WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE LOSE INTEREST IN TRUTH AND THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW?

What happens when Christians embrace Christ as Someone who has changed their lives and has bestowed on them many benefits, while there is little consideration of Christianity as the Truth? In his essay, “Why Christianity Lost America,” Indian scholar turned Christian, Vishal Mangalwadi, asks:

• Why did Christianity lose the power that gave it influence over education and economy, government and law, press and entertainment? How can the Church recover the power to prevail over the forces of evil?

He explains that today’s Christianity is not the vibrant Christianity of the recent past. Today’s version has separated truth from faith, leaving Christianity unbalanced – a plane with one wing, trying to fly with only feelings, mystical experiences, and a private and personalized faith, separated from its Biblical and defensible truth-claims:

• Christianity lost America because 20th-century evangelicalism branded itself as the party of faith. By default Secularism (science, university, media) became the party of truth. This is one reason why 70% Christian youth give up meaningful involvement with the church when they grow up. http://www.revelationmovement.com/instructors/blog_post/38

Magalwadi observes that many of today’s Christians believe in a Christianity that has little to do with truth and facts and everything to do with internal experience. This imbalance has proved disastrous for Christianity. Mangalwadi cites several examples:

• In November 2011, I met an American missionary who has served in Guatemala for 36 years. He described a recent (unpublished) doctoral study examining Protestantism in one part of Guatemala. The Hispanic scholar had hoped to substantiate Max Weber’s thesis on the connection between Protestantism and economic development. The data, however, drove him to conclude that the gospel taught by present-day American missions makes no perceptible difference to the economic life of the believing communities.

What a contrast with what Christianity had been historically. One example of the vibrancy of the Christian faith is found in its establishment of universities. Sociologist Alvin Schmidt writes:

• Given the powerful influence that secularism now has on most Americans, they are probably not aware that “every collegiate institution founded in the colonies prior to the Revolutionary War – except the University of Pennsylvania – was established by some branch of the Christian church.” Nor are most Americans aware that in 1932, when Donald Tewksbury published The Founding of American Colleges and Universities before the Civil War, 92 percent of the 182 colleges and universities were founded by Christian denominations. (How Christianity Changed the Word, 190)

This should not surprise us. The Bible’s teachings unequivocally testify that the faith rests upon the undeniable truths of God (Deut. 4:34-37) – what He revealed and accomplished historically. God never asked Israel to just believe, but rather to believe by virtue of the evidences. For example, when Moses asked God for evidences that He could take to the Israelites to prove that God had appeared to him, God didn’t say, “Well, just tell those Israelites to believe!” Instead, He consistently provided the necessary proofs:

• Then Moses answered and said, "But suppose they will not believe me or listen to my voice; suppose they say, 'The Lord has not appeared to you.' "So the Lord said to him, "What is that in your hand?" He said, "A rod." And He said, "Cast it on the ground." So he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it. Then the Lord said to Moses, "Reach out your hand and take it by the tail" (and he reached out his hand and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand), "that they may believe that the Lord God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you." (Exodus 4:1-5)

Likewise, Jesus never instructed His followers to believe without reasons to believe. Instead, He provided evidences through his miracles and prophecies:

• He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:3)

• "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. (John 14:28-29)

The Biblical faith embodies verifiable truths (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Tim 2:25; Titus 1:1). Mangalwadi contrasts this with other religions:

• Hinduism, like Greco-Roman religions, is based (self-consciously) on myths.

• The Buddha rejected Hinduism’s mythical gods and goddesses in favor of mystical (non-rational) Silence.

• Islam has words that are believed to be true. These words were uttered in a state of non-rational trance, called “prophecy.” Islam, therefore, rests on private, non-verifiable communications of an individual. Sometimes Mohammed went into “prophetic” trance in public, but no one saw or heard angel Gabriel talking to him. The power of his utterances rested on the sword, not on evidence. When his words about the past (e.g., stories from Old and New Testament times) contradicted documented history, his followers had to assume that contradictions mean that texts have been corrupted. Non-verifiable trance communications overrode documented history.

Sadly, Christianity has been going the way of the other religions. In the face of secular attacks upon the truth-claims of Christianity, Christianity has retreated into a cocoon of private faith experiences. We have defensively responded, “Well, I just know what I’ve experienced, and no one can tell me any differently.”

This response hasn’t proved adequate. Against the weight of the claims of the modern university, Christianity has retreated and compromised. It has surrendered the life of the mind for the life of internal experiences. Mangalwadi explains:

• The church created the university to train godly leaders who will look at all of reality through the light of the Truth (revealed by God’s works and words). Fundamentalism insulated Bible Institutes from other departments to study the Bible alone. It gave up the mission to seek public truth in favor of cultivating private spiritual lives. Once the Bible was put into the silo of Bible Institutes, the Bible teachers were isolated from the public life of the mind.  Preachers memorized the Bible but by and large they did not learn how to meditate upon God’s word in a way to shine its light on all of life.

We have compromised in many ways. We have put the claims of the Bible on the bench in favor of charismatic pastors who have promised experiences if we would only turn off our minds and our insistence to check everything out according to Scripture.

We have embraced a neo-orthodox “Christianity” that tried to salvage the Christian basics by insisting that the Bible really isn’t about what it clearly teaches. Instead, it is a tool to bring us magically into a saving relationship with Christ apart from its verifiable truth claims – claims that the university rejects.

We have embraced theistic evolution (TE) in a vain attempt to make friends with the university. This worldview attempts to make peace by claiming that the Bible isn’t about the physical world – science, history, geography – but about the spiritual. Hence, no conflict between science and Christianity! However, in making this compromise, TE has separated Christianity from all of its supporting evidences – objective evidences that cannot be found outside of this physical world. This is because proof starts with what we know and can agree about. Once this is established, it proceeds to the areas of disagreement – the spiritual claims. However, once the Church abandons the physical world, it no longer has an objective basis to prove its case.

We have embraced “Christian” mysticism and Postmodern “Christianity.” These have, in various ways, demeaned doctrine and apologetics in favor of experience, dogmatically claiming that we can’t really know with any degree of certainty, that “doctrine divides,” and what really matters is a direct experience of God, apart from what we Biblically understand about Him.

Consequently, “the church reads the Bible mainly for private “edification.” Corporately, the Kingdom of Christ has ceased being the city on a hill.” Indeed, we can’t be the light if we believe that biblical truth-claims aren’t verifiable.

In contrast to this, it had been the light of the Bible that had provided the impetus to shed its light upon creation and to master it. Schmidt concludes:

• Modern science is an outgrowth of Christian theology of the Middle Ages. It proceeded to show that it was Christianity’s values that provided the necessary Weltanshauung [worldview] and motivation to encourage many of its educated adherents to study the world of nature…The public are unaware that virtually all scientists from the Middle Ages to the mid-eighteenth century – many of which were seminal thinkers – not only were sincere Christians but were often inspired by biblical postulates and premises in their theories… [they] knew and believed the words of the biblical writer: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1). (How Christianity Changed the World, 243-44).

What then is the answer for us today? To return with courage to the basics! Jesus instructed us to:

• " Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37)

When we leave out truth and the cultivation of the mind, we fail to live faithfully to the teachings of Scripture. Instead, we live defensively, fearful that we will be confronted with questions and challenges that we cannot answer. We therefore practice avoidance. Instead of being a light on a hill, we remain in the shadow of the “light” shed by the prevailing culture.

Once we lose confidence in the Light/Truth of Christ, we become indistinguishable from the world. We no longer have the conviction to live according to the teachings of the Bible. Somehow, the Bible begins to seem judgmental. It is then inevitable that our affections will become set on the things of this world (1 John 2:15-16; James 4:4).

DO WE REALLY NEED THEISTIC PROOFS?

This question is highly relevant. This is because many churches teach that the mind and the fruits of mental inquiry simply get in the way of what we are called upon to do – to believe and to have faith. They reason that the more we depend upon reason, the less we depend upon faith, the mainstay of the Christian life.

However, this didn’t seem to reflect the Gospel Jesus taught. Instead, He discouraged blind faith:

·       “If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (John 10:37-38; 5:31-38)

Jesus never hinted that we should quiet our mind, but rather use our mind in to serve the Lord:

·       And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. (Matthew 22:37-38)

Using our minds for godly service is part of the greatest commandment! However, our minds must first be convinced that the risen Christ is the truth. This was Jesus’ strategy when He encountered His two disheartened disciples on the Emmaus Road, who sadly confessed:

·       But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. (Luke 24:21)

Jesus then sought to fill their minds with confidence in the truth, the very thing that they required:

·       And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27)

First, they had to be humbled and shown that they had been taken captive by discouragement because they were not abiding in the Word. Then, He would provide them with tangible evidence – Himself.

·       And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. (Luke 24:31)

The assured knowledge of the truth energized these two disciples to immediately return to Jerusalem where they found the others. This illustrates the fact that we too need evidential reassurance.

After this, Jesus then appeared to His other disciples who were hiding in fear.

Let me now try to anticipate your challenge:

·       Jesus was able to provide the best proofs of all – miracles. We are not. Instead, theistic proofs can only provide us with a probability of the truths of God and not the assurance that we are to have.

This, of course, is true. The proofs that I will be presenting may not be able to do much more than show that Christianity is probably true or that it is superior to other worldviews. However, I think that this is very important. These proofs and apologetics, in general, serve as a protective shield surrounding the inner core of our faith. Without this defensive shield, we are defenseless to protect our assurance against the many arrows of doubt and uncertainty.

While many tell me, “I just know what I believe and nothing will change that,” I am troubled by this answer. It seems to suggest that they are able to stand without the full armor that our Lord is requiring us to wear. Instead, this answer seems to smack of self-trust. In contrast, Paul warned:

·       Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12)

He had directed this teaching against those who thought they didn’t need to learn from the Israelite failures, convinced that Israel’s sins couldn’t overtake them.

However, is weighing evidences and proofs part of the full armor that God has prescribed for us? Is apologetics and the arguments for the Christian worldview part of the “belt of truth” or the “shield of faith” (Ephesians 6:15-16)?

Some would argue that it is enough just to know the Gospel and not the challenges that come against it. However, this does not seem to be the Scriptural message. Instead, we find admonitions to be knowledgable of false teachings:

• "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

• Then He charged them, saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod." (Mark 8:15)

• Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. (Col. 2:8)

• Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

However, it is not enough to be knowledgeable about the viper’s venom after we have been bitten. We also have to understand it well enough to apply the right antidote. Likewise, it is not enough to simply avoid false teachings. Instead, we are to proactively engage them – any arguments that challenge the “knowledge of God,” in order to bring these challenges into conformity with Scripture:

·       For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of 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. (Cor. 10:4-5)

For example, we are told that God doesn’t exist, and that we believe in an unnecessary and unsupportable myth, now made irrelevant by science, which is able to provide the answers that religion had once provided.

The above verses inform us that it is our duty to engage these arguments. Even if we don’t feel threatened by them, our children will feel threatened and will demand answers. When the church is unable to provide them, our children will conclude that there are no answers and that the atheists are correct and go elsewhere.

Even I need to reassure myself in times of doubt and spiritual attack that I am going in the right direction. Theistic proofs, although they are unable to conclude the deal, have reassured me that my beliefs and experiences are valid.

The limitations of these kinds of proofs should not discourage us. All proofs are limited. When I am dialoguing with an atheist who will not listen to any of the evidences that I provide, I simply turn the tables on him:

·       I would be glad to give you many proofs for the existence of God. However, since I don’t talk to machines and computers, first simply prove that you exist, and then I will tell you everything you want to know.

The thoughtful atheist will soon realize that he is unable to prove that he exists and, therefore, he is being unreasonable to demand that I prove God exists. However, this doesn’t mean that he will admit this to me. (Interestingly, many atheists believe that they are little more than wet machines, denying that we even have freewill. Sometimes, I chide them by saying, “I don’t talk to wet machines.”)

I don’t think that any of us are above doubting. John the Baptist, while in jail, began to doubt that Jesus was who even John had acknowledged Him to be – “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

He therefore sent his disciples to Jesus to conform if He really is the promised Messiah. Jesus didn’t answer these seekers, as many might today, with, “Just tell John to believe.” Instead, He provided them with evidential proof for the struggling prophet:

·       And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. (Matthew 11:4-5)

We must be prepared to do the same, just as we have been instructed:

·       Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)

To ignore such teachings is to refuse the provisions of God at our own expense.

Invented Moralities: Their Inevitable Fate

The way we believe determines the way we will eventually live. If we believe that morality is merely something we invent, we will invent or delete convictions as we are confronted by new desires and pressures. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, asked this critical question of the famous evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, in a Times Magazine debate (11/13/06, p. 55.):

·        “Do humans have a different moral significance than cows in general.”

To this, Dawkins responded, “Humans have more moral responsibility perhaps, because they are capable of reasoning.” However, prior to this, Dawkins claimed, “I don’t believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil.”

But how then can any human be held responsible, even if we do have more intelligence than cows? It’s like reasoning about the relative merits of the good-tooth-fairy vs. the indomitable-snowman. If they don’t exist, there’s nothing to reason about. If “good” and “evil” are not “hanging out there,” then “moral responsibility” can be no more than a passing fad or an electro-chemical impulse.

It’s like indicting someone for breaking a law that doesn’t exist! If there isn’t an objective and unchanging moral principle to break, then it is not objectively possible to hold anyone to account, no matter how aware or intelligent she might be.

However, society will not survive for long in such a moral vacuum. I remember reading that the existentialist Albert Camus concluded that “a man without morals is a beast.” And he will also act like a beast if that’s all he thinks he is. Therefore, if morals don’t ontologically exist, then we have to invent them.

Therefore, in The Selfish Gene, Dawkims becomes the inventor:

• Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.

But will moral invention sustain society without an adequate rational basis? Truly society needs generosity and altruism so it doesn’t unravel, but ultimately, if it’s all about human selfishness without moral absolutes, why shouldn’t it unravel? Why “teach generosity and altruism?” If we’re selfish to the core, then why not be true to that core and live it out?

Ultimately, secularism cannot answer these questions. What makes us any more valuable than the bovine? Why should our admittedly selfish concerns trump their concern for their own skins? And what if we’re more intelligent than cows? Does a higher IQ make us more valuable? If there is no God who created us in His image, then “value” is nothing more than a transient feeling, a social construct or a chauvinistic bias.  

Why not instead live according to the “survival of the fittest,” as past evolutionists candidly proclaimed? Historian Richard Weikart cites German pathologist Hugo Ribbert as a representative spokesman for the evolutionists of his day - the beginning of the 20^th century:

• The care for individuals who from birth onwards are useless both mentally and physically, who for themselves and their fellow creatures are a burden merely, persons of negative value, is a function altogether useless to humanity, and indeed positively injurious. 

According to this construct, some humans are winners, while some are losers, and your neighbors and your friendly family physician will ultimately decide this for you. There is nothing that can rule out eugenics in a world that deems some as “useless.” What happens to those who fail the IQ or popularity test? What reasoning can be brought against Ribbert’s assertion that those who society deems “useless” are not entitled to care? None!

What then of our cherished “Bill of Rights?” Why should it pertain equally to everyone, whether useful or useless? If we follow the logic of Dawkins and Hibbert, it shouldn’t! What then will be the fate of the vulnerable members of our society? Should we even care?

There can be little doubt about the answer to these questions. National Socialism and Atheistic Communism have given us compelling testimony to this fact - that whenever our God is replaced by an “ism,” humanity, stripped naked of His protective, value-imparting image (Genesis 1:26), becomes an object to be manipulated or even exterminated by the overriding interests of the “ism.”

When moral absolutes are eliminated, we eventually become mere objects to serve the corporate “good.”  Colson and Pearcey, How Shall We Now Live?, write about the demise of the Christian worldview:

• Denial of sin may appear to be a benign and comforting doctrine, but in the end, it is demeaning and destructive, for it denies the significance of our choices and actions. It reduces us to a pawn in the grip of larger forces…Social planners and controllers then feel perfectly justified in trying to control those forces, to remake human nature and rebuild society according to their own blueprints—and to apply any force required toward that end. (pg. 183)

Dawkins has another problem. If he denies everything he can’t touch and smell, then he should also deny that reason and logic are “hanging out there.” Admittedly, reason and logic produce results, but the lack of moral absolutes also produces results – cynicism and contempt for any moralizing, anything that slows us in the pursuit of our lusts.

The German poet Heinrich Heine was able to see the approach of Hitler’s National Socialism from afar:

• "It is to the great credit of Christianity that it has somewhat attenuated the brutal German lust for battle...And should ever that taming talisman break--the Cross--then will come roaring back the wild madness of the ancient warriors...For thought goes before deed as lightening before thunder. There will be played in Germany a play compared to which the French revolution was but an innocent idyll." (cir. 1830) 

If thought goes before deed, then our modern secular moral relativists are paving the way for another great horror – perhaps even a series of them.