The Great Divide: Biblical Unity

I think that it is fairly obvious to the casual observer that we are living in very divisive times. When viewing the increased political polarization of our nation and the divisive effects of social media, it is natural to appeal for unity. I believe these calls are made from sincere hearts. However, unity is a word, much like the word “love”, that is viewed as being universally positive. 

As Christians, we must be discerning in our use and evaluation of the word “unity” as the biblical definition carries a distinct meaning. Depending on your preferred translation, the word “unity” appears only a handful of times in the New Testament and only in a few of those cases does it refer to unity within the New Testament church. There are two different Greek words that are used to describe unity within the church and the specific meanings of these words, as well the surrounding context of the passages, should inform our understanding and pursuit of biblical unity.

Biblical unity is found as one body of Christ.

In what is known as his high priestly prayer, spoken immediately after the Last Supper, Jesus prays for the unity of all future believers. He asks that “they may be one as we (Jesus and the Father) are one - I in them and you in me - so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:22-23). The Greek word “heis” is translated here as unity, but is rendered as “one” in the vast majority of other usages in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul uses the same word to explain that “as the body is one (heis) and has many members, and all the members of the body, though may, are one (heis) body, so it is with Christ.” (1 Corinthians 12:12). In the same way, Jesus prayed that future believers would be one as he and the Father are one.

A couple distinctions are essential to understand the unity that Jesus petitioned. First, this united group of believers is to provide contrast to the world so that unbelievers may clearly see God’s character and redemptive purpose in sending Christ to Earth. While believers are called to be united to one another, they must be distinct from the world. This point is further emphasized when reading Jesus’ preceding prayer for the disciples. Jesus said the following of the disciples: “I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.” (John 17:14-16). When transitioning to pray for all believers, Jesus prayed, “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message.” (John 17:20). There is a connected flow of thought in Jesus’ desires for the disciples and his wishes for all future believers. One of those desires is that this unified body would be within, but clearly separate and distinct from the world. If Christians seek a form of unity that blurs or erases the distinction between the world and the church, then the unity that they seek is not the biblical unity that Jesus desires.

Second, biblical unity cannot be achieved apart from a commitment to truth as revealed in God’s word. Jesus asked the Father to “sanctify [the disciples] by the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17). The word sanctify means to separate from a profane world to be consecrated and dedicated to God. As the transition between his prayer for the disciples and his prayer for all believers indicates, Jesus desires this sanctification by the truth for all believers. Christians must reject any pursuit of unity that requires believers to deny or ignore the truth revealed through God’s word. This commitment to the truth will set believers apart from the world and the world will often hate them for it. However, the ultimate purpose of this distinction is not to puff up the pride of “righteous” Christians, but “that the world may believe that [the Father] has sent [the Son].” (John 17:21).

Biblical unity occurs when believers have unanimity or agreement regarding doctrine.

The Apostle Paul urged the church in Ephesus to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which [they had] been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Ephesians 4:1-3). He later explained that apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers had been appointed by God to “equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until [they] all attain[ed] to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God.” (Ephesians 4:12-13). In both of these cases, a different Greek word, “henotes”, is used to highlight another important aspect of biblical unity. 

The word “henotes” means unanimity or agreement and believers are encouraged to maintain the unanimity of the Spirit and the agreement of the faith. In other words, Christians should have agreement and unanimity regarding Christian doctrine and the truth revealed through the Bible. One of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to “guide [believers] into all the truth” (John 16:13) so that they “might understand the things freely given us by God.” (1 Corinthians 2:12). The unity of the Spirit is not some ephemeral, emotional driven sense of connection, but an agreement on the central truths of Christian doctrine that is enabled by the Holy Spirit as he directs believers into an accurate understanding of God’s word.

The idea that Christian unity depends on a common understanding of doctrine is further clarified when Paul describes the job of church leaders as leading the saints to attain unity of the faith. When the term “the faith” is used in the New Testament it often refers to the teachings of Christ that were handed down to the apostles and the church. This can be seen in Paul’s letters to his apprentice Timothy, who had been “trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that [he had] followed.” (1 Timothy 4:6). Paul encouraged his mentee to “follow the pattern of the sound words that [he had] heard from [Paul], in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 1:13) and warned that those who “oppose the truth” would be “disqualified regarding the faith.” (2 Timothy 3:8).

However, we don’t even need to appeal to Paul’s other writings to understand that the unity of the faith refers to an agreement regarding doctrine because his letter to the Ephesians carries on to explain that goal of achieving unity of the faith is that Christians would “no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of (false) doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14). Biblical unity will prevent believers from being carried away by false doctrine because they will be rooted and knit together in sound doctrine. 

Although doctrine is often seen as unspiritual or legalistic in the modern church, scripture clearly teaches that biblical unity cannot be achieved or maintained without a shared understanding of the core tenets of the faith. To be sure, scripture also speaks of disputable matters about which Christians can hold different opinions (Romans 14), but believers should unanimously agree on core teachings such as the death and resurrection of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and the reliability of God’s word. Different seasons will also require believers to agree upon biblical teaching regarding hot topic issues of the day. For example, I do not believe that it is possible to maintain biblical unity in the present day if believers do not unanimously hold to the clear biblical standards regarding marriage, sexuality, and gender. A lack of agreement in these areas will lead to fissures in local churches and will result in a lack of zeal in evangelism and a lack of confidence in the authority and goodness of God’s word. In this case, as in many others, biblical unity cannot be achieved or maintained by agreeing to disagree.

J.C. Ryle, a 19th century Anglican bishop, cautioned against the increasing ecumenicalism and liberalism of his day, which sought peace at the expense of doctrinal truth. In his paper titled Pharisees and Sadducees, Ryle offered a warning that is relevant for the church in the present day. He wrote:

To keep gospel truth in the church is even of greater importance than to keep peace . . . The Apostle Paul valued unity very greatly as we know, but here he runs the risk of all the consequences that follow . . . Why? Because he dreaded false doctrine. He feared the loss of truth more than the loss of peace. Many people have a morbid fear of controversy. They would have said, with Ahab, that Elijah was a disturber of the peace. They would have thought that Paul at Antioch went too far! To maintain truth in the church men should be ready to make any sacrifice, to hazard peace, to risk dissension. They should no more tolerate false doctrine than they would tolerate sin. Peace without truth is a false peace; it is the very peace of the devil. Unity without the gospel is a worthless unity; it is the very unity of hell. Let us never be ensnared by those who speak kindly of it.

Unity, quiet, order . . . give beauty, strength, efficiency to the cause of Christ. But even gold can be bought too dear. Unity which is obtained by the sacrifice of truth is worth nothing. It is not the unity that pleases God.

I believe that the present times require a disturbance of the peace and the risk of dissension. Within the world, it is time for the church to be a distinct light and city on a hill. Within the church, it is time to hold dearly to truth, even if it results in division. We cannot settle for a false unity that does not please God and does not prepare the body of Christ to face the pressures that are already coming from the world. 

To many Christians, the thought of division seems, well, un-Christian. Is that really the case? In the next part of this series, we will look at what the Bible says about division.

The Great Divide: The Myth of Neutrality

During her senate confirmation hearing, recently confirmed supreme court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked, “When does life begin, in your opinion?” Jackson initially responded, “Senator, I don’t know,” but when pressed further, she relented, “I don’t know. I have a personal, religious, and otherwise beliefs that have nothing to do with the law in terms of when life begins. I have a religious view that I set aside when I am ruling on cases.”

Jackson’s response reveals a myth that is readily accepted both within and outside the church, that there exists a neutral position from which one can make objective moral, philosophical, and scientific judgments. Such neutrality is a myth. The position does not exist. When Jackson sets aside her religious beliefs to occupy the “neutral” ground of the judge’s bench, she is not operating from the unbiased position that she claims, but is entering a position with godless, humanistic, and naturalistic presuppositions and biases. This neutral position is every bit as biased as the religious worldview that she claims to set aside.

If Christians are going to live faithfully amidst the cultural tumult of the current season, we must both realize and embrace that a position of neutrality does not exist. We will receive praise from the world if we claim to judge political and social matters from an objective and unbiased standpoint. Such praise is hollow and deceptive because we are not entering the presumed neutral territory that we claim, but instead operating from a worldly mindset that is hostile to the law of God and contrary to the mind of Christ. C.S. Lewis brilliantly summarizes this reality: “There is no neutral ground in the universe. Every square inch, every split second is claimed by God, and counterclaimed by Satan.”

It is essential for Christians to embrace this truth for two reasons. First, we must transparently state that we cannot rightly judge from an illusory position of neutrality. When we claim to do so, we deceive both ourselves and the very people we are trying to influence with the gospel of Christ. Second, we must prepare ourselves by recognizing that the world and the spirit of this age will not allow us to remain in a position of neutrality. The incrementalism of humanistic philosophies will eventually force us to choose a side.

1. We cannot make right judgments from a position of neutrality

The Bible does not describe the disconnected religious and secular spheres that Judge Jackson claims to occupy in her personal and professional life. There is not a square inch of the universe that is not under the authority of God. King David declares,  “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.” (Psalm 24:1). The prophet Isaiah confirms that because of God’s mighty power not one star amongst the heavenly hosts is missing and that He calls them forth by name (Isaiah 40:26). The New Testament expands on this theme and explains that through Christ “all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created through him or for him.” (Colossians 1:16). Judge Jackson attempts to assert that, for the Christian, there can be some neutral sphere of existence that is not under the sovereignty of Christ’s lordship. This sphere does not exist.

Furthermore, our minds are either devoted to Christ or conformed to the patterns of this world. The Apostle Paul insists that believers must “no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. [Unbelievers] are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.” (Ephesians 4:17-18). Instead, having come to “know Christ”, believers are to put off [the] old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of [their] minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness or holiness.” (Ephesians 4:22-24). Far from staking claim to a neutral position, Christians are called to have a transformed and renewed mind, which is clearly opposed to the pattern of the world in order that they would be able to test and approve God’s good, pleasing, and perfect will (Romans 12:1-2). It is only by having a mind devoted to Christ and God’s righteous standards that we possess the capacity to make good and righteous judgments and decisions.

Instead of trading a personal, religious position for a standpoint of neutrality, Judge Jackson and many other professing Christians have adopted a worldly and humanistic philosophy that is directly opposed to God’s laws and commands. This position of neutrality is lauded by the world as wise and virtuous, but the Bible clarifies that “although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” and exchanged the glory of God for idolatry (Romans 1: 22-23). Such people do not possess neutrality in their thinking but have been given over by God to “do what ought not to be done” and “approve of those” who act against “God’s righteous decrees.” (Romans 1:28, 32). Thus, claiming a neutral position of wisdom, a professing Christian finds herself unable to answer the question, “What is a woman?”, and unable to stand up against the slaughter of millions of pre-born image bearers of God. No, this is not the neutral position of objective wisdom, it is the foolish position of rebellion against God’s clearly revealed moral law. If we are going to make just and righteous judgments, we must reject any pretense of maintaining a neutral position and instead maintain unswerving commitment to the commands of God and strive daily to devote our minds to Christ.

I believe that such a position is actually more respectful to others than Judge Jackson’s obfuscation. We clearly delineate where we stand. We clearly state our presuppositions and biases. We don’t pretend to be neutral, because a mind devoted to Christ cannot be neutral on moral issues to which God has clearly spoken. Judge Jackson tries to keep a foot in both camps, a mind devoted to God in her personal life and a mind devoted to neutrality in her professional life. This position is neither biblically or logically tenable and will consistently lead to judgments that run contrary to God’s designs, plans, and decrees.

2. The world will not tolerate neutrality

Some may think, “I agree that the Bible clearly condemns abortion and provides clear definitions for sexuality and gender, but I don’t want to get involved in politics or culture wars, so I prefer to just stay out of these debates and focus on sharing the love of God.” While I agree that a Christian’s commitment is not to a particular political party, but to Christ in his kingdom, I would argue that these issues are not political issues, but moral and biblical issues that have been politicized. However, the larger problem with such a position is that the world will not allow one to maintain a position of neutrality. Eventually, incrementalism will force one to betray their true position, either embracing worldly and godless philosophies or standing for biblical truths.

The Apostle Peter warns that unbelievers will not simply accept that Christians have chosen to leave a life of “debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry”, but will “think it strange that [Christians] do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation and heap abuse on [them].” (1 Peter 4:3-4). I believe that we will increasingly see this play out with the identification and use of preferred pronouns in the coming years. Employees will be directed to include their preferred pronouns in their email handles and Zoom names. Participants will be expected to give their preferred pronouns during ice breakers at professional and community meetings or provide their preferred identification for their name tags at conferences. If someone refuses to participate in such rituals, it will not be interpreted as taking a neutral position but will be viewed as a transphobic attack on LQBTQIA+ community.

This phenomenon recently played out at a neighboring school district in Maryland as district leadership partnered with a LGBT advocacy group to provide pride flags for every elementary classroom in the district. Although teachers were given the “choice” to not display the flag in their classroom, such a decision would not be interpreted as choosing to remain neutral in a sensitive political debate, but as a homophobic refusal to provide safe spaces for queer and questioning youth. Those who support the gay agenda have no tolerance for neutral spaces. They will force you to choose a side and anything less than full affirmation and celebration will be interpreted and construed as hateful and bigoted intolerance.

Neither is it possible to support some aspects of the social justice movement without embracing all aspects of the movement. In an interview with Don Lemon, leading antiracist activist Ibram X. Kendi explains, “To be antiracist is to actively oppose homophobia and transphobia in ourselves and in our society. Whether it’s a homophobic joke from a friend or transphobic policy in our community, aimed at trans women or kids, it is our responsibility to call out injustice.” Obviously, Christians should not engage in hateful or coarse joking (Ephesians 5:4), but when Kendi talks about transphobic policies he is talking about laws that restrict school districts from teaching kindergartners about gender fluidity and policies that prohibit biological men from competing in women’s sports. If you think that you can put a black square on your Facebook profile or a BLM sign in your lawn but remain “neutral” on matters of sexuality and gender, you are sorely mistaken. The incrementalism of the social justice movement, which is rooted in godless neo-Marxist philosophies and identity politics, will not allow it.

To conclude, let us learn from another person who falsely claimed to maintain a position of neutrality in regards to Christ. Pontius Pilate had the power to release Christ, but instead sentenced him to crucifixion, a free will choice that corresponded with the manifold wisdom and preordained plan of God. Attempting to justify himself and maintain a position of neutrality, Pilate washed his hands and said, “I am innocent of this man’s blood. It is your responsibility!” Yet, Pilate was acting in his own self interest and clearly violating biblical justice by condemning an innocent man to die. He was not neutral. Like Pilate, we have all at times abandoned the clear teachings of scripture to support worldly ideas, whether through silent complicity or active promotion. Rather than washing our hands and pretending to maintain an illusory position of neutrality, may we wash ourselves with the sanctifying blood of Christ and devote our minds anew to his gospel, kingdom, and purposes.

The Great Divide: Introduction

Elijah’s confrontation with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel is one of my favorite stories in the Old Testament. To set the scene, under the immoral leadership of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel, the northern kingdom of Israel slid into a dark period of idolatry and immorality. All of the true prophets of Yahweh had been put to the sword, or so Elijah thought, as he summoned the prophets of Baal and Asherah, as well as people from all over Israel, to a showdown on Mount Caramel. Elijah said to the people gathered, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.” (1 Kings 18:21). Then, he issued his famous challenge in which the false prophets were unable to call on their false gods to rain down fire on their altar, but fire from the true God of all the earth fell upon and consumed Elijah’s drenched sacrifice. This act of God was in answer to Elijah’s prayer that He would act “so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God and that you are turning their hearts back again.” (1 Kings 18:37).

As Christians, we are called to discern the times, and I believe that we are living in a season in which we are called not to waver between two opinions, but to bring into sharper clarity the distinction between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. King Solomon writes there is a time for everything: “a time to plant and a time to uproot…a time to tear down and a time to build…a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them…a time to tear and a time to mend.” (Ecclesiastes 3:2-7). I believe that this is a time to bring division. 

Complicating this season is a cultural wake following the Trump presidency that has left Christians particularly vulnerable to a message coming from both within and outside the church that Christians always need to pursue unity and reach a sort of peace with the world so that they would not cause offense and more people would be open to “having a relationship with Christ.” While I believe that this pressure from within the church often comes from a place of genuine concern and love, I believe that it is misguided. The purpose of living as light in the world is not merely that the world will see Jesus through my friendliness, but to bring stark contrast between the evil deeds of darkness and the righteousness of God’s kingdom. Without question we do this with humility, compassion, and a desire that all would be saved, but we also do so without wavering in our commitment to God’s commands, ways, and righteous decrees. The purpose of this series is to expand upon my conviction that God is calling faithful believers to boldly bring contrast between the ways of Christ and the ways of the world in the hope that many would be called into repentance from darkness into the glorious kingdom of light. To do so requires a clear demarcation. 

I will be speaking about a number of social issues in this series to provide context for my exhortations. Some may be shocked at my calling for division since such language is rarely used from the Sunday pulpit. Therefore, I would like to start by sharing a specific example of the division that I am proposing.

Recently, the state of Florida and Governor Ron DeSantis have been at the center of controversy over a recently passed piece of legislation called the Parental Rights in Education Bill. The bill stipulates that "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards." This bill, which seems very reasonable and appropriate, is even supported by 52% of democrats in Florida. After all, who would feel a need to teach six-year-olds about gender fluidity and homosexuality? Well, apparently plenty of people on the progressive left.

The activist class and left-leaning mainstream media have slandered and misrepresented the bill as the “Don’t Say Gay Bill”, even though the bill doesn’t even include the word gay and would equally apply to prohibitions against providing early elementary students with instruction on a heterosexual orientation. During the Oscars, a trio of hosts took a shot at the bill and the citizens of Florida by joking, “We’re going to have a great night tonight. And for you people in Florida, we’re going to have a gay night…gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay…” The Disney Corporation has condemned the bill and vowed to fight for its repeal. Meanwhile, internal meeting videos were leaked in which Disney’s president of content vowed that future content would include “many, many” characters who represent the LGBTQIA+ community and another employee openly admitted to strategically trying to push the gay agenda through her content creation. The reaction of activists, mainstream media, celebrities, and corporations shows that there are many who are outraged that anyone would stand against their desire to expose kindergartners to woke gender and sexuality ideology.

That is the worldly mindset that I want to divide from. It is more pervasive than I think many Christians realize and is spreading like gangrene under the guise of social justice. I want no unity with such thinking that “calls evil good, and good evil; that puts darkness for light, and light for darkness; that puts bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20). We must speak the truth in love and clearly delineate the darkness from the light. It is not the time for nuance. It is not the time to worry about causing offense. It is the time to speak with clarity and conviction.

Yes, I desire that all will come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, but the chains of a depraved mindset will not be broken by showing people that we are not “that kind of Christian” by distancing ourselves from anything that could be labeled “right wing.” Instead, we must trust the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ to break the power of sin when the darkness of the spirit of the age is exposed for its true nature and people are urged to repent from their rebellion against their creator and to put their full trust in Christ, who died to pay the due penalty of our sins and raised victorious from the grave to demonstrate his power over death that we may enter into his glorious kingdom of light. May division result in this glorious salvation and transformation.

Yet, the question remains: How shall we divide in a way that is both loving and faithful to truth? I will be providing several practical suggestions throughout this series, but to offer a taste of what is to come, I will start with one simple step. Refuse to use the intentionally deceptive euphemisms of the world and instead clearly describe things for what they are. This should be done without personal attacks on persons who hold these ideas, but with clarity and without wavering from the truth. For example, refuse to use terms such as “reproductive justice” or “terminating a pregnancy.” Instead, highlight that these terms are referring to an act in which the life of a human being is intentionally extinguished. Bring to light that the term “gender affirming care for minors” is really referring to the use of hormone therapies and puberty blockers that can render youth sterile and sometimes even to the genital mutilation of a minor. When institutions insist on using terms like “pregnant people” or “teens with testicles”, clearly state that only women can get pregnant and only teenage boys have testicles. Those with opposing views will likely become hostile, but let it be due to their irritation with the truth and not the manner in which we conduct ourselves. Our goal is not to be the language police, but to recognize that language is used intentionally by the other side to shape culture and to obfuscate deeds of darkness. We must counter with language to bring them into the light.

However, before any practical steps are undertaken, a pre-requisite is to realize that the position of neutrality that is assumed throughout much of our culture and in many of our institutions is a myth. Many Christians assume that we should try to operate from a place of objective neutrality in our interactions with the world. Such a position does not exist. I will further explore the myth of neutrality in the next installment of this series.

Faith and Evidence: Why I Don't Use a Presuppositional Approach (Most of the Time)

Alright, this post is going to be geared more towards apologetics nerds, a rare breed most likely, but I will try to make this informative and enjoyable for everyone. You may not have known that there are actually different schools of apologetics, including classical, evidential, and presuppositional. In this series, I have been arguing for an evidential approach and my series on evidence for the resurrection would also fall under that category, though I would say that overall I follow more of a classical approach. One does not have to strictly adhere to only one approach and different conversations will require different tactics. However, as the title of this post explains, I generally do not use a presuppositional approach, though I will explain the ways in which I draw from its toolbox.

So what is presuppositional apologetics? As the name suggests, presuppositional apologetics presupposes the existence of the triune God divinely revealed through the Bible and claims that this presupposition alone allows one to acquire knowledge and make sense of reality. Presuppositionalists point out that everyone makes presuppositions when adopting a worldview and other presuppositions, such as materialism, lead to an incoherent universe where knowledge is not possible. For example, if one accepts the materialistic framework, one can not appeal to non-material things like laws of logic inorder to investigate or describe the physical universe. When one adopts materialistic presuppositions and a worldview that depends on empirical experimentation, they have no basis to assume the uniformity of natural law on which their empiricism depends. The renowned skeptic and philosopher David Hume concedes that circular reasoning is required to assume the uniformity of natural law from a naturalistic worldview.

In summary, the presuppositional apologist is trying to prove that Christianity is true because any presupposition outside of the Christian worldview leads to an incoherent universe. It is a reductio ad absurdum, or attempt to reduce the opposition to holding an absurd and self-contradictory position. A universe in which laws of logic, reason, and the uniformity of nature exist is only possible if one presupposes the existence of the triune God revealed in scripture.

While I do think that the presuppositional approach makes important contributions, I tend more to the evidentialist side of the spectrum. I think that the different schools of apologetics can work in harmony and an effective apologist will utilize different approaches depending upon the specific context and flow of a conversation. However, I have found that some presuppositional apologists claim that their approach is the only Biblical method of apologetics and that evidential and classical apologists put man in the judge’s seat and God on trial. Most presuppositional apologists that I have read or listened to will only use the presuppositional method, refusing to engage in conversations or debates around evidence. While I see value in what the presuppositional approach brings to the apologetics discussion, I have decided not to adopt a strict reliance on presuppositional apologetics for the following reasons.

1. An evidential approach is clearly seen in both the Old and New Testaments

I am not going to completely rehash my previous arguments, but I wrote two full blog posts on the connection between faith and evidence in both the Old Testament and New Testament. In the Old Testament, there was a culture of remembrance in which the Israelites would construct monuments as evidence for future generations of what God had already done on their behalf. The prophet Elijah did not challenge the presuppositions of the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, but engaged in an evidentiary test to determine who was the true God, Baal or Yahweh. Jesus repeatedly pointed to his miracles and Old Testament prophecy as evidence of his identity and lordship. This approach was also followed by the early church as the apostles appealed to eyewitness testimony of the resurrection, miracles, and prophecy to argue and reason that Jesus was the expected Messiah. Since an evidential approach is clearly used throughout scripture, I think that modern day apologists and evangelists should also appeal to different forms of evidence supporting the truth of the Christian worldview.

2. A varied approach can be used to be “all things for all people”

As with anything, there is variety within presuppositional apologetics, with different tactics and points of emphasis. Some, such as Greg Bahnsen, brilliantly argue in a manner that highlights the absurd and self-contradictory claims of atheism. An excellent example of this can be seen in his 1985 debate with author and skeptic, Dr. Gordon Stein. Others rely on texts such as Romans 1:18 to argue that unbelievers already know that God exists, but are suppressing this truth in order to follow their own passions and desires. They also point out that the “fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” (Psalm 14:1), which is further proof that they are foolishly suppressing the truth of God’s existence.

While I agree with the presuppositional apologists’ interpretation of these verses, I have observed that their use in apologetics and evangelism often fails to present a defense for Christianity with “gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15). There certainly are times to use these verses when sharing the gospel or defending the faith, but I have watched encounters where this approach seems to completely miss the heart and mind of the other person, only causing anger and resentment. It seems that a varied approach, which draws from classical, evidential, and presuppositional methods, would be better at meeting the intellectual, psychological, and emotional needs of each person. I think that flexibility in approach enables apologists to be like the Apostle Paul and “become all things to all people, so that by all possible means, [they] might save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:22).

3. A presuppositional approach cuts out some of the strongest arguments for the truth of Christianity

Not only does Romans 1 teach that unbelievers suppress the truth that God exists, it also argues that God’s eternal power and divine nature are “clearly seen [and] understood from what has been made.” (Romans 1:20). Despite arguments from the new atheists that science has disproved the existence of God, modern cosmology actually provides some of the strongest arguments for the existence of God. The cosmological argument states that if our universe had a beginning, as is strongly suggested by scientific evidence, then there must have been an incredibly powerful first cause outside of time, matter, and space - namely God. The fine-tuning argument points to the intricate fine-tuning of the universe, in which the initial conditions of the universe and the natural laws which govern its interactions are so exquisitely fine-tuned that even miniscule changes in various ratios and physical constants would have resulted in a universe that would have no possibility of supporting complex life. Such data led atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle to concede, “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”1

Furthermore, a robust historical argument can be made to support the truthfulness of Jesus’ resurrection from the grave. I wrote an entire series on this evidence and would encourage believers to equip themselves with this powerful defense of the Christian faith and nonbelievers to consider this evidence with an open-mind. A presuppositional approach cuts out all of these powerful lines of reasoning that support the truthfulness of Christianity.

Yet, as the title suggests, I do see value in the presuppositional approach and do utilize it from time to time. I think that the presuppositional approach is an excellent strategy for exposing contradictions and absurdities in foundational worldviews. This is particularly relevant to our current day. For example, my Facebook feed has been filled the last few months with calls for justice and protection of the dignity and worth of all people. These calls are rightly made, but I do think it is worth asking whether our underlying worldview supports the manner in which we live and the future that we hope to realize.

I wrote a Facebook post with a similar theme, and despite my best efforts to anticipate the disconnect, I was misunderstood on a key point. So, I want to state it here as clearly as possible. I am not saying that atheists, agnostics, or non-Christians in general can not act morally or can not have a strongly held system of morality. What I am saying is that the underlying atheistic worldviews of naturalism and materialism do not support the desire for justice or the claim that human lives have intrinsic dignity, value, and worth. A presuppositional approach causes us to examine the foundational assumptions of a worldview to see whether they support the superstructure of the worldview.

Richard Dawkins, renowned evolutionary biologist and author of the best-selling book “The God Delusion”, writes the following in River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life - “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and gene replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor JUSTICE. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, NO EVIL, NO GOOD, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”2

The atheistic worldview is built on the foundational assumption that humans are nothing more than matter in motion. How can we define good and evil when the only realities are matter, energy, time and chance? How can we call for justice in a world of blind forces with no design, no purpose, and ultimately nothing that we can truly say is good and evil? 

Presuppositional apologetics points out the absurdity to stand behind one podium to call for justice and the protection of the value and dignity of all human beings and then jump behind another podium to claim that there is no ultimate purpose and design in the universe; the cosmos is solely governed by matter, energy, time and chance; and that humans are simply the accidental byproduct of highly evolved colonies of bacteria. Yet, there is no contradiction or absurdity to call for justice and to value the intrinsic worth of all human beings when the universe was created with design and purpose, which includes absolute moral standards of goodness and justice, and all humans were created as image bearers of God. 

Not only is the Christan worldview supported by evidence, but it provides a foundation from which we can coherently seek the justice and peace that we experientially desire. The presuppositional approach has the potential to lead people to this realization and should be part of any apologists' toolkit, though not to be used exclusively. As I said earlier, by wisely integrating evidential and presuppositional approaches, I think that we can present a respectful and generous defense of the Christian faith, while at the same time meeting the needs of each individual person that will enable us to “become all things to all people, so that by all possible means, [we] might save some.”

Sources:

1) Hoyle, Fred. "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. 8–12.

2) Dawkins, Richard. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. Science Masters Series, 1996.

A Trip Around the Worldviews: Christianity

I am going to bookend our final stop on the Trip Around the Worldviews, with thoughts from one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the past century, C.S. Lewis. Regarding the Christian worldview, he wrote, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I can see it, but because by it I see everything else."¹ To Lewis, not only are the propositions of Christianity true, but a Christian worldview enables him to have a clear perspective of reality. The Christian worldview enables him to answer life's big questions in a way that is internally coherent, consistent with human experience, and intellectually satisfying. 

Foundation of Christianity

In the Christian worldview, the one true God has made himself known. Broadly, God has made his nature known through general revelation, that is the vastness, beauty and intricate order of the universe clearly reveal an omnipotent and omniscient creator. Furthermore, all humans “show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.” (Romans 2:15). In other words, our consciences show that we innately identify right and wrong, suggesting the need for a transcendent moral law giver.

General revelation should be sufficient for humans to know God and live righteously before him. Unfortunately, due to our sinful nature, no human is able to accomplish this of their own strength and effort. Through special revelation, God more precisely reveals his character and his plan to save us from the preceding predicament. The Bible – which is a divinely inspired collection of histories, poems, songs, biographies, prophecies, and letters – details God’s power, sovereignty, holiness, mercy, righteousness, compassion and love. It also explains the triune nature of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The life and ministry of the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, which is recorded in the four gospels, provides a fuller revelation of God’s nature and plan of salvation. When asked to show the Father to the disciples, Jesus responded, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9).  Although the gospels provide more clarity on these topics, the revelation is not something completely new, but a consummation of God’s plan from the beginning. When Jesus appeared to the disciples after his resurrection, he explained that they should not have been surprised by the recent events because “everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” (Luke 24:44).

God’s plan of salvation, which is foreshadowed throughout the Old Testament, was accomplished through Jesus’ death by crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. This good news, or gospel, forms the foundation of the Christian worldview. Entire books have been written to expound upon the depths of the gospel, but in short, the good news is the answer to the following question: How can sinful people have fellowship with a holy, just God? “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and the just punishment for these transgressions is eternal separation from God (Romans 6:23). Yet, God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8). As a result, God demonstrates his justice in punishing sin through Christ's attoning sacrifice and his mercy in forgiving repentant sinners though faith (Romans 3:25-26). This free gift of salvation is available to all who “declare with [their] mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in [their] heart that God raised him from the dead.” (Romans 10:9). The Christian worldview is built upon the foundation of this good news.

Origin – How did we get here?

 

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1). Christians who hold to both the reliability and inerrancy of scripture defend different literal interpretations of scripture as to exactly how this occurred. However, describing the differences between and various merits of young Earth creationism, old Earth creationism, and theistic evolution is beyond the scope of this post. The important similarity is that the universe is not the random result of time, chance and matter, but the intentional product of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent creator. Even with our limited view of a fallen creation, we can agree with God’s assessment of creation when he said, “It was very good.” (Genesis 1:31).

General revelation provides incredible, I would say even undeniable proof, that the cosmos was intentionally created. It is common to hear that science is proving that God does not exist, but I would claim that it is supporting the exact opposite hypothesis. In the last century, scientists have learned that the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned and that even miniscule changes to the initial conditions of the universe and the natural laws which govern its interactions would have resulted in a universe that would have no possibility of supporting complex life. 

Here are just a couple examples. Stanford theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind explains, “If the value of [the ratio between electrons and protons immediately after the Big Bang] deviated more than 1 in 10³⁷, the universe, as we know it, would not exist today.” He continues, “If the ratio between the electromagnetic force and gravity was altered by more than 1 in 10⁴⁰, the universe would have suffered a similar fate. The nature of the universe (at at the atomic level) could have been different, but even remarkably small differences would have been catastrophic to our existence.” Since probabilities multiply, the chance of a randomly created universe becomes exponentially more remote as more fine-tuning conditions are discovered. This realization led atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle to concede, “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”³

Identity – What does it mean to be human?

The answer that Christianity provides to this question separates it from the other worldviews that we have examined. In fact, I would argue that most of the other worldviews we have examined are borrowing capital from Christianity by living as though humans have intrinsic, inherent value that is to be honored and protected. Christians have no need to live contrary to their worldview in this regard because “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27). Human worth and dignity does not need to be socially constructed or artificially pursued, but is rooted in God’s very act of creation.

What does it mean to be created in God’s image? Does it mean that we ourselves are gods, as suggested by new age spirituality? No, the Bible clearly proclaims that there is only one true God. However, in some senses, humans are the only animals that possess some of the qualities of God’s nature. Humans enjoy beauty, create works of art, think rationally, and possess an inherent sense of justice.

Additionally, we bear God’s image by representing or reflecting his nature to the rest of the world. John Piper puts it like this: “God created us in his image so that we would display or reflect or communicate who he is, how great he is and what he is like. Here’s the picture in my mind. I was created like a mirror. And a mirror that was supposed to be 45 degrees with the clear reflective side pointing upward so that as God shone on it at the 45 degree angle, it would bounce off and it would make a 90 degree turn and be reflected out into the world.”³

Morality – How should we live?

With the exception of Islam, the other worldviews that we have examined propose a relative view of morality. It is easy to wax eloquent about relative morality and to hold a relative view on current hot button issues such as sexuality and gender identity, but it is difficult for a person to consistently uphold relative morality. Was the Holocaust morally evil and should its perpetrators be held morally responsible for their deeds? The best relative morality can do is to say that it violates one's personal preference or a community’s agreed upon moral values, but it cannot say that it is an objectively evil act. If a horrific crime were committed against one’s family, I suspect that most people would condemn the act as objectively wrong and demand justice. Relative morality won’t take you there, but the objective moral standards provided by the Christian worldview provide the foundation that supports this natural response to injustice and evil.

As explained earlier, God’s moral standards are written on our conscience. For the Christian, this explains why basic moral standards are agreed upon across culture and time. Through the Bible, God has more fully disclosed his moral standards, which are rooted in his character. We should pursue justice because God is just. We should be honest because there is no deceit in God’s character. We should pursue holiness because God is holy.

Despite popular misconception, Christian morality goes beyond following a list of rules. Certainly, there are explicit standards that are elucidated in scripture, but ultimately all of these commands can be reduced to two: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40). While the Bible doesn’t provide an answer for every moral question that one could face, moral actions will always demonstrate a love for God and a love for others. However, it is important to note that the Christian definition of love is different from our current culture’s definition.

Meaning – Why are we here?

At some point in life, every person wrestle’s with the following question: Is there any meaning to this life? The Christian worldview answers with a resounding yes, and the answer lies not within ourselves, but in glorifying our Creator. The Westminster Catecheism asks: What is the chief end of man? The answer: Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever. Scripture affirms this purpose. Through the prophet Isaiah, God calls, “Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth— everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” (Isaiah 43:6-7).

Christians specifically glorify God by sharing the gospel across the world in both word and deed. Believers have been given a mandate to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20). While not every Christian may be a professional evangelist and church planter like the Apostle Paul, we should share his desire to bring glory to God and to share the gospel with others. Paul shared with the church in Ephesus, “I consider my life worth nothing to me; my only aim is to finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the good news of God’s grace.” (Acts 20:24).

Destiny – What happens to us when we die?

Suppose that someone was convicted of a horrendous crime and stood before a judge for sentencing. Imagine the judge said, “I know that what you did was evil, but you have basically been a good person and I trust you won’t do it again, so you are free to go.” We would condemn this judge as unjust and demand justice for the victims and their families. Yet somehow, this is how we expect the righteous creator of the universe to act.

God is just and holy. He must punish sin or he would be an unrighteous judge. At the same time, God is merciful and desires to show compassion to unworthy sinners. How can he maintain his justice yet show mercy to those who have transgressed his law? The answer to this riddle converges at the cross of Calvary, where God’s righteous judgment is poured out as Christ carries the sins of the world and his free gift of forgiveness is made available to those who would trust in Christ for salvation.

In an age of gray, the exclusivity of Christianity can be unpopular, but the Bible clearly reveals that Jesus is “the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through [him].” (John 14:6). At its root, all sin is against the infinite creator of the universe. After committing a horrible succession of sins that severely affected the lives of others, David confesses, “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight; so you are right in your verdict and justified when you judge.” (Psalm 51:4). Each person will either pay the just penalty for their sin, eternally separated from God, or will receive the free gift of salvation through faith in Christ and enjoy fellowship with God for eternity in heaven. 

Although unpopular in this day and age, this teaching is clear throughout scripture and conforms with our innate sense of justice.

Summary

As we draw our trip around the worldviews to a close, it is important to return to the original purpose of this journey. The purpose is not to criticize individuals, but to take a birds-eye view of how different worldviews perceive reality. Remember, even if you don’t identify with any of the worldviews described, you still have a worldview because you have personal answers to life’s big questions, even if your answer is one of agnosticism. It is a shared human experience to wrestle with these questions.

I also hope that this exploration helps us to see the forest through the trees. It is easy to get bogged down on debates over specific issues. However, I think it is equally important to evaluate whether our worldview both conforms with the true nature of reality and supports the manner in which we live.

To review, let’s look at just three questions. Do humans have inherent, intrinsic worth and value? Are there actions that are truly "wrong" and should people be held accountable for such actions? Is there any real purpose to our lives? If you answer in the affirmative to any of these questions, I am afraid that secularism, new age spirituality, Marxism, and post-modernism simply will not support that view. Proponents of such worldviews have to borrow from a theistic worldview to provide a foundation for such answers. The exquisite fine-tuning and order of the universe further supports a theistic worldview as it seems clear that the universe was created with a specific purpose and intention.

This narrows us down to two major worldviews that are coherent and consistent with how people actually live: Christianity and Islam. However, as described in an earlier post, there are important and significant differences between Christianity and Islam. Despite the desire of religious pluralists, they simply are not compatible.

So how should we differentiate between the two? Which describes the true nature of reality? What if neither is true? Fortunately, Christianity provides a litmus test in the resurrection of Christ. The Apostle Paul recognized that the resurrection is the lynchpin of Christianity, writing, “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” (1 Corinthians 15:14). If Christ’s has risen from the dead, Christianity is true, but if he has not, then it is a falsehood that should be rejected. 

The answer to this question is worth pursuing and a series of posts on evidence for the resurrection will be forthcoming this spring. I would encourage every person to diligently investigate this question for themselves. The answer to life's last big question, our ultimate destiny, is to important to not seek out whether Christ has indeed risen from the grave. As often is the case, C.S. Lewis sums things up beautifully: "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."⁴

 

Sources:

1) Lewis, C.S. The Weight of Glory. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1949. 140.

 

2) Hoyle, Fred. "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. 8–12.

3) Piper, John. What Does It Mean to Be Made in God’s Image? August 9, 2013. Retreived from https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-does-it-mean-to-be-made-in-gods-image

4) Lewis, C.S. “Christian Apologetics.” God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2014.