughout the world, people and society conform more and more to His will. ACTS 1:6-8 This passage is vitally important because of its place in redemptive history. These are Jesus' last words before He ascended to heaven. 1. The Disciples' Question

Imagine how the disciples felt at this extraordinary moment. They have watched him heal the sick and listened to His wise teaching. They probably believe that He is the promised Messiah, but are somewhat confused. He has been crucified, and now lives again. What would they be expecting? Their question is, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" The word "kingdom" is filled with eschatological meaning. It takes us back to the time of David and Solomon, to the glorious days of Israel. God's people have been waiting for the Messiah throughout four hundred years of revelatory silence, and have been humiliated by foreign dominion. Their hope in Jesus was shaken when He died, but now they are excited again. What will He do? It's very likely that the disciples expected Him to take up the cause of Israel as a nation, to throw off the Roman dominion and gain back their glory.

2. Jesus' Answer

The Lord answers, "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth." Was He scolding them? Was Jesus


44

saying that they should not worry about the kingdom, but rather about evangelism? If Jesus is a little annoyed, it is certainly not for wanting the kingdom to be established, but for wanting to know that which only God the Father knows: the times and the dates of the kingdom events. There are more appropriate things for them to understand: First of all, the real power of the kingdom is not in weapons or human effort, but in the Holy Spirit. Secondly, they have a task to carry out in establishing the kingdom: testify to Jesus in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and unto the ends of the earth. Jesus is not contrasting their interest in the kingdom with evangelism, but rather showing that evangelism is the way to establish the kingdom. A command is implied of course, but there is greater emphasis on the promise. They will receive power and they will be witnesses. Instead of taking things into their own hands, they can count on the power of the Holy Spirit. Instead of trying to discover the timing of the future, they should simply concern themselves with carrying out the task of witnessing to Jesus. He will enable them. Furthermore, instead of a kingdom which includes only one nation, it will be much bigger and better than they had ever imagined. 3. The Implications for Church Growth

What this means is that evangelism is God's special instrument for establishing His kingdom. Church growth means growth of the kingdom. The church and the kingdom are not exactly synonymous, but the growth of the church is the primary way of establishing the kingdom. The interesting thing is that the kingdom of God affects every aspect of life in all the world. Just as in David's time, the kingdom included the people, the land, and the laws, so now it includes every aspect of life. The kingdom of God is basically His reign over the hearts and lives of people. When His will is being done, His kingdom is being established. In other words, our concern for church growth involves more than the church itself. The church is the body of Christ which reflects the way kingdom life should be, and is also the instrument of establishing the kingdom. But the kingdom is bigger than the church. We all would like to help make the world a better place. We want to see justice, peace, love and prosperity for all. Yet how can we work towards that end? By helping establish the kingdom of God! That means we start with evangelism and church growth! Society can only be changed through people who are changed. Any political, economic, social system is only as good as the people who run it. The power to transform the world does not come from man, or from laws, but from the Holy Spirit working from within. This cannot be used as an excuse for an exclusive emphasis on the proclamation of the gospel, as opposed to taking an interest in the transformation of all of society. That would be a form of "cheap grace." A person who is not concerned about being righteous is not really ready to understand that he can be saved by faith. If he only cares about going to heaven, he does not understand


45

the importance of sin, and is abusing the mercy of God. In a similar way, a person who does not care about changing the world is not ready to hear that the world can be transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the preaching of the gospel. The work of the Holy Spirit extends to a person's family, his work, his way of thinking, his social contacts, his civic duties, his business activities, his recreation, and every other aspect of his life. The transforming power of the Holy Spirit impacts society like an earthquake. The epicenter is the heart, but the effects ripple through all the world.

Christians should participate in every aspect of culture and society to transform it. When we work toward this end, we are helping establish nothing less than the Kingdom of God. Conclusion To adopt the transforming position enables us to live out the biblical concepts explained above. We could unite the ideas in the following way: Man was created in God’s image with the task of developing culture and organizing society (the cultural mandate, Genesis 1:28). This process is also called establishing the Kingdom of God. Nevertheless, sin has changed the way the Kingdom is brought about and the cultural mandate is fulfilled. Now it must be done in the context of a sinful world. Therefore, this process is also called salvation. To participate in the Kingdom of God and in the process of salvation inevitably means transforming culture. Without this transformation, the kingdom of God would be like a tree without branches.


46

There is a positive and a negative aspect to our socio-cultural task. Positively, we must develop culture. Even before the fall, man had the responsibility to organize an orderly society, to know the creation and subdue it for the glory of God. He was to use his creativity in the progress of culture. Negatively, we must eliminate the influence of sin. God does with society what he does with man; He redeems it, restores it, and reforms it. This implies both continuity and change. When the Holy Spirit converts someone, He leaves him with his personality and his body (for now, before He makes the new heaven and new earth), yet He begins to transform him from within, from the depths of his soul. Then the effects flow out into all aspects of his life. This is the way God transforms society, beginning from its roots, then flowing out into the branches. The struggle is not only against evil, but also in favor of good. Society is like a tree that began to grow crooked. It needs a “training stick” to help it grow straight. It continues to grow, but the problem is being corrected as it grows. Sin is like sickness: When a child becomes ill, the doctor tries to eliminate the cause of the sickness, but he also must see that the patient begins to nourish himself and return to normal growth. Other words to express the idea of “transformation” are “reformation,” “redemption,” and “restoration,” which include the concept of continuity as well as the concept of change, the positive aspect as well as the negative aspect. This life view offers all to God, crowning Jesus Christ as King. It permits us to integrate our faith with our studies. It challenges us to use biblical presuppositions to study science, art, humanities, and all areas. We thus put on Christian glasses to look at the world. It restores the dignity of our work, making us people of integrity, instead of double-minded (James 1:8). It enables us to penetrate culture and society with new values and new ideas, a new life style, making a better world. We recover life again, making ourselves truly “human,” in the image of Christ. Review Questions 1. What does Christian Lalive d’Epinay suggest in his book, Haven of the Masses? 2. Name the five models of the relation between Christ and culture, according to Richard Niebuhr, explain each one briefly, and give an example for each one. 3. Explain the problems with the first four models. 4. Name and explain five biblical-theological points that support the fifth position. Questions for reflection 1. Which of the five positions best represents your life up to this point? 2. In what ways have you been avoiding contact with non-Christians? 3. In what ways have you been carried along by non-Christian influence? 4. In what ways have you helped transform the world? 5. What is the position of most people in your church? 6. In what ways could you work more toward transforming the world?


47

CHAPTER IV CURRENT SELF-DESTRUCTIVE WORLD VIEWS During a period of my life, I was afraid to read philosophy and non-Christian literature, because I thought I might lose my faith. I remember once when I starting reading Nausea by Jean Paul Sartre; it really did make me sick! I had to put it down, and only years later could I finally pick it up and read it. However, after understanding more about other world views, I have seen that people are very uncertain, that non-Christian philosophies don’t have a solid foundation, and there is really nothing to fear. In this chapter, we will briefly survey non-Christian world views, and we will see how they self-destruct. A. The “Universe Next Door” James Sire has written an excellent book about popular world views called The Universe Next Door . 40 I will summarize his analyses of these views, then add some other worldviews, and analyze their fundamental problems. Sire defines a “world view” as a “group of presuppositions (hyphotheses that may be true, partly true, or totally false) that we sustain (consciously or unconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic characteristics of our world.” 41 Sire presents eight world views: 42 1) Christian theism 2) Dualism 3) Naturalism 4) Nihilism 5) Existentialism 6) Eastern pantheistic monism 7) The New Age 8) Postmodernism 1. Christian theism Christian theism (the Christian world view) holds that there is a personal God who is transcendent but imminent, omniscient, sovereign, and good. God created the universe from nothing, and made it to function according to the laws of cause and effect, but within an open system. This means that the universe is not chaotic, but neither is it programmed in a fatalistic way in which man is not free. Man was made in the image of God with personality, intelligence, a moral sense, sociability, and creativity. Man can know the world and God, because God made him with that capacity. Man was created good, but in the Fall, he became sinful

40

James Sire, The Universe Next Door; a Basic Worldview Catalogue (Downers Grove, Ilinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997). 41

Sire, p. 16. 42

In the first edition published in 1976, the New Age was not yet identified clearly, and neither was postmodernism. This latest version is a valuable update.


48

and the image of God was disfigured. Through Christ, God redeemed man and began a process of restoration. Nevertheless, a person can choose to reject this salvation. Death is the door to another life, either a life with God and His people, or a life separated from God. Ethics is based on the character of God. History is linear, a sequence of events that lead to the fulfillment of God’s purposes. 2. Deism For deists, God is transcendent, but not personal, the first cause of everything, who create everything but abandoned it and left it along to function like a big clock. The cosmos that God created is determined and closed, without intervention from God, and without the possibility of miracles. Man is part of the machinery of the universe. The world is in its normal state, not fallen or abnormal. We can know the universe and determine what God is like through a scientific study of the universe. Ethics is also revealed in the universe; whatever is, is correct. History is linear, and the course of history was determined at creation. Deism had much influence in France and England at the beginning of the eighteenth century, but was replaced by naturalism. 3. Naturalism According to naturalism, matter exists from eternity, and that is all that exists. God does not exist. The cosmos functions according to the laws of cause and effect, and it is closed. Man is nothing more than a complex machine. Personality is an inter-relation of chemical and physical properties. Death is the extinction of the personality and of the individual. History is a linear flow of events with no purpose. Ethics is derived from human experience, and basically consists of doing whatever benefits and produces harmony. Marxism is an example of naturalism. 4. Nihilism Nihilism is more a sentiment than a philosophy, according to Sire. In fact, it is a negation of philosophy, of the possibility of knowledge, and of all value. It is expressed in the sculpture of Marcel Duchamp, “Fountain,” which is nothing more than a common urinal, or in the drama of Samuel Beckett, “Breathing,” in which there are 35 seconds of sound: first a cry, then breathing in, then breathing out, and finally one more cry. That’s life. Nihilism is the result of accepting the practical consequences of naturalism. If everything is matter, then nothing has meaning, not even my own philosophy. Nietzsche is the precursor of this view, a philosopher that died mentally ill. 5. Existentialism Man cannot continue living with the conviction that nothing makes sense. Therefore, existentialism arose as an effort to overcome nihilism. There are two forms of existentialism: atheist and theist. Atheistic existentialism sustains that the cosmos essentially contains matter, but that man has a conscience. That is, he is conscious of himself and he thinks. The external world seems absurd to him, but the authentic man rebels against the absurdity and creates his own


49

values and his own significance as an individual. Sartre and Camus represent this view. Theistic existentialists accept the postulates of theism, but distrust human reason. Faith is subjective and individual. Truth is a paradox. Sören Kierkegaard represents this thought. 6. Eastern pantheistic monism Eastern religions go even further than existentialism in their distrust of reason; they totally renounce the struggle to know the truth. Also, they renounce the fight to change the world; they prefer to simply exist. Pantheistic monism is the most popular eastern view: only one kind of being exists, and god is in everything. Zen Buddhism, por example, says “Atman is Brahman,” and the soul of every person is the soul of the universe. All the cosmos is good, and there are no true contradictions. Man is not conscious of his unity with the cosmos, and must wake up to this reality. They try to obtain a mental state in which they sense no distinctions between good and evil, truth and lie, reality and illusion. 7. New Age The New Age is a western version of oriental religions, but with emphasis on the individual, which for them is the primary reality. The cosmos manifests itself in two ways, the visible universe, accessible by means of the normal conscience, and the invisible universe, accessible through altered states of consciousness (for example, with drugs). Man must realize that he is God. “Know that you are God; know that you are the universe,” says Shirley MacLaine. 43 In contrast with pantheistic monism, the New Age accepts the animistic concept of the existence of many spiritual beings. 8. Postmodernism Whereas “modernism” began with Descartes and trust in reason and science, “postmodernism” no longer trusts reason, and has no world view. Postmodernists no longer care about what reality is like (ontology) or about how you can know the truth (epistemology). They only care about the meaning of language. Man is what he decides he is. Ethics is determined by society; whatever we decide is correct is correct.

43

Sire, p. 155.


50

Summary We could summarize these views in the following table. Philosophy has made a distinction between ontology (the study of being) epistemology (truth) and ethics (right and wrong). We will use those categories to explain the different views, as well as their views of God and man. View God Man Ontology Epistemology Ethics 1 Christian theism

Personal Image of God 2 apsects: God and creation

By revelation from God

We should do the will of God, summed up in loving God and your neighbor.

2 Deism Impersonal. Created the world and abandoned it.

Part of a huge machine

2 aspects: God and creation

By means of the study of the universe (empiricism)

Revealed in the universe. Whatever is, is correct.

3 Naturalism Doesn’t exist Is a machine Only matter By means of reason

Do what benefits you, creates harmony

4 Nihilism Doesn’t exist Life has no meaning

Only matter Knowledge is impossible

Nothing has value

5 Existentialism Atheist: Doesn’t exist Theist: Personal

Only matter, but man has a conscience. Paradoxical.

Atheist: Only matter, universe is absurd Theist: 2 aspects: God and creation

Atheist: Man makes his own significance Theist: Leap of faith, paradox

Man makes his own values

6 Eastern pantheistic monism

United with the universe

United with the universe

Only one being, but God is in everything.

Renounce distinctions between truth and untruth. Everything is true.

Renounce distinctions between right and wrong. Everything is correct. Prefer simply to exist.

7 New Age United with the universe (Man is God.)

Man is God. Only one being, God is in all, and man is God.

Normal consciousness (visible universe), or altered states (invisible universe)

Man should realize that he is God.

8 Post Modernism

Doesn’t exist Man is whatever he decides to say about himself.

Not concerned about knowing what reality is.

Doesn’t trust reason. Not concerned about knowing the truth.

Correct is determined by society.


51

B. Animism and other religions We should add another world view to Sire’s list that is very old, yet still very common: animism. The term comes from “anima” (“soul” ), because they believe that everything, including animals, plants, rocks, and all objects, have spiritual life. Some people estimate that 40% of the world’s population today are animists. Frequently this religion includes witchcraft, magic, superstition and rituals. Normally they believe in one creator god who is over many small gods. Nevertheless, man cannot relate to the creator, but only to the smaller gods of health, weather, and all that affects his daily life. In reality, animism is often another form of pantheism, because everything that exists contains the universal soul of god. 44 In Latin America, from the time of the colonization, the Catholic Church has cultivated a syncretism of Christianity and the animism that existed among the indigenous. Some missionaries in Mexico took the image of Oztocteotl (god of the witch doctors) out of a cave, replaced it with an image of Christ, and told people that it had appeared miraculously. The problem is that this was only a change in form, not in content; the “Christ” has the same characteristics of the previous god. Now not only the catholics visit this statue every year, but also the witch doctors! The famous Virgin of Guadalupe of Mexico is located in the same place where there was formerly a temple dedicated to Cihuacoatl (goddess mother earth, mother serpent), long before the conquistadores. In the image of this Virgin, she is standing on a symbol of the moon, an important indigenous deity, showing that she is superior, but that she does not destroy it. This image expresses graphically how they have simply added Christianity on top of animism, without eliminating the ancient beliefs. 45 There are other religions practiced by large numbers of people, such as Islam, Judaism, cults like Mormonism and the Jehova’s Witnesses. These religions are distortions derived from Christianity, and for that reason as world views they have a lot in common with Christianity. They believe in a personal God who exista apart from creation, that man is created in the image of God, and that truth is revealed by God. Nevertheless, the key doctrines are very different. It is not the purpose of this chapter to compare world religions, but the differences are in the content of the revelation they have accepted, especially with regard to the place of Jesus Christ in salvation. Only orthodox Christianity preaches a God who is a Trinity and a gospel of grace in which salvation is by faith alone. Only Christianity has the true answer for the problems of the world: forgiveness, salvation and transformation in Christ.

44

http://religion-cults.com/Ancient/Animism/Animism.htm 45

Rodolfo Blank, Teología y misión en América Latina [Theology and Mission in Latin America] (St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia, 1996), pp. 80, 101-105.


52

C. The self-destruction of non-Christian world views All the views except the Christian world view contain their own self-destructive postulates; they contradict themselves. On the one hand, some views propose a monistic ontology that does not really allow the defense of any thought. On the other hand, other views deny the possibility of knowledge, which similarly doesn’t allow the defense of any theory. Let’s look first at the problem of ontology. The majority of views analyzed by Sire sustain some kind of unity in the universe, either material or spiritual (naturalism, nihilism, atheistic existentialism, eastern pantheistic monism, New Age). The inevitable dilemma with this scheme is that man is also a part of this unity, and he loses his identity and freedom as an individual. Therefore, his own thoughts have no meaning.

For example, if deism is true, that the universe is like a huge clock, then his thoughts are nothing more than the “tick tock, tick tock” of the clock. What would his thoughts mean then? The same is true is the universe is one large spiritual unity. The ancient Greek philosophers understood this problem, and it led them into skepticism. Heraclitus sustained that the universe was a in constant movement like a river. Everything flows. “You can’t step twice into the same river.” 46 Then Gorgias decided that all knowledge and communication was impossible. 47 Why? Because I can’t believe that the universe is a great flowing river and pretend that I am standing on the riverbank, outside the river, observing the flow in an independent and objective way. I must also be a part of the river. And if I am only a drop of water in the river, how can I pretend to give my opinion about the nature of the river? Cratylus was consistent with this scheme, and he decided to stop talking all together! 48 At least this was an honest reaction. If communication 46

Humberto Giannini, Esbozo para una historia de la filosofía (Santiago, Chile, 1981), p. 17. 47

Humberto Giannini, p. 25. 48

Humberto Giannini, p. 34.


53

and knowledge are impossible, why talk? Socrates exclaimed the motto of skeptics, “I only know that I know nothing.” Plato and Aristotle tried to recover the possibility of knowledge. Plato proposed the theory that the soul remembered what he knew in his life before he inhabited a body. Aristotle trusted logic. However, after the period of these great thinkers, the Greeks went back to skepticism. This dilemma also engendered existentialism. Hegel had proposed that the universe was united, that it was a great Spirit that was continually evolving. With the dialectic, he tried to eliminate all conflict. When a thesis encounters its antithesis, instead of deciding which is correct, we simply let them form a synthesis. With this, the notion of absolute truth is lost, along with the distinction between right and wrong. Man becomes a part of this impersonal process and thus loses his freedom and identity. Kierkegaard discerned this problem, but could not offer a rational alternative. He could only suggest that reason doesn’t function, that it only exists in paradox. Man is a part of the impersonal process, but somehow he is also free. This is the leap of faith, an irrational faith. Think of the theory of evolution. If the world is nothing more than a product of an impersonal process of evolution, and if nothing exists except matter, then my thoughts are also nothing more than a movement of atoms, a chemical reaction. A crude way of saying it is, “The brain secretes thoughts in the same way that the liver secretes bile.” 49 Therefore, why should we pretend that our thoughts are correct? Why would we think they mean anything? The very theory that I am proposing is just a chemical reaction. This is like sawing off the branch I am sitting on! Darwin himself wrote in a letter:

The horrendous doubt will always arise whether the convictions of the human mind, which has evolved from the mind of inferior animals, really has value or is to be trusted. Should one trust in the convictions of the mind of a monkey, if convictions exist in such a mind? 50

C. S. Lewis explains the contradiction:

If all that exists is Nature, the great mindless interlocking event, if our own deepest convictions are merely the bye-products of an irrational process, then clearly there is not the slightest ground for supposing that our sense of fitness and our consequent faith in uniformity tell us anything about a reality external to ourselves. Our convictions are simply a fact about us – like the colour of our hair. If Naturalism is true we have no reason to trust our conviction that Nature is uniform. 51

49

Cabanis, quoted in Sire, p. 98 (without indicating the original source or the complete name). He may be citing Pierre Jean George Cabanis, a French philosopher. 50

Quoted in Sire, p. 83. Sire attributes the quote to a letter written to W. Graham (July 3, 1881), which in turn is quoted in The Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters (New York: Dover, 1892, new edition, 1958). 51

C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: MacMillan, 1968), p. 108.


54

He also argues:

The Naturalist cannot condem other people’s thoughts because they have irrational causes and continue to believe his own which have (if Naturalism is true) equally irrational causes. 52

Lewis quotes the argument of J. B. S. Haldane:

If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. 53

The views that deny the possibility of knowledge (nihilism, postmodernism) have a more obvious problem. In the moment they affirm that nothing can be affirmed, they have contradicted themselves hopelessly. If I can’t be sure of anything, how can I be sure that I can’t be sure of anything? It is like saying, “Everything I say is a lie!” Again, we come back to Cratylus: It would be better to say nothing! While I was studying in seminary, I worked as a night supervisor in a college library nearby to pay for my studies. There was a student who worked there also and frequently talked with me about my faith. She once said, “You can’t be sure of anything.” When I asked her how she could be sure of that, she became angry and left. Several hours later she returned and blurted out, “I think that you can’t be sure of anything.” She abruptly turned around and left without waiting for an answer. Existentialists recognize this problem, but they also know that man cannot live with this complete uncertainty. Therefore, without being able to defend it rationally, they make a leap of faith. The problem with the existentialist epistemology is that anything can be true. If everyone invents their own values, and decide for themselves what is true, then anything is true. But if anything is true, then nothing is true! Many truths contain within themselves the denial of other truths. For example, if we say there is only one straight line between two points, then we are denying that there are two straight lines between two points. We can’t believe both. If we begin to say that “A” is true and “A” is also not true, then we are losing our mental sanity. It’s like the young man who appeared before presbytery to be examined for ordination to be a pastor. When they asked him if he believed in the divinity of Jesus, he said, “I don’t deny the divinity of Jesus; I don’t deny the divinity of

52

C. S. Lewis, Miracles, p. 22. 53

Possible Worlds, quoted by Lewis in Miracles, p. 22.


55

anybody!” The problem is, if everybody is divine, then divinity loses its meaning. The very concept of divinity includes being superior to humans. If everybody is God, then nobody is God. Eastern pantheistic monism also suffers a similar problem with regard to ethics. They want to deny distinctions between true and false, between good and evil. But they cannot live consistently with this. If I ask one of them if I can hit him in the nose, surely he will say No! But if I ask him why not, what can he answer? If there were no distinction between right and wrong, it would be equally right to hit him or not hit him! D. The Christian answer Only the Christian view allows for knowledge and freedom. The Christian view is not monist, but affirms that there are two kinds of reality: God and His creation. Thus man is not simply part of a machine or a flowing spiritual river. He is a creature of God, made in His image, with freedom of thought, with use of reason, and with emotions. God, who is the source of all truth, reveals His truth to man. Christianity is the only view that doesn’t self-destruct.

As we defend our faith, we can ask the other people why they believe what they believe. When they explain why, saying for example that it is logical, we can ask why they trust logic. We can keep pushing them to their final answer. This is not a game. We need to do this with much love and respect. Otherwise, we will lose the opportunity to explain the gospel. But if we continue asking until there are no more questions, where does the non-believer end up? What is his “final answer”? He will have to back up to something beyond which he has nothing more to say. One way or another, that final answer for the non-believer will be that he believes it because he believes it. It’s true because he thinks it’s true. The non-believer essentially makes himself the judge of true and false and of right and wrong. We


56

still haven’t learned from the Garden of Eden, and man still pretends to be the judge of things, in spite of the fact that his creator is right there beside him. This of course eliminates all certainty with him, because to be sure of anything, he really needs to know everything. This eliminates consistency, because he knows deep down that he is not God and that he can’t simply decide for himself what the truth is. The Christian alternative is to accept God as judge and the source of truth. When you keep backing up a Christian to his “final answer, “ it is “God says so.” It’s true because God says so. How do I know God says so? Because He says He says so! I can’t back up any further than God Himself. I can’t put something over Him. If I appeal to another authority superior to Him, I have just contradicted my world view and destroyed the foundation underneath myself. E. A Suggested Apologetic Approach: “DEFEND” I would like to suggest several aspects to keep in mind as we dialogue with non-Christians. These may change in their order, and it might not always be necessary to include them all. It depends on how the conversation goes. Furthermore, these points may be covered over a period of time in a series of conversations. 1. Demonstrate interest. Ask questions to get acquainted. Find out about his or her family, interests, and religious background. Most people enjoy talking about themselves and their family. Be genuinely interested in the person, not just in a hurry to “convert” him. They can always tell if you are sincere. People are fascinating! Remember that they are the image of God, and worthy of our love and respect. 2. Explain your faith. Share your testimony. Try to find a natural transition to share about your own life, your family, and your religious experience. Most people will begin asking you questions as the conversation continues. Explain how you understand the gospel. 3. Furnish answers to his questions. Hopefully at this point, the person will become curious and ask questions. He or she may express doubts, or even criticism of the Christian faith. It is important to accept these comments gracefully, and not take them personally. Do your best to provide reasonable answers. 4. Expose his basic presuppositions. Now it’s your turn. I recommend asking the person why he believes what he believes. Then ask again why he believes the second principle. Continue this


57

pathway until he comes to the end, until he can’t give any other reason. For example, he might believe in evolution. Then when you ask why, he gives scientific evidence. Then you can ask why he trusts scientific evidence. Eventually, he will somehow reveal his basic starting point. This will have to be one of two things: an outside authority, or his own mind. Most people will fall into the second category, unless they are followers of some other religion. If it is his own mind, he either thinks truth starts within his own mind (subjective), or he thinks it starts outside (objective). In either of these two cases, he is the ultimate judge of the truth. If possible, try to bring to person to recognize this. This process will very likely make the person very uncomfortable. You are stripping away his cover, forcing him to expose his deepest convictions. Furthermore, these convictions probably have remained practically unconscious until now, and it may be extremely unnerving to face them. You must be gentle, but without backing down. 5. Navigate through the inconsistencies of the non-Christian view. Again, you must be absolutely sure that you don’t show pride or disdain. If we don’t show love and humility, it doesn’t really matter whether our arguments are solid or not; they won’t listen to us. But still, we need to gently show him where the non-Christian position is inconsistent. You are like a medical doctor who has to discover the patient’s sickness. You won’t help the patient by denying his sickness, but keep in mind that nobody likes to hear bad news. You are like John Nash’s wife, pointing out the fact that the imaginary child in his pretend world has not grown up. Something is seriously wrong with his scheme. At the bottom, the non-Christian has been hanging on to beliefs that are self-contradictory, and he has developed a worldview that he cannot live with consistently. For example, if he believes in evolution because he believes in science, and he believes in science because he trusts his senses and logic, you can point out the fact that if evolution were true, his own thoughts would be a part of that impersonal process, and therefore they lose their meaning. If evolution is true, then his thoughts are no more significant than the tick tock of a clock or a grape growing on a vine. 6. Direct the person to Christ. It would be terribly cruel to expose the contradictions of the non-believer, and leave him with no solution and no hope. He needs to know that Jesus has died for him and risen again. His unbelief is not neutral, but it is a rejection of his creator. Remind him of the story of Adam and Eve, and gently show him that he is also questioning his creator in an illegitimate way. But the good news is that there is forgiveness and restoration. He can be reconciled with God by trusting in Jesus and what He has done on the cross. He can begin a new life with the important things in proper perspective. His planet can be returned to its proper place in the solar system. He must be born again and submit his heart and mind to God.

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I


58

determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in aweakness and in bfear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

These points can be easily remembered by the acrostic “defend”:

D emonstrate interest. E xplain your faith. F urnish answers. E xpose his presuppositions. N avigate through his inconsistencies. D irect him to Christ.

Actually, the most difficult aspects of our apologetic task have already been taken care of by the Holy Spirit. First, according to the Scriptures, we don’t really need to convince anybody that God exists, because deep down, they already know it. God has revealed Himself to every human being, through creation and in his own heart. The problem is that they suppress this inward truth and try to hide it.

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, because God has made it 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. 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. Romans 1:18-25

Notice that Paul took advantage of this when he dialogued with the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in Athens (Acts 17). Secondly, man has a moral sense, a conscience, and therefore also a sense of guilt. Even though the values may be quite distorted, there is at least a general sense of right and wrong.

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on


59

their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) Romans 2.14, 15

Even tribal groups far removed from civilization manifest a sense of guilt and a need to somehow make a sacrifice to cover their sin. One group may send out a dog on a raft to die for them. Others may cut off the head of a chicken. Some even sacrifice their own children. One of the most astounding things I have ever seen was a frozen indigenous child found in the Andes Mountains of Chile. The experts believe he is hundreds of years old. He was dressed and seated in a way that shows he had been sacrificed to the gods. Review Questions 1. Using the following table, name the main postulates of each of the following Worldviews. Worldview God Man Ontology Epistemology Ethics 1. Christian theism

2 Deism

3 Naturalism

4 Nihilism

5 Existencialism

6 Oriental pantheistic monism

7 New Era

8 Postmodernism

2. Explain the beliefs of animism. 3. What has the Roman Catholic Church cultivated in Latin America, since the time of colonization, according to this lesson? 4. Explain why the Worldviews that sustain that the universe is ONE are self-destructive. 5. Explain why the Worldviews that deny the possibility of knowledge are self-destructive. 6. Explain the Christian concept of ontology, epistemology, and ethics. 7. Explain the apologetic method of the lesson called «DEFEND». Questions for Reflection 1. Do you think that you have a Christian Worldview? 2. Do you think some aspects of other Worldviews might be attractive to some people? Which aspects? Why? 3. Do you have other suggestions about apologetic methods?


60

CHAPTER 5 A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF POLITICS Introduction A popular saying warns us to never talk about sex, religion, or politics, in order to keep good friendships. However, whether or not it causes arguments, it is hard to avoid these topics. As a matter of fact, I think religion and politics are two of the most fascinating topics! In this chapter we will do the unforgiveable; we will mix these two subjects and talk about them together! We will analyze a Christian view of politics. It’s true that these are delicate subjects, and we need to show tolerance as we learn to kindly disagree about some of these areas. We are not arguing here about the doctrine of salvation, and we do not have biblical passages that allow us to be dogmatic about certain areas of politics. There are gray areas in which we must learn to dialogue and express ourselves without being closed minded. I don’t pretend to cover such a complex issue in one chapter. We will have to limit ourselves to a few fundamental points, and examine the teaching of a few theologians. This is meant to be a brief introduction, a review of opinions, to stir interest in an ongoing dialogue about politics. We will analyze the following topics:

1) The origin of the State 2) The role of the State 3) The limits of authority of the State

Almost all discussion regarding politics force us to examine these questions first. For example, we may ask which form of government is best, which political party best reflects Christian principles, or what is the civic role of a Christian. In order to answer these questions, we will need to establish a basic philosophy of the origin, role, and limits of the State. 1. The Origin of the State There are not many choices when it comes to deciding on the origin of the State; either man invented it, or God ordained it. Some believe that man has established government in order to promote good or avoid evil. For example, in The Republic, Plato suggests that man has organized government to seek justice and thus satisfy his own interests.54 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) proposed that the State is the product of a “social contract” between people in order to avoid conflict. All men seek to satisfy their own desires, leading inevitably to a conflict of interests. The only way to accept inequality and avoid conflicts is to have a

54

Kelly L. Ross, Plato´s Republic. http://www.friesian.com/plato.htm, (June, 2002).


61

State governed by a sovereign (“Leviathan”) who imposes his absolute power over the people.55 What is the Christian view of the origin of the State? How did civil government come into existence? The key Bible passage for answering this question is: Romans 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. John Calvin observed that the State has been established by “Divine Providence” and by “holy decree.”56 Abraham Kuyper distinguished between a “mechanical” development and an “organic” development of social institutions. On the one hand, the institutions that have developed in “organic” form are necessary and “natural.” They would have developed even without the existence of sin. On the other hand, the institutions that have developed in “mechanical” form are those that are necessary only because of sin. These are like “tutorial” sticks that a gardener places alongside a small tree so that it will grow straight. For Kuyper, the State is an institution that developed in “mechanical” form. The State is necessary because of sin. He believes that without sin, society would have developed as one large family in patriarchal form.57 Henry Meeter on the other hand, in The Basic Ideas of Calvinism,`58 says that the State is a “natural consequence” that comes from “a social impulse implanted by God in man.” Meeter accepts the distinction that Kuyper makes between “mechanical” and “organic” development, but he adds that without sin, the State would have developed anyway, in an “organic” way. It would have been an “empire” with Adam at the head. It would have been the kingdom of God, but without laws, courts, police, armies, and warships. However, now that sin exists, the kingdom of God can only be established by means of Jesus Christ, by means of supernatural grace, and not by natueral means. The State as we know it, with laws and police, had to develop in a “mechanical” way to impede the influence of sin. Israel began as a family, a patriarchal tribe (Genesis: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). At Sinai, a theocratic nation was formed (Exodus), with laws to control the effects of sin. This could be considered a “mechanical” development. God

55

Antonio Cruz, Sociología; una desmitificación (Barcelona: CLIE/Logoi, 2001), pp. 93-108. 56

Institutes, IV.20.4 (Ed. John McNeill, transl. Ford Lewis Battles). 57 Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, “Calvinism and Politics,” and “Politics,” talks given at Princeton, 1898. (http://www.kuyper.org/stone/lecture3.html)

58 Meeter, Henry, The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, 6th edition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990).


62

named the leaders and guided them directly. Moses was a prophet, liberator, and ruler, but everyone knew that Moses represented God, and that he was not elected by the people. Following the counsel of his father-in-law, Moses divided the nation into groups and named leaders to help him make decisions (Exodus 18). Upon entering the Promised Land, Israel had judges to govern them. It was still a theocracy. In Deuteronomy 17:14 and15, God tells them they will have a king some day.

When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,’ you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.

However, in 1 Samuel 8, when they ask for a “king like the other nations” (vs. 5), something curious happens: God grants their request, but He expresses discontent with the idea. God tells Samuel,

The Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. (vs. 7)

God warns them through Samuel of the consequences of having such a king. He will take their sons as soldiers, and he will put them to work making weapons and cultivating crops. He will call their daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. He will demand a tenth of their crops and their flocks. (Verses 8-17)

Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day. (vs. 18)

However, even with this warning, the people still asked for a king, and God told Samuel to grant their request. Obviously, to have such a king was not the ideal situation. The ideal would have been to continue with a theocracy under God’s direct rule. Furthermore, the motive that Israel had was not the best; they wanted to be “like the other nations.” Nevertheless, God granted their request. Why? We know that sometimes God grants our inappropriate requests in order to teach us a lesson. In this case, it may have been to help them realize what a blessing it was to have Him as their true king, guiding their leaders. Also, the failures of the kingdom of Israel in the Old Testament clearly point to the need for salvation, and to the neeed for Jesus as the perfect King.


63

We could also speculate that this may have been a necessary step in preparing believers to live under foreign rulers. In the monarchy, we see a separation of the offices of prophet, priest, and king. Then when the Israelites became captives of foreign powers during the exile, the offices of prophet and priest continued, while they had to submit to foreign kings. This situation continued through the time of the New Testament and beyond. But what does this tell us about the origin of the State? I conclude that Meeter has the right idea. The primordial origin of the State is the natural neccesity for man to have some kind of order in society. Man is a complex social being, and the human race has grown to become a huge complex society. Therefore, some kind of organization is necessary. We could speculate that, even without sin, man would have organized some kind of government. That is, the image of God in man moves him to organize himself in society. Nevertheless, the State as we know it, with a penal system, trial courts, and a police force, has been established to impede injustice, and it is necessary only because of sin. Furthermore, the current forms of government that exist in the world, where God is not the direct ruler, and where the religious and civil functions are usually separate, are not the ideal form. The ideal government would still be a theocracy, but that is not possible under the present circumstances in a fallen world. It is lamentable that this kind of government is necessary, but it is. 2. The Role of the State In discussing the origin of the State, we could not avoid touching the subject of the function of the State. But we want to analyze this aspect more closely. Romans 13:3-6 is the key biblical passage:

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

John Calvin proposes that the State has several functions. Basically, the civil government should: -promote well-being -prevent idolatry, blasphemy, and religious offenses -guarantee peace


64

-protect property -assure just commerce -preserve honesty He says in summary that the object of the civil government is to provide “that a public manifestation of religion may exist among Christians, and that humanity be maintained among men.” 59 We must remember that at the time of Calvin, the Church leaders had not seen the need to separate Church and State. Abraham Kuyper suggests that the main task of government is to promote justice. In second place, it should care for the people. For him, the “sword” mentioned in Romans 13 includes:

a. doing justice, punishing crime b. going to war, defending the country, and c. maintaining order, resisting rebellion. 60

Henry Meeter argues that there are two main guidelines:

a. the administration of justice, and b. the promotion of general welfare.

By “justice,” he means defending the law of God (not the will of the people, nor the State as an absolute). By “welfare” he means public services such as the postal system. He gives examples from Geneva at the time of Calvin, such as loans to the poor, fixing prices of wine and wheat, constructing a silk industry to provide jobs and income, and setting norms to govern types of financial interests. Meeter says that Calvin was wrong to include the defense of religion as part of the role of the State. He insists that the State should not involve itself in affairs that are of the “heart,” but rather only in matters of “external” conduct.” 61 Look at the tasks of the civil government mentioned in Romans 13:

1) It is “…a cause of fear… for evil.” (vs. 3) 2) It is “…a minister of God to you for good.” (vs. 4a) 3) It “bears the sword” as “an avenger who brings wrath on the one

who practices evil. (vs. 4b) 4) It receives taxes. (vs. 6)

I believe that the main task of the State is to guarantee order and social justice (or expressed negatively: to avoid disorder and social injustice.) That is, it should promote justice in the relationships between individuals and among institutions. When there is a conflict of interest, or when there is some problem that

59

Institutes IV, 20, 3. 60

Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism 61

Meeter, The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, chapter 12, pp. 98-108.


65

constitutes social injustice, the government should act to establish a situation that is more just. The State is like the “nervous system” of society. It helps the other members to function with coordination, and it alerts you when there is pain or when something is not functioning properly. 3. Old Testament guidelines about justice I believe that the civil laws of Israel are no longer binding upon us as a legal system today, but I also believe that they give us some universal ethical principles about justice. There were three aspects of the law: ceremonial, civil, and moral. The universal moral principles, such as are summarized in the Ten Commandments are still for us to keep. However, since Jesus came to make the ultimate sacrifice, we no longer keep the ceremonial aspect of the law. We no longer go to the temple to make sacrifices, for example. And since the people of God no longer make up one single political nation, but are dispersed in all nations, the civil laws no longer apply in the same way either. For example, we no longer need to punish a child who curses his parents with death (Exodus 21:17). There were many laws about the use of property that simply could not be enforced today, such as the year of Jubilee. However, the ceremonial laws continue to teach us spiritual truths, and the civil laws continue to teach us principles of justice.

For example, let’s look at how we should apply the teachings of Leviticus 25 today. First, we no longer need to observe the Sabbatical Year and the Year of Jubilee as stipulated in this chapter. This would be primarily a civil law for the nation of Israel in that time. However, the chapter does give us some moral guidelines about justice. For example, we can see that God intended to prevent selfish accumulation of wealth from one generation to the next. Every fifty years


66

the property went back to the original owner. But we can also see that God intended to encourage initiative and hard work, because those who were wise and diligent could benefit from their efforts, at least during fifty years. We can also see an underlying fundamental principle about property: the land ultimately belongs to God, not to us. Furthermore, in the sabbatical and jubilee calendar, God was teaching His people to trust Him for their provision. To stop farming the land every seven years, then two years in a row at years forty nine and fifty, was a way of expressing complete confidence in God to take care of them. Finally, we can see some spiritual truths in this chapter: the concept of rest points to our spiritual rest in Christ. Salvation comes to us as we stop “working” and trust Him alone. Eternal life is an eternal resting in Him. 4. The Limits of Authority of the State Before the time of Christ, the task of social justice was united with the “religious” task of the State in the nation of Israel. However, after Christ, the fact that the people of God is no longer a political nation, but rather the Body of Believers, dispersed among all nations, makes it necessary to separate Church and State. The Church is an eternal and universal kingdom, interwoven into all of society, while the State is an earthly kingdom, limited to the geographical borders of each nation. Furthermore, history has shown us that uniting Church and State has led to many wars. Finally, since many governments are corrupt and non Christian, or even anti-Christian, to allow them to dictate religious beliefs would only cause suffering for Christians. In a sense, this separation is not ideal, but it is necessary during this time, until the Lord returns to establish His kingdom in its final form. Until then, there will be a degree of tension because of the anormality. A theocracy is the ideal State, in which God governs directly. This is the way it will be in the eternal form of the kingdom of God. Nevertheless, we know that now we are living as “aliens and strangers” on earth (1 Peter 2:11). Therefore, we do not want a civil government that is in control over all human activity. That would be totalitarianism, and it would mean submitting the Church under a State that might become very corrupt. Neither do we want to put the State under the Church, because even the Church as an institution can be corrupt. This was the problem at the time of the Reformation. Since the time of Constantine, the civil and ecclesiastical authority had become close partners, and the Church had been abusing its power. But instead of recognizing the need to separate church government from civil government, the reformers tried to change the official religion of the countries, which only produced wars. The Anabaptists went to the other extreme, insisting that Christians should separate themselves entirely from civil affairs. John Calvin was beginning to discern a solution to this problem, but he wasn’t totally


67

consistent. He proposed that the State govern the matters of “outward morality,” and that the Church govern the affairs of “inner man.”62 However, as mentioned before, when he speaks of the task of the civil government, he includes prevention of blasphemy and religious offenses, which contradicts such a distinction. A century later, his followers in England edited The Westminster Confession of Faith, in the midst of violent conflicts between Church and Sate. They proposed that the civil government should not “interfere in matters of faith,” or establish a state denomination, but protect the Church and guarantee its freedom.

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he has authority, and it is his duty to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, ….

Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. 63

However, similar to Calvin, they still did not make a consistent separation of Church and State, but rather included some overlapping of duties. According to the Confession, the civil magistrate even has authority to call ecclesiastical councils and to suppress religious error. He should guarantee…

…that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God or, in

the least, interfere in matters of faith. 64

After the Reformation, the Protestant Church began to make a clearer separation. In fact, later American versions of the Westminster Confession, as early as 1788, took out the section quoted above regarding suppressing heresies and abuses in worship, and about the right to call synods. 65

62

Institutes, IV, XX, 1. 63

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 23, section 3. (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm#chap23 ), January 16, 2007. 64

Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 23, section 3. 65

See http://www.upper-register.com/papers/1788_revision.pdf . See also, for example, the current version in use by the Presbyterian Church in America. http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapxxi-xxv.htm#chapxxiii , January 16, 2007.


68

Abraham Kuyper later (19th century) distinguished between three basic social spheres: Church, State, and Family. Each sphere has its own sovereignty under the sovereignty of God. No sphere should interfere with another.

Henry Meeter follows Kuyper in this. He argues that the State should not take upon itself the labors of any other sphere. On the other hand, the government should not allow the Church or Family do simply anything they want. In fact, the role of the State is precisely to make sure that none of these social institutions interfere with the labors of the others.

Conclusion If the task of the State is to promote social justice, the limits of their authority are defined by this same guideline. The State should allow freedom until one person or institution begins to infringe upon the freedom of another. The State plays the role of an umpire or referee. The government should not interfere in the natural development of individuals or of other social spheres, such as the Church and the Family, except when some injustice exists between them. For example, if someone steals from a store, his “freedom” has become a lack of freedom for the store owner; a social injustice is occuring. Therefore, the civil government should intervene, make laws against stealing, and punish thieves. Normally, the State should allow businesses freedom to operate, but in the moment the owners begin to pay unfair salaries or abuse their workers somehow, the government should step in to correct the injustice. The government should not dictate what religion their citizens should embrace, but if the religious practices include violence toward others, it becomes an issue for the civil authorities.

5. The “Politics” of Jesus The subject of Jesus and politics is ample enough to write many volumes, but I will limit myself to a few comments with the purpose of stirring interest in further study. We have said that all truth is related to Christ, and that we should always come back to Him in the study of any topic. Some try to show that Jesus was a political radical, a revolutionary, opposing the rich and powerful. It is true that he spoke against abuses and against unjust authorities, calling them to repentance. But to call Him a political “revolutionary” is a distortion. The truth is that He actually submitted to the existing government. To the surprise of His disciples, He did not try to remove the Roman authorities, nor change the corrupt system. It is clear that Jesus did not express Himself about whether any system of government was better than another. His life was in harmony with Romans 13. When the Pharisees tried to trick Him, asking if they should pay taxes (Matthew 22:15-22), Jesus answered with another question about a coin, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” Then He admonished them, “Render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” Apparently Jesus did not oppose paying taxes, but He wanted to emphasize the fact that God is


69

sovereign. If the coin has the image of Ceasar, it belongs to him. But Ceasar has the image of God, and therefore Ceasar belongs to God. So who is the real owner of the coin? This gives us an important guideline: It is true that we should submit to the authorities, but we should never give earthly authorities supremacy over God. When they forbid the disciples to preach in the name of Jesus, they disobeyed them in order to obey God. (Acts 4:19). After the resurrection, and before the ascension, Jesus spoke His last words on earth. The disciples asked if He was going to restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6-8). They were probably thinking of the wonderful years of David’s reign, when Israel dominated the world. They probably expected Jesus to take arms against the Romans and restore the nation of Israel to the position that corresponded to the people of God. Nevertheless, Jesus must have confused them with His answer. Maybe they thought He hadn’t understood their question, that He was not talking about the kingdom, because He said,

It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” (Acts 1:7-8)

Is He saying that the kingdom is no longer important? Or that the only important thing now is evangelism? No, that was not His answer. He was not confused, and He did answer the question. It may have been hard for the disciples to catch the point at first, but He was explaining how the kingdom of God would be established. Jesus in the King of Kings, and when He came, the kingdom of God came. However, His kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36). It is not something to observe visibly, but rather it is spiritual (Luke 17:20-21). It is much bigger than what the disciples were expecting, because it is eternal and not temporal, and it covers the whole earth, not just one country. The way to establish this kingdom is not with weapons, but by testifying about Jesus. The Holy Spirit was going to come with more power than ever, and He would take them to every corner of the world with the message. For a time I doubted whether the Church was really an effective instrument for changing the world. I thought that the social activists were getting better results. But now I realize that the only way to bring true change to society is through a spiritual change in peoples’ hearts. When a person is converted, he begins to live a better life with his family, in his work place, in his local church, and in society in general.


70

Any system of government will function poorly if the leaders are corrupt. And many systems will function well if the people who run them are just and honest. I believe that is why the New Testament does not speak out clearly against slavery or against the existing corrupt governments. Jesus knew that the people who were transformed by the Holy Spirit would have new values and that they would bring more effective and long lasting changes in society. If the owner of a slave treats his slave like a brother (Philemon, vs. 16), the slave will have less problems in living with that role. This kind of heart change is better than just changing the laws and forcing people to obey them outwardly. The laws against racism in the United States have been very positive, but they have not eliminated racism, because it still lives in peoples’ hearts. We must recognize the positive Christian roots of transformation throughout history. Sometimes we tend to be so pessimistic that we fail to see what the Lord has done through His people. If we think there is a lot of violence today, we should remember the cruelty and perversion before the time of Christ. The hospitals and universities have their origins in Christian influence. Slavery remained for milleniums, but was finally abolished in many countries, thanks to Christian values. When Jesus died and rose again, He brought true victory over sin and Satan. We still don’t see all the results, but the seeds continue to grow and bear fruit. If we say that the world is worse today then before Christ, we are denying the efficacy of His work. The “politics” of Jesus are more radically transforming than any political revolutionary program. He brings internal, eternal, spiritual change. As a consequence, all of society enjoys the benefits. Review Questions 1. According to Plato, why has man organized governments? 2. According to Hobbes, what is the origin of the state? 3. What is the key Bible passage for understanding the origin of the state? 4. What is the distinction that Kuyper makes between a “mechanical” development and an “organic” development of social institutions? 5. What was the first form of organization of the people of God in the time of Abraham? 6. How were the Israelites organized at Sinai in the time of Moses? 7. Who governed Israel when they first entered the Promised Land? 8. According to 1 Samuel 8, was is correct to ask for a king for Israel? 9. What is the primary origin of the state? 10. According to Calvin, what are the functions of the state? 11. According to Abraham Kuyper, what is the principle task of the state? 12. According to Meeter, what are the two general guidelines regarding the task of the state? 13. According to the author, the state is like what part of the human body?


71

14. Why is it necessary to separate Church and State? 15. What does the Westminster Confession of Faith say about the duty of the State toward the Church? 16. What are the three social spheres, according to Abraham Kuyper? 17. According to the author, what are the limits of the authority of the State? 18. What was Jesus’ attitude toward politics? 19. What do we learn from Matthew 22:15-22 about the government? 20. How does Jesus bring changes in society according to Acts 1:6-8? Questions for reflection 1. What is your opinion about the origin, task, and limits of the State? 2. In your opinion, what type of government best reflects the task and the limits of the State? Why? 3. Can you give examples of abuse of power on the part of government? Of the lack of using their power when it was needed? 4. Can you give examples of positive Christian influence in society?


72

CHAPTER 6 A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF ECONOMICS Another polemical issue is economics. Unfortunately, dialogue among Christians often makes little reference to the Scriptures. In this brief introduction, we we present the two most common economic systems, capitalism and socialism, and we will analyze some biblical passages related to the debate. I. Capitalism The key value for capitalism is freedom. Adam Smith (from Scotland) is considered the father of the concept. In 1776, he published The Wealth of Nations, in which he proposed the idea of an “invisible hand” that guides the economy according to personal interest and benefit. He also observed the “law of supply and demand”: when the demand is greater, prices increase, and when the supply is greater, or when there is more competition, the prices drop. He believed that if everyone seeks their own good, everyone will eventually benefit.

«It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.»66

Capitalism started the industrial revolution in England, along with the steam engine. Production and consumption increased 1,600% in England during the 19th century. Fabric production shops opened in Belgium and France, and steel factories opened in Germany. In the United States, they built canals and railways. The sad side of the industrial revolution was the abuse of workers, including children who worked long hourse in the British factories. These are the problems that Karl Marx observed and that moved him to propose another economic system. Probably the most difficult challenge of capitalism has been the great depression in the United States in 1929. Unemployment rose to 25%, national production dropped 50%, and 11,000 banks were closed. John Maynard Keynes is credited with the salvation of capitalism with his theory that the government should spend enormous amounts of money to revitalize the economy. Capitalists insist that their system produces an incentive to work harder, and that it has improved the economy and life style in many countries. Critics of capitalism suggest that in has produced an unjust inequality. Instead of combating selfishness, it exploits it.

66

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, chapter 2, quoted in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations (January 25, 2007),


73

II. Socialism The key value for socialism is equality. Even though Karl Marx is considered the father of socialism, there was already a socialist movement in France and England before him. The participants shared all their possessions, divided the work equally among themselves, and shared all their means of production and objects of consumption. Marx (1818-1883) studied law and philosophy. While he lived in Berlin, he digested Hegel’s concept of the dialectic. Afterward, as a newspaper writer, he observed social problems, especially the abuses of the industrial revolution in England. Along with Frederick Engels, he wrote the Communist Manifesto, a key work for the movement. He wanted to dedicate Capital to Darwin, but the latter refused. Marx died as a poor exile in England. Marx adopted the dialectic concept of Hegel, combined it with the materialism of Fuerbach, and developed what is called dialectical materialism. He considered that he had “put Hegel on his feet,” because he changed the idealism for materialism. Marx’s dialectic is like a slow evolution with abrupt changes once in a while. He studied history according to empirical laws, and believed to discover that the economic structure is the fundamental basis of society. Economics determine history and take all of culture along with it. He emphasizes class struggle as the cause of change. He asserts in the Manifesto, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”67 He believed that “religion is the opium of the people.” 68 True salvation of man will be the formation of a new just society. For Marx, the revolution was inevitable. The proletariat (lower classes) will rebel against the bourgeoisie (the ruling classes). Engels supported reform without revolution. In Germany, the social democrat party was formed, which sought political power within the system, without promoting a violent revolution. On the other hand, Lenin (Russia) believed that a “vanguard” party of intellectual revolutionaries should conscienticize the poor, and that a violent revolution was necessary to achieve socialism. The Bolsheviks (the “majority”) followed Lenin, and the Mencheviks (the “minority”) opposed him. Stalin established a cruel totalitarian rule; he sent millions to Siberia and executed the leaders. European countries has adopted much more moderate forms of socialism, which have little to do with Marxism or Leninism. The leaders have come to power through democratic procedures. They simply have economic systems that seek to eliminate drastic differences between the rich and the poor. The key is in chargin higher taxes for the rich and providing more services for the people,

67

Manifesto, chapter 1, http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html (January 2, 2007). 68

Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opiate_of_the_masses (January 25, 2007).


74

especially education and medical care. In Denmark, for example, individual income taxes vary between 38% and 59%. In Holland and Norway, they can be as high as 50%. 69 Critics observe that there is too much bureaucracy and too little incentive in these countries. In Latin America, the countries have vacilated between military dictatorships and democracies, between more capitalistic systems and more socialistic systems. With Liberation Theology, the Marxist movement became friends with the more liberal brances of Christianity. Fidel Castro said once that he was amazed because the “theologians were becoming Marxists and the Marxists were becoming theologians.”70 The situation in some countries is complicated by a reaction against the European and North American economic and cultural dominance. Sometimes it is hard to discern which has the greater influence, a desire to become independent of such foreign influence, or some ideal of their own. Some say that Fidel Castro began by struggling to become independent of Spain and the United States, without being a socialist. They say he became a socialist when the United States looked upon the revolution as communist, boycotted Cuba, and invaded the Bay of Pigs. Many businessmen left Cuba for the United States, and Castro’s political position became more socialist. In 1961 they formed the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Others such as Peter Bourne, in his biography, Fidel,71 indicate that Castro already had socialistic ideas before the revolution. He studied a lot when he was in jail, after the first revolutionary attempt, and came out with a formed ideology. He suggests also that much of Castro’s drive came from his admiration for previous liberators. Defenders of socialism insist that their system seeks greater equality and that their priorities are better, giving more attention to medical care, education, food, and general basic services. Critics say that the socialist system becomes totalitarian, with an elite group of powerful leaders, and that freedom is lost. They observe that historically, the results have not been positive, and that socialism has not even produced much help for the poor.

69

http://www.worldwide-tax.com (January 26, 2007). 70

José Míguez Bonino, Christians and Marxists: The Mutual Challenge to Revolution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), p. 15. 71

Peter G. Bourne, Fidel: a biography of Fidel Castro (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1986).


75

III. Why is Latin America Poor?

A. The Answer of Liberation Theology The answer to this question always shows underlying assumptions. Liberation Theology shows their Marxist orientation by answering that the cause is basically injustice and oppression on the part of the capitalist countries. According to José Míguez Bonino, for example, capitalism favors the powerful and elevates economic production above human development.72 The poorer countries live in dependence on the wealthy countries, who manipulate the economy for their own benefit. Bonino claims that, since colonization, when Spain took the gold and silver, “Latin American underdevelopment is the shadow of the North Atlantic development.” 73 One of the favorite examples of the Marxists is the case of Chile. According to them, four North American copper companies took $110 million dollars out of Chile in a period of 60 years. This is more than the net national product for the country in its entire history of 400 years! 74 B. A Capitalist Answer Michael Novak, in The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, provides another perspective.75 He says that it is not fair to blame only foreigners. Latin American poverty has existed for centuries, but the international economic exchange has been fairly low until recent years. In fact, the balance of interchange at times has favored Latin America. In 1850, the per capita income in Latin America was almost the same as in the United States. In 1892, the United States exported $96 million dollars to Latin America, while Latin America exported $290 million to the United States. Novak argues that if U.S. investment causes dependency and poverty, why has this not been the effect in Germany and Japan, for example, where the United States has invested as much or more than in Latin America? To answer the accusation that the United States has unjustly gained an enormous amount of money by investing in Latin America, he claims that they would have made more money by depositing the same amount in a bank in the United States! What is the cause of Latin American poverty, then, according to Novak? He agrees sthat that there have been abuses and injustices, both international and internal. However, he highlights other factors: a) Population In 1940, the population of Latin America was the same as in the United States: around 130 million. 72

José Míguez Bonino, Christians and Marxists, p. 115. 73

José Míguez Bonino, La fe en busca de eficacia (Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 1977), p. 39. 74

Arthur F. McGovern, Marxism, an American Perspective (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1980), pp. 211-215. 75

Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982), chapters 16, 17 y 18, pp. 272-314.


76

In 1977, the United States has 220 million, while Latin America had 342 million. b) The Catholic Anti-Capitalist Mentality In Europe, during the counter-reformation, the Catholic Church was closely tied to the government, and discouraged capitalistic efforts. Capitalists left the Catholic countries and moved to Protestant countries, where they were successful. Catholic governments restricted private enterprise, and gave license to the state monopolies. This occurred especially in countries that were dependent on Spain. c) Social Structure Imported from Spain Furthermore, the Spanish exported the dualistic social structure to Latin America. This system of owner/servant impided freedom and discouraged private initiative. Novak argues that the economy is not so weak on the whole in Latin America, compared to other regions of the world. However, the distribution of income has been unequal. IV. Inflation Inflation is one of the worst enemies of the economy. Often inflation is understood as simply an increase in prices. Nevertheless, inflation should be seen more precisely as a process by which money has less and less purchasing power. What is the cause? Gary North analyzes the following causes: a) Weakening the metal in coins (Ezequiel 14:21-23, Proverbs 25:4-5). North observes that in ancient Rome, when the government wanted to make more coins, instead of finding more gold or silver, they simply took some metal off the edge of the coins to make new ones. Today they do basically the same thing when they make “sandwich” coins (with silver on the faces and copper in between, for example), or when they change the metal completely (copper instead of gold, or nickel instead of silver). The result of this manouver is that the coins are worth less, which is another form of inflation. b) Making money without backing of precious metals. Originally, the United States had gold to back paper bills. For every dollar bill, there was a piece of gold that was worth a dollar. Then the government began to print more bills than they had gold for. If everyone tried to exchange their bills for gold, there would not be enough. Not only the United States, but other countries also, have gone on and off the gold standard, or modified the percentage of gold that must back up the bills over the years. Eventually, Nixon abolished the gold backing altogether, and this has remained the situation until now. 76 North argues

76

See the following articles: Governor Ben S. Barnanke, “The Federal Reserve Board,” http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm (March 13,


77

that this is the same as making counterfeit bills. The result is that every bill is worth less in the market place, which is inflation. Why does each bill buy less? Let’s imagine a world in which there are 100 dollar bills in existence, 100 people in existence, and each person has one dollar. There are also 50 bottles of coke in existence and they cost one dollar each. In this situation, 50 people could buy a coke, right? If everyone wanted one, it would be a matter of selling one to the first 50 people who offer to buy one. Now let’s suppose that the government decides to print 50 extra dollar bills, and they distribute one of them to each of 50 people. Now 50 people have two dollars, and 50 people only have one dollar. Again, let’s suppose there are 50 bottles of coke for sale. If the sales person is astute, he will realize that he is facing a good situation. He can raise the price of the cokes to two dollars, and he can still sell all 50 cokes. Who will buy them? The people who have two dollars obviously have the advantage. The people who had only one dollar now have less buying power. That is the way inflation works, according to North. Of course, this illustration is oversimplified, but it communicates the concept. North relates that western banks were originally wooden benches in the plaza where they kept and exchanged coins. One could leave his money with the banker, who gave him a paper note to represent his deposit. Soon the bankers realized that many people didn’t come back for their coins before doing business, but instead they just exchanged the paper notes. This gave the bankers the opportunity to begin making loans, even loaning more than they were keeping. Soon there were many notes circulating, “money” that did not have enough coins to back them up. If everyone asked for their coins at once, the bank would go broke. The result is that the money has less value as it competes in the market place, just as we saw in the story of the 100 bills and 50 cokes. Governments do the same thing. c) The system of investments with interest (“fractional reserves”) Banks are required to keep only a certain percentage of the money deposited, and can loan out the rest. This percentage may vary from time to time, and from country to country. The system is called “fractional-reserve banking.” Let’s suppose that the percentage is only 10%. This means that a person can deposit $1,000, and when the bank has finished handling this money, at the end almost $10,000 are in circulation. The result is again that each dollar has less competitive purchasing value in the market place. According to Gary North, this is a major cause of inflation. The math is like this, as I understand it:

2007), “The Gold Standard and the Great Depression,” http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/the_gold_standa.html (March 13, 2007), and “Bretton Woods System,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system (March 13, 2007).


78

Person # 1 has $1,000 and deposits it all in the bank. The bank keeps $100 and loans the rest ($900) to person # 2. Person # 2 has $900 and deposits it in another bank.

The bank keeps $90 and loans the rest ($810) to person # 3. Person # 3 has $810 and deposits it in another bank.

The bank keeps $ 81 and loans the rest ($729) to person # 4. Person # 4 has $729, etc., etc.

If we continue this exercise ad infinitum (and we have not added the interest that the bank pays for the investments), the total amount of money that exists is about $10,000! Person #1 still has $1,000, #2 thas $900, #3 has $891 etc. Notice that the money multiplied without doing hardly anything! The work involved was only that of the employees who handled the figures on the computer. The result: Even though person #1 thinks that he is earning money with the interest, there is ten times as much money in circulation, so his money has less purchasing power (=inflation). It’s like putting more and more water in the soup; each time it has less flavor. 77 The capitalist system depends on this process of credit and investment. He who handles a lot of money makes more, but the poor who have no money to invest lose the purchasing power of the little money they have The topic of fractional reserve banking has stimulated much debate. Not everyone would agree with Gary North. Some justify the system, saying that the money loaned by the bank is used to produce something and thus does not cause inflation. For example, if a businessman borrows money to open a new bakery, there will be more bread available, and the greater supply will eventually lower the prices. Following the same illustration of the cokes, let’s suppose that there are now 100 cokes available instead of 50, and the government has printed extra bills so that 50 people have one dollar and 50 people have two dollars. No longer can the salesman charge two dollars for all of his cokes, because he will probably sell only 50 at that price. Obviously the real life situation is more complex than our example, but it seems that inflation continues to be a serious problem in the capitalist system. V. Economics in the Old Testament We find two general ethical guidelines for economics in the Old Testament that should help us develop our economic philosophy: We should work diligently and we should show compassion. As we already saw in a previous chapter, the Pentateuch (in passages such as Leviticus 25) teaches us that we are free to make an effort to improve our situation, but that we must show compassion to the

77

See also Wikipedia, “Fractional-reserve banking,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking (March 13, 2007),


79

needy. There were many provisions made for the poor, such as leaving part of the crop unharvested so that they could find something to eat. (Leviticus 23:22) Nobody should have starved to death in Israel! The story of mana in the desert (Exodus 16:16-31) illustrates several principles. Those who gathered much had just enough, and those who gathered little also had enough. This teaches us to of avoid selfish excess and to care for those who have less. Those who tried to keep mana overnight found that it had gone bad by morning. This teaches us to trust God daily for our provision. Proverbs emphasizes the wisdom of working hard and being honest (11:1, 19:1, 20:4, 24:27, 26:13-14). The Prophets emphasize showing compassion and treating the needy with justice. (Isaiah 3:14-15, Amos 2:7). These two general guidelines of diligence and compassion do not contradict each other, and putting them into practice would certainly go a long way in establishing a healthy and just economy. Regarding loans and interest, it was forbidden that an Israelite charge interest to a fellow Israelite, but not to a foreigner.

You shall not charge interest to your countrymen: interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest. You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are about to enter to possess. (Deuteronomy 23:19,20 )78

This does not necessarily mean that in our banks today it is always a sin to charge interest, especially to someone who has voluntarily asked for a loan to create or improve his business that produces something. However, it does mean that justice and compassion should be incorporated into the banking practices. VI. Jesus and Economics Just as we found in the previous chapter regarding politics, we find that Jesus did not make a statement about the best economic system. However, He did inculcate new ethical values and new attitudes. We are not to lay up treasures on earth (Matthew 6:19-20), neither are we to be anxious about material things, but trust our heavenly Father (Matthew 6:25-34). Wealth can make it difficult to see the need for God, and therefore difficult to enter the Kingdom of God (Matthew 19:23). We should give to the poor, even be willing to give up everything if necessary (Luke 18:18-30). Jesus Himself gave us an example of leaving our comfort to help others.

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich. (2 Corinthians 8:9)

78 See also Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25:35-38


80

The Catholic Church, thanks to Liberation Theology, has adopted the notion that God has a “preferencial love” for the poor.79 I believe that if this refers only to those who are poor in the material sense, it is out of focus. But I do believe that God has a special concern for those who are in need, whether it is someone who is depressed, who lives in a broken family, who is struggling with an alcoholic spouse, who lives far from home, or who is poor in material possessions. Those who are economically poor are not the only ones who suffer, and I believe that we should show special love to all of them, without considering anybody at all unworthy of our love. If we were to practice the values that Jesus left us, and if we were to have the attitude that Jesus had toward those who are suffering, the economy would function well. Review Questions 1. What is the key value for capitalism? 2. Who is called the father of capitalism? What was his theory? 3. What has been the greatest challenge for capitalism? 4. What solution did John Maynard Keynes give to this problem? 5. What is the key value for socialism? 6. Who is consideredthe father of socialism? 7. Why did this man say he had “stood Hegel on his feet”? 8. According to Marx, of what does the history of society fundamentally consist? 9. What did Marx say about religion? 10. How was the position of Marx and Engels different from that of Lenin regarding the way to bring about reform? 11. What is the answer of Liberation Theology to the question of why Latin America is poor? 12. According to Michael Novak, what are the three most important causes of poverty in Latin America? 13. What are the causes of inflation, according to Gary North? 14. What are the two general ethical guidelines for economics that we find in the Old Testament? 15. What can we learn from Jesus about economics? Questions for reflection 1. What economic system best reflects Christian values in your opinion? 2. Why do you think Latin America is poor in comparison with the United States or Europe? 3. What are the economic problems of your country, and what solutions would you suggest?

79 Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph # 2448


81

CHAPTER 7 A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS When I was in Junior High School, my science teacher said once that scientists should be the first ones to believe in God. He assured us that the more he studied nature, the more obvious it became that God existed. This is the way it should be.

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." (Psalm 19:1)

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

Unfortunately, however, it is not always like this. In the last centuries, a conflict has developed between science and Christianity. This is due to the fact that science has tried to become independent of faith. In order to be “objective,” scientists pretend to leave God outside the classroom when they study biology, chemistry, physics, or psychology. Common grace (or “universal grace”) reaches all mankind, and therefore much of the scientific activity is valid and beneficial. Even though the surgeon was not a Christian, I am very thankful to him for saving my mothers’s life when she had heart problems. We should thank God for the discovery of medicines, por the analysis of psychological and social problems, for the ability to predict the weather, and for the invention of so many machines that make life more comfortable. However, in this book we are analyzing the way of thinking. In that sense, in the intellectual sphere, science has been separating itself from the Christian faith. A. The Conflict Christians accept two sources of revelation: nature, and the Scriptures. Since God is the author of both forms of revelation, they do not contradict each other. Therefore, when we practice science correctly, and when we study the Bible correctly, there is no conflict. Nevertheless, there are apparent contradictions caused by erroneous interpretation, either of the Bible or of nature. The theory of evolution is an apparent contradiction between the Bible and scientific evidence. The psychological theories of Sigmund Frued do not coincide with the biblical teaching about man, about guilt, and about sin. These topics force us to formulate a Christian view of science.


82

In the last centuries, philosophers have separated faith and reason. We mentioned Kant previously, for example, who highlighted this separation. He distinguished between the world of “noumenons” and the world of “phenomenons,” between the metaphysical world and the physical world. “Pure” reason functions in the physical world that we observe, but only “practical” reason functions in the metaphysical world. This second realm is full of contradictions. Religion, morality, freedom, and ethics belong to this world of “noumenons.”

Thus a dangerous dichotomy was formed. Science was considered reasonable and objective, while religious matters were ambiguous and irrational. Some deny the use of faith in our interpretation of nature, and others deny the use of reason to interpret religious matters. Now in our “postmodern” age, confidence in science and reason has been lost. The problem is more dramatic because man had put his trust in reason to know the truth, but since he has lost that trust in reason, he has also lost his hope to know anything at all. Dr. H. van Riessen, in A Christian View of Science, reminds us that the reformers tried to encourage the development of the sciences in order to serve God, and that they opposed a separation of science and faith. It was humanism that repressed this effort and left science as autonomous. He observes that the very confidence in progress that was behind the philosophies of Hegel, Darwin, and Marx, has been the cause of its own death. Why? Because, according to their scheme, everything is relative. If everything changes as they say, tomorrow we could find new information that destroys my present convictions. How can I believe even in my own theories? Positivism (Comte) believed in sure (“positive”) knowledge, because they pretended to study only the observable facts,


83

something “neutral.” However, if only observable facts are true, then how can they believe in a theory or a philosophy? And if they can’t trust a theory, then the positivistic theory can’t be trusted either! Van Riesen says that the fundamental problem of the modern view of science is their pretended autonomy and “objectivity.” He says, “The cause of the crisis is man’s belief in his independent strength and in his dominion over the world by means of science.”80 There is no such thing as a “brute fact,” as Cornelius Van Til says. There are only interpreted facts.81 For example, someone could “believe” in the resurrection of Jesus, simply as an historical fact. But this doesn’t mean much without understanding why He died. Every historical event has an interpretation, and nobody can be totally objective in relating it. To understand a “fact” correctly, we must accept the interpretation that God has given it. The mistake has been in underestimating the the damage caused by the Fall. Man’s thought has been affected by sin. Our very use of reason has been damaged. Even after being renewed spiritually, we still suffer the consequences of sin. Therefore, faith has a certain priority over reason, and the revelation given in Scripture has a certain priority over the revelation in nature. That is, our ability to intrerpet the Scriptures by faith is more accurate than our ability to interpret nature by the use of reason. Furthermore, the Bible is verbal revelation, and thus a more precise form of communication. Science and reason must submit to the Scriptures.

B. The Theory of Evolution Perhaps the greatest attack on the Christian faith by science has been the atheistic theory of evolution. It is taught today as if it were a thoroughly proven fact. The evolutionistic perspective has had an enormous influence, not only in the realm of science, but also in philosophy (the dialectic), economy (Marx), religion (Teilhard de Chardin), linguistics (all languages evolved from a mother language), and every realm of thought. Many suppose that, not only the material world, but also the world of man’s thought, has been constantly evolving toward something better. This perspective has caused many to doubt their faith, because it pretends to explain the existence of everything without God. The Bible clearly teaches that God made all things miraculously by the power of His Word. This fact should orient our scientific study, and any theory should be submitted to the Scriptures to be scrutinized and put into harmony with them. Furthermore, there are some serious problems with the scientific evidence that supposedly points to a long gradual process of evolution. One of the most

80

Van Riesen, Enfoque cristiano de la Ciencia. (Barcelona: Fundación Editorial de Literatura Reformada, 1973) p. 28. 81

Cornelius Van Til, Christian Theistic Evidences, quoted by Greg Bahnsen in Van Til’s Apologetic, pp. 376-379.


84

seriouos problems is related to the fossil evidence: the lack of transitional forms. That is, there is no evidence of gradual changes in species. There are only animal fossils that are very distinct. For example, according to the theory of evolution, we should be able to find numerous samples that connect fish with amphibians, but we haven’t been able to.82 This is fundamental for proving their theory, but the evidence points rather to “jumps” instead of a gradual process of change. The horse has been a classic example of evolution, but looking at the evidence, there are no examples of gradual transition between a pre-horse and the horse as we know it today. There are only samples of very distinct animals. Furthermore, these distinct species are not found close to each other in successive layers, arranged from simple to complex, as the theory of evolution would suggest. Rather, different species are close to the same historic age and in places far from each other.83

Duane Gish (Ph.D., biochemistry), in his brief but convincing book Creation, Evolution, and the Fossil Evidence, quotes some evolutionists who admit this lack of evidence. 84

This regular absence of transitional forms is not limited to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon. Therefore, it is possible to affirm that such transformations are not registered because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transition, but by sudden jumps in evolution. (George Gaylord Simpson) 85 No matter how far we go in the fossil record of previous animal life on the earth, we find not even a trace of any kind of animal form that is intermediate between any of the principal groups or phylum. (A. H. Clark) 86

82

Duane Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record (San Diego: Master Books Pub., 1985), p. 33 in the Spanish version, Creación, evolución y el registro fósil (Barcelona: CLIE, 1979). 83

Henry M. Morris, Science and the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), pp. 51-55. See also Duane Gish, Creación. 84

Duane Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record (San Diego: Master Books Pub., 1985). Note: These quotes have been translated back into English from the Spanish version (Creación, evolución y el registro fósil, Barcelona: CLIE, 1979), and may reflect minor variations from the original English. 85

Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p. 105.


85

How can we harmonize the biblical account of creation with the apparent evidence of an extremely old earth? Some propose that the “days” mentioned in the first chapters of Genesis are not of twenty four literal hours, but rather long periods of time. Others suggest that there was a lapse of time between the initial creation and the days in which God ordered everything (called the “gap theory”).

Others hold that God created the earth with the appearance of having existed for millions of years. This is called the “mature earth” theory. Just as Adam was created an adult, and not a baby, the trees were also created grown, and the same would apply to all of creation. Everything was made already with age. The valleys and canyons, for example, were created already dug out, as if the rivers had carved them out over millions of years. God made everything like a photo taken in middle of a long process. One argument in favor of this theory is that it would have been difficult for most things to function without being totally developed. Antonio Cruz speaks of “irreducible complexity.”87 This means that some things are so complex that they will not function unless they are totally developed. The eye is a good example. It will not function without the nerve, the retina, or the pupil. Now imagine the world going through the process of evolution. Think of a historical period when dogs had partially developed eyes. They would be blind! How could they survive? Imagine a species of dogs with their legs only partially developed, only an inch long. They couldn’t walk, and they wouldn’t survive! This concept of irreducilble complexity suggests that each species had to begin in its already completed form. This same principle can be applied to nature as a whole. Many things depend on each other to function properly. For animals to survive, they need food from plants or from other animals. In fact, the whole natural system is delicately interdependent. Scientists point out that when a species is in danger of extinction, it may affect many other species. When we destroy too many trees and plants, it affects the whole environment. This principle suggests that all of creation would have been made already complete near the same time. It would have been necessary so that everything would function properly. Whitcomb and Morris observe that plants need chemicals that normally come from a long process of decomposition and erosion. Therefore, the first plants would have been nourished from soil that had the appearance of age. In the same way, all plants would have been placed in an environment appropriate for their survival.88 86

The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 196. 87

Antonio Cruz, Sociología; una desmitificación (Barcelona: CLIE/Logoi, 2001), pp. 210-214. 88

John C. Whitcomb, Jr. y Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood; The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1961), pp. 232-233. Whitcomb is professor of Old Testament (Th.D.) and Morris is a scientist, director of the Institute of Creation Research (Ph.D.).


86

These two authors combine the mature earth interpretation with an analysis of the effects of the Great Flood. They think that the Flood brought a drastic change in the climate, with a sudden cooling and the formation of ice in some places, causing the sudden death of large animals like dinousaurs. It would have also caused the glaciers to slide, forming valleys and canyons that look like they are the result of a long process. They believe that the Flood produced not only rain, but also earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The biblical passage also points to other catastrophic events at the time of the Flood (Genesis 7:11). This would explain the layers of sediment with fossils. The more simple species would have been trapped by the first wave of destruction, while the larger and more complex animals would have survived longer, escaping until they were buried in a higher level. (The fact that there are exceptions to the order of species in these layers can be explained easily by the catastrophe theory, but it is hard to explain by the evolutionary theory.)89 Think about this: What “age” did Adam have in the moment he was created? Did he have the body of a thirty year old man? Possibly. But if you had arrived one minute after his creation, you might think that he had been created thirty years previously, right? Think also of the plants and trees. Adam and Eve needed food, so God would have given them plants already grown with fruits and vegetables, not just seeds. Again, suppose that you arrive one minute after the creation of the trees and you begin to examine them. You cut the trunk of a tree, count the rings, and conclude that it has existed for hundreds of years. Do you see how it makes sense that God would have made all things complete within a short period of time? Is this deceiptful on God’s part? No! It was necessary. The same principle could be applied to all the rest of the creation. It is all interdependent. This interpretation that God made all things with the appearance of age seems to coincide best with the biblical account, and it avoids the problems of irreducible complexity and interdependence. It would be difficult to prove that it did not happen that way. On the other hand, I would not consider the other theories mentioned above as heresies.

C. The Place of the Bible in Science The Bible is not a scientic textbook. However, when it speaks of scientific facts, it tells the truth. It is not separated from science, or contrary to science. It gives a basis for science. It does not necessarily give specific verses to answer many of our questions, but it provides a foundation. If nothing else, the fact that God made everything touches every aspect of scientific research. What should we do when there are apparent conflicts between science and the Bible? We should begin with the conviction that God does not contradict himself, and that there is no real conflict between science and the Bible. Therefore, when

89

Whitcomb y Morris, The Genesis Flood, pp. 258-281.


87

we see apparent contradictions, we should study the Bible again, and check our scientific research, seeking harmony. It is possible that we might never find the final answer, and some biblical data such as dates and numbers may seem imprecise to our contemporary mind, but we must believe that there were no errors in the original inspired documents. There is harmony between God’s revelation in nature and God’s revelation in the Scriptures. D. Mathematics Supposedly mathematics is a “neutral” field of thought, and that there is no difference between the Christian view and an atheistic view. This is exactly the reason we should include a few brief comments about this “exact” science. If we can see that even mathematics should be studied with Christian eyeglasses, we will be convinced that EVERYTHING should be analyzed from a biblical basis. Vern Poythress presents us with a “Biblical View of Mathematics.” 90 As mentioned previously in chapter two, Dr. Poythress is a good authority in this field, since he has doctorates in both math and theology. He explains some examples of how philosophical presuppositions influence in mathematics. There are “intuitionist” mathematicians (L.E.J. Brouwer and Arend Heyting) that do not accept arguments by reductio ad absurdum (proving something by showing that its denial produces a contradiction). For example, let’s look at the supposition that there is only one straight line between two points. The intuitionists say that we cannot be sure of this, since it can only be proven by reductio ad adsurdum.

Something as important as π (pi), used for example to calculate the area of a

circle (A = π r2), is a controversial subject. Since it is an infinite number, some question the validity of its existince. On the other hand, Christians say that God

knows the true value of π, and therefore we can speak legitimitely of its existence. A person who believes that the world was formed by chance and disorder (evolution) would have problems explaining why the world corresponds so well with mathematics. However, the Christian knows that the world was made in an orderly fashion by God. The intelligent design includes physical laws that are in harmony with the logic of mathematics. Poythress proposes several Christian presuppositions for doing mathematics:

1) All knowledge comes from the mind of God. 2) There is unity and plurality in the universe. This has its origin and its

explanation in the Triune God, who is three in one. 3) God knows everything, and therefore we can talk about things such as

infinity and π. 4) Man is the image of God. He has the capacity of a priori mathematic

thought, as well as the capacity to examine the world a posteriori. 5) God made everything with order. Mathematical structures are not part of

the creation, but they reflect the nature of God in the creation.

90

Foundations of Christian Scholarship, pp. 159-190.


88

D. Jesus and science.

It is difficult to think of Bible passages where Jesus says something specifically about science as we understand it today. Nevertheless, we should not forget that Jesus participated in the miracle of creation (Hebrews 1:2), and that He is “…the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.” (Hebrews 1:3a). This means that all of creation reflects His nature. We cannot clearly understand the gospel from creation alone, but it contains symbols and hints of the gospel. Jesus illustrated many spiritual truths with objects of nature, such as seeds, trees, vines, wheat, flowers, and birds. It is important to recognize that Jesus also showed that the universe is not “closed,” as some philosophers would have us believe. In fact, His very incarnation was a way of breaking the normal laws of the natural world. Each miracle that He performed shows that He is sovereign, and that He is above the normal functions of creation. He can break the patterns that He Himself established whenever He wants. In fact, nature depends on Him in every moment. As it says in Hebrews 1:3, He “upholds all things by the Word of His power.” We should reconquer science for Christ. We have given this terrain over to the non believers, and we have naively accepted their pretension of objectivity and neutrality. Nevertheless, they are far from “objective.” Science should return to being an ally of Christianity. The wise men who went to see the baby Jesus were probably religious men who studied astrology. The fact that they came from foreign lands to worship Jesus symbolizes the proper posture of all science: prostrated before Jesus. Review Questions

1. What is the cause of the conflict between science and Christianity in the last centuries?

2. Why is it that much scientific activity is valid and beneficial for all of humanity? 3. Explain the distinction that Kant makes between the «noumenon» and the “phenomenona”. 4. What is the fundamental problem of the modern view of science, according to H. van Riessen? 5. What does Van Til mean when he says there are no “brute facts”? 6. Explain the importance of the lack of transitional forms in our consideration of the theory of evolution. 7. Explain the three possible ways to harmonize the biblical account of creation with the apparent age of the earth. 8. Explain the concept of “irreducible complexity” and its importance in considering the theory of the “creation of a mature earth.”


89

9. What should we do when there are apparent conflicts between science and the Bible? 10. Why do “intuitionist” mathematicians say that we cannot confirm with certainty that there is only one straight line between two points and that we

cannot speak of the validity of the value of “π”? 11. Why does all nature teach us something of Jesus? 12. What is the symbolism in the fact that the wise men went to worship Jesus?

Questions for reflection

1. What should our attitude be toward science? 2. What is your theory about harmonizing the biblical account of creation with

the apparent old age of the earth? 3. Do you believe that there is much difference between the way in which a

Christian does mathematics and the way in which a non Christian does it? Why or why not?

4. Can you think of other biblical teachings about Jesus’ relation to science?


90

CHAPTER 8 A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF ART Some Evangelicals look down on art as something insignificant or unneccesary. But art is one of the most important aspects of a Christian Worldview. In fact, Christians should be more interested in art than anybody! Why? Because, as we analyze art, we can detect the philosophical, psychological, and spiritual condition of society. Since artists tend to be sensitive and spiritually profound, the frequently understand problems more intuitively, and they express their concerns in their art. Painters, sculptors, musicians, and writers are like cultural prophets. Furthermore, when a Christian produces art, he or she is reflecting the image of God. To underestimate the importance of art is to minimize the importance of man’s creativity. In spite of the general apathy among Evangelicals, there are writers such as Francis Schaeffer, H. R. Rookmaaker, and Dorothy Sayers, who have given us some guidelines for developing a Christian perspective of art. I. Perspectives of Some Christian Authors A. Francis Schaeffer Schaeffer, although he was not an artist himself, did much to renew interest in art among Evangelicals. In Art and the Bible,91 he highlighted the fact that Christ redeemed the whole man and that Christ is the Lord of every aspect of life. He shows that art had a place in the Bible, for example in the construction of the tabernacle (Exodus 25-28) and the temple (2 Chronicles 3-4). The Bible contains beautiful poetry and lovely songs. The Psalms encourage us to glorify God with dance and with musical instruments (Psalms 149 and 150). Schaeffer insists that art has value in itself, just for its own beauty, and not necessarily for its “usefulness.” He challenges us to make a work of art out of our own lives. He recommends four guidelines for evaluating art. a. Technical excellence. (Is it done well?) b. Validity (Was it done in harmony with the world view of the artist?) c. Intellectual content. (Is its message or world view true?) d. Integrity (Are the content and form of communication in harmony?) B. H.R. Rookmaaker Rookmaaker was an art professor, and made a valuable contribution to a Christian perspective of art. In his fascinating book, Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, 92 he analyzes the message of many works of art, from the Middle

91

Francis Schaeffer, Art and the Bible (Downers Grove, Illinois: InverVarsity Press, 1973), pp. 7-8. 92 H.R. Rookmaaker, Modern Art and the Death of a Culture (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970).


91

Ages to the twentieth century. He wants to show that modern art communicates the end of an age, and age when man trusted reason and the truth. The age of the Enlightenment emphasized man as the center of the universe, trusting reason and science. The Catholic school of thought left faith in a world separated from reason (Aquinus), and the Reformation fell into mysticism, leaving humanism as the dominant factor in culture. The first step toward modern art was realism. The realists painted the objective “facts” (Goya). The second step toward modern art was impressionism. They painted what they perceived, but instead of painting it as objective facts, they represented their own subjective impressions (Renoir). The last steps of modern art were expressionism and the dada movement. The expressionists painted, not the facts, nor their impressions of what they observed, but what they wanted to express (Picasso). According to the dada movement, life has no meaning. They laugh at everything of value. To find a name for the movement, they opened a French dictionary randomly to any page and pointed to any word. (The French word means “rocking horse.”) In the twentieth century, culture dies. Karel Appel says, “I don’t paint. I hit. Painting is destruction.” Francis Bacon paints the head of a man screaming from inside a box, and writes, “Now…man is conscious of the fact that he is an accident, that he is completely useless, and that he must finish the game with no reason.” 93 In his book, Art Needs no Justification,94 Rookmaaker explains that art has useful functions, but that is not what gives value to it. Art has its own value because of its beauty. He gives an illustration of a tree, which has many useful purposes: it produces shade, oxygen, and wood, for example. But its major importance is in being part of the creation. The same is true for man; our value is not in what we accomplish, but in being creatures of God. If a preacher loses his voice, he does not stop being an important person. God gave humanity the capacity to do many beautiful things, such as music, poetry, decorations, and sculptures. The simple fact of using these capacities already pleases God, because it is a way of giving back a gift to God. Therefore, art needs no justification. Its justification is in using a capacity given to us by God. Of course art does have many practical uses, such as decorating a home, but these uses are not necessary to make art legitimate. Art has its own value and should be appreciated simply as beauty. C. Dorothy Sayers In The Whimsical Christian, Sayers writes a chapter about “Toward a Christian Aesthetic.” She says that a work of art is something new, not just a copy. It is a “creation,” using materials that God already created, but applying personal creativity, which is part of the image of God in man. Just as God made man in His image, man also makes art in his “image.” That is, the art reflects something of the artist and his character. It is not that the poet says, “Oh, how beautiful the moon is! I’ll try to find words to express what people should think of the moon!” Rather the writer finds himself saying words in his head and when he writes them

93

Rookmaaker, p. 174. 94

Rookmaaker, Art Needs No Justification (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1978.)


92

down and reads them, he says to himself, “That’s it! That is what the experience of seeing the moon was for me! Now I recognize it and know what it was!” It involves his experience, his expression of the experience, and the recognition of the validity of that expression. Art contains something of what the artist perceives, but it also contains something of himself. Sayers argues that “art” that is only made to entertain is not really art, but a falsification. There is no problem with doing something once in a while to entertain, but it should not replace true art, because it leads the spectator to lose contact with reality.95 II. Contemporary Music96 In 1994, Walt Mueller analyzed the styles of music that represented the youth, and said that it was a “window to the soul of our children.” It is important to know them in order to understand the world in which we live. His list of musicians of course needs to be updated, because taste in music changes incredibly fast. Nevertheless, we have selected some examples from his list that still sell CDs and are still popular today. Furthermore, his explanations of the styles are still valid today. Alternative Music This music is progressive, modern, and hard to understand. It tries to be sincere, and does not follow the formulas of popular music. It is electric and irrational. The words are introspective, abstract, poetic, and cryptic. This style includes other sub categories such as gothic (sad sounds, words without hope), grunge (hard bass sounds, percussion, hostile words, rebellious), and rave, or tecno (computerized music, repetitive, fast, designed for rave parties in which they employ light effects and often use drugs.) Examples that are still popular: U2, Nine Inch Nails, R.E.M., Red Hot Chili Peppers, Counting Crows, Beck, The Cranberries, Tori Amos, and Bjork. Rap This style began in 1976 among the black disc jockyes in the New York clubs. They insert their own comments while changing quickly from one song to another. The emphasis is on the spoken word, and on the percussion. Sometimes their messages are against racism or other social ills, but the content is usually dominated by topics of sex and violence. Their distinct vocabulary has changed the language of youth, and their loose clothing has determined the popular style of youth. Examples: L.L. Cool J, Beastie Boys, Ice Cube, Queen Latifah, Run-D.M.C., Hammer, TLC, Salt’N’Pepa, Snoop Doggy Dogg, and Dr. Dre. 95

Dorothy Sayers, The Whimsical Christian; 18 essays (New York: Collier, 1978). Also published by the title, Christian Letters to a Post-Christian World (New York: Collier, 1987). 96

This section and the following section have been adapted from an article written by the author, “Art in the Postmodern Age,” which was added as an appendix to a Spanish edition of Rookmaaker’s book, Modern Art and the Death of a Culture (El arte moderno y la muerte de una cultura, versión CLIE/Logoi, 2003.)


93

Heavy Metal This style is characterized by hard continuous beats on the bass drum, heavy bass guitar, and shouting. The main guitar also gives the impression of screaming. The emphasis is on power, and it is often composed by young people who have lived in very frustrating situations. It is often rebellious, hostile, morally promiscuous, and in some cases Satanic (black metal). Examples: Bon Jovi, Aerosmith, KISS, Ozzy Osbourne, AC/DC, Metallica. Rock Although there are not so many new groups in this syle, there are still many followers today who prefer the “live” sound without articifial computerized music. This style represents the generation of the sixties, who rebelled against consumerism, againts the government, and against the traditional church. It is no longer the most popular style, but it still attracts many who are reflecting on the current social issues. Examples: Black Crowes, The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, Bruce Springsteen, Lenny Kravitz, and Led Zeppelin. Pop/Dance This music is simple,with a pulstating rythm, made for dancing. It includes electronic music, and the songs are easy to learn. The topics of the lyrics are usually romantic. Examples: Madonna, Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey, Gloria Estefan, Amy Grant, Sade, and Mary J. Blige. 97 I would say that the postmodern mentality is especially manifested in the lyrics of alternative music and heavy metal. For example, look at the words to the following song “Plain” by a group called “311.” The phrase “tabla rosa” makes reference to the empiricist philosophical idea that our mind is a blank slate, with nothing written on it. Yin and Yang are religious terms in Chinese religion, referring to good and evil, which according to them are only apparently opposites, but in reality they are one and the same.

... Tabla Rosa is my brain don’t have to guess just what I’m sayin’ don’t mean to bug or drive you insane if I had a point I’d say it plain oh, dammit my brain is blank and now I say

97

Walter Mueller, Understanding Today’s Youth Culture (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale, 1994), pp. 101-122.


94

it would be a lie if I said I was inspired by nothin’ to say but that’s ok nod your head to this ... Don’t you know the devil is in me and God she is too my Yin hits my Yang But what the heck ya gonna do I choose a rocky ass path but that’s how I like it life’s a bowl of punch go ahead and spike it 98

If there are no absolutes, you cannot distinguish between good and evil, not even between God and the Devil! It is difficult to catch the lyrics of some of the songs, and even when you know what they are saying, sometimes it still doesn’t make sense! Frequently the phrases seem to have meaning, but the song as a whole is incoherent. For example, look at the words to a popular song “Toxicity” by a group called System of a Down:

Conversion, software version 7.0 looking at life through the eyes of a tire hub eating seeds as a pastime activity the toxicity of our city, of our city You, what do you own the world? how do you own disorder, disorder Now, somewhere between the sacred silence Sacred silence and sleep somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep disorder, disorder, disorder... 99

I suppose they wanted to communicate the idea that life is disorder, and therefore the lyrics of the song are also disorderly. I wouldn’t want to give the impression that all contemporary music is like these songs. In fact, the majority of songs that we hear on the radio are fairly simple romantic songs. I am highlighting these unusual songs exactly because they are new and different. They can give us an idea of the condition of our society. It’s like our physical health; the doctor watches especially any changes that might indicate our physical condition.

98

311, «Plain (2:55)», Sitio de Internet: http://www.najical.com/311/03ahydro.htm 99

System of a Down, «Toxicity», http://www.lyricsdownload.com/download/s/system-of-a-down/Lyrics%20-%2041.htm


95

III. Our Attitude Toward Art I believe we should use discernment, but that we should develop a more positive attitude toward art in general. There is a tremendous plurality of styles and expressions, and we should recognize that many of them reflect true concepts and beautiful styles. We should remember that God gives His universal grace, His common grace, to all people, and that every human being carries the image of God. William D. Romanowski proposes a more open attitude in his analysis of popular culture.100 He considers that artistic creativity is a gift of God, and quotes John Calvin in his commentary on Genesis.

The invention of the arts, and other things which serve the commoun use and convenience of life, is a gift of God by no means to be despised, and a faculty worthy of commendation.101

Romanowski finds themes, especially in music and movies, that clearly reflect aspects of Christian doctrine. For example, he says that Bruce Springsteen sings about sin, about temptation, forgiveness, death, and hope, among other things. Without suggesting anything regarding the true spiritual condition of the singer, he says that the presence of these concepts in his songs is due to his catholic upbringing. We should recognize that many movies, television programs, and songs show something of the presence of the supernatural, although it is often not a biblical perspective (for example, in the Indiana Jones movies, in science fiction movies like Star Wars, and in the television program Touched by an Angel). It is not difficult to think of movies based on the struggle between good and evil; The Gladiator, and Schindlers’s List, for example, awaken the instinctive rejection of injustice and cruelty.102 Without trying to impose a Christian interpretation where this was not the intention of the producers, the movie Matrix clearly illustrates the theme of redemption, including a substitutionary death and a resurrection. At the end of the film, the protagonist gives his life for the others, is resurrected, and destroys the enemy, making use of his new powers. Since Jesus Christ is the greatest hero of all time, it should not surprise us when producers consciously or unconsciously create their heroes to reflect some of His characteristics. Christian themes appear in secular art because the grace of God reaches all. God has revealed something of His truth to everyone, and even if they try to suppress it, it still manifests itself. According to Romans, chapters one to three,

100

William D. Romanowski, Eyes Wide Open; Looking for God in Popular Culture (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press/Baker, 2001). 101

John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, quoted in Romanowski, Eyes Wide Open, p. 55. 102

Romanowski, Eyes Wide Open, pp. 90-120.


96

all people know that God exists, they have a sense of right and wrong, and they have a sense of guilt. Man cannot totally erase these concepts from their hearts, because they have been engraved there by their creator. These three aspects alone are sufficient to make hundreds of of movies and compose thousands of songs. Of course not all art reflects Christian themes. However, even then we can learn something from it. If nothing else, we can see the results of sin, the spiritual emptiness and the need for God. We need to listen to the insecurity and the despair, in order to learn to show compassion and share the gospel with them. For example, we can capture the profound sadness in the paintings of Frida Kahlo from Mexico. She suffered an accident when she was young, and lived constantly with pain. But the greater suffering was sentimental, in her relationship with Diego Rivera, a famous painter of murals. According to her, her marriage was her “second accident,” worse than the bus accident. She painted self-portraits with a sad face, with nails in her head, with tears, sometimes with a heart bleeding on her dress.103 Art is often an x-ray of the artist himself and of the current situation. According to Francis Schaeffer, art is the “second step” in the line of cultural influence, just after philosophy. But he suggests that art touches more people than philosophy. Music and general culture follow after art.104 In summary, our attitude toward secular art becomes more positive when we look for the evidence of the grace of God in it, and when we become more interested in the world around us. We no longer have to condemn everything we see, but rather we can evaluate the good and the bad. We can learn much from artists, because they are profoundly sensitive people. We can’t be naïve, calling any song that mentions God “Christian” (as some did with the Beattles son “My Sweet Lord,” which was actually dedicated to Hare Krishna.) Neither should we expose ourselves to many of the inappropriate things shown to the public today. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:23, “All things are lawful, but not all things edify.” But we shouldn’t lose the opportunity to learn something from art, seeking residues of truth. We should be like the old gold miners, looking for nuggets of gold in the mud. IV. Jesus and Art Although the Bible says little about the youth of Jesus, we can imagine that he probably learned to be a carpinter from his earthly father, Joseph. If that is the case, we can also suppose that he was an excellent artist. We can also assume

103

Phyllis Tuchman, “Frida Kahlo,” Smythsonian, vol. 33, number 8, November, 2002, pp. 51-56. 104

Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1998), p. 46.


97

that he enjoyed singing praise songs in the synagogue. His form of expression was really poetic. Furthermore, we must remember that the creation was His work of art. We should follow their example and develop our artistic abilities. We can all develop hobbies, learn to play guitar or piano, to sing, or to paint. The housewife can use her house to express her talents, and she can use her creativity in the preparation of food and in arranging the table. There are many jobs that are worthy of being called artwork, such as jewelry, carpentry, architecture, and design. Every time we do something creative, we are reflecting the image of God of of Jesus. Finally, when we open the book of Revelation, we see an abundance of art, all centered on Jesus. The book itself is full of artistic symbolism. There are songs, trumpets, fine clothes, and banquets. There is a new heaven and a new earth, a new Jerusalem with streets of gold, the tree of life, and flowing streams. The new creation will be a marvelous work of art, beyond our imagination! Review Questions

1. Why should a Christian be more interested in art than anybody? 2. What is the perspective of Francis Schaeffer regarding the value of art? 3. Mention four guidelines of Schaeffer for evaluating a work of art. 4. What does Rookmaaker want to show in his book, Modern Art and the Death of a Culture? 5. What is the philosophy behind the Dada movement? 6. What is Dorothy Sayers’ opinion about “art” which only entertains? 7. Mention five styles of contemporary music identified by Walt Mueller. 8. In which styles of music do the words especially manifest a postmodern mentality, according to the author? 9. What should our attitude be toward art, according to the author? 10. Mention some Christian themes that are often found even in non Christian music and movies. 11. Why do Christian themes often appear in secular art? 12. Where does Francis Schaeffer put art in his line of cultural influence? 13. In what sense should be like gold miners when we analyze art? 14. In what different ways was Jesus a great artist?

Questions for reflection

1. What has been your attitude toward art? Has this chapter changed your thinking in any way? How?

2. What is your opinion of the new styles of music? What do you think about the words of the songs?

3. What Christian themes, besides the ones mentioned in the chapter, have you found in contemporary music and movies?

4. In what ways does Jesus inspire you to develop your artistic abilities? 5. How can you make your life a “work of art”?


98

Conclusion I do not pretend to have definitive answers or complete answers for such complex subjects as politics, economics, science and art. I only want to give some guidelines, and share some thoughts of other Christians, in order to encourage the reader to continue developing a Christian Worldview. Nobody has complete intellectual integrity in this life. However, we cannot go to the extreme of some authors cited in this book, who deny the possibility of knowing the truth. We can identify with Tolstoy when he says,

If I know the way home and am walking along it drunkenly, is it any less the right way because I am staggering from side to side? 105

Even though we may stumble, we can be assured that we are on the right road, because Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life.”

105

Leon Tolstoy, personal letter, quoted by Philip Yancey in Soul Survivor, p. 130.


99

Bibliography

Blamires, Harry, The Christian Mind; How Should a Christian Think? Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Books, 1963. Blomberg, Craig. Neither Poverty Nor Riches. Downers Grove: IVP, 1999. Briner, Bob, Roaring Lambs; A Gentle Plan to Radically Change Your World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Colson, Charles, and Pearcey, Nancy, How Now Shall We Live? Wheaton: Tyndale, 1999. Frame, John. See the following site for the articles listed below, and others: http://www.frame-poythress.org/

“Cloning” “Homelessness” “Is Intelligent Design Science?” “Meanings of Racism” “Polygamy”

Gish, Duane. Evolution; the Fossils Still Say No! Master Books, reprinting of 1985 edition. Groothuis, Truth Decay; Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism. Downers Grove: IVP, 2000. Hoffecker, W. Andrew, ed., Building a Christian World View. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1986. MacArthur, John, Think Biblically; Discovering a Christian Worldview (Wheaton, Ilinois: Crossway, 2003). Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Culture. http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/jgmculture.htm Middleman, Udo, “Creativity and the Value of Work.” http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/udo_middelman/udo_middelman.work.html

Moreland, J.P., and Reynolds, John Mark, eds., Three Views on Creation and Evolution. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999. Morris, Henry, Science and the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.


100

Myers, Kenneth A., All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes; Christians and Popular Culture. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 1989. Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: HarperCollins, 2001. Originally published in 1951. Novak, Michael. The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982. Poythress, Verne. See the following site for the articles listed below, and others: http://www.frame-poythress.org/

“Redeeming Physics” “A Biblical View of Mathematics” “Creation and Mathematics; What Does God Have to do with Numbers?”

Romanowski, William D. Eyes Wide Open; Looking for God in Popular Culture. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2001. Rookmaaker, H.R. Modern Art and the Death of a Culture. Wheaton: Crossway, 1994. Originally published in 1970. Schaeffer, Francis. The God Who is There. Downers Grove: IVP, 1998. Originally published in 1968. ______________, Art and the Bible. Downers Grove: IVP, 1973. Sire, James, The Universe Next Door; A Basic Worldview Catalog. Downers Grove: IVP, 1997.

Whitcomb, John C., and Morris, Henry, The Genesis Flood; the Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961.

intellectual integrity - remote-learner · harry blamires argues that there is no longer a...

Documents