The Mars Hill Club

Here is Paul's introduction for our discussion this Thursday evening (Nov. 30). See the following blog post or our Calendar for the meeting details.

I will never forget the surprise on the face of my friend when he discovered through a small-group experience that he was prejudiced against the black race. “How could this have happened to me?” he asked. “Selective sampling,” I replied. He understood what I was getting at. We human beings see what we want to see and overlook that which we do not. We have a strong desire to categorize, exclude and simplify. Some of this is over-efficiency in managing the computer of the mind; but a large part of this “selective sampling” is rooted in sin, i.e. rejection of biblical teaching, rebellion against God’s boundaries, disobedience of God’s direction or perversion of God’s design.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28).

We just want to believe what we want to believe and do what we want to do. We try to become our own gods. Ironically, we may be stepping into Satan’s devouring jaws, hardly in control of our own destiny. I have noted that the Charles Mansons of this world are bent on creating their own reality, their own truth and their own guidelines.

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25).

Perhaps this problem is more widespread than Charles Manson. It is clear that we need a way of looking at ourselves, at life and at God which invites the truth and avoids self-deception. No man is without presuppositions, but he can be free from deceit. He can at least apply certain tests to his worldview. He can ask, “is my worldview internally consistent and reasonable? Does it match up with my experience and that of others? Is the scheme pragmatic; does it even work?” How honest am I being in the adoption of my worldview? What are my presuppositions; on what do I base my worldview?”

My own presuppositions are that God exists and that he has my best interest in mind (Heb 11:6). I chose to trust Him and have been rewarded with great peace of mind, as well as blessings undeserved or earned. I am a child of his loving kindness. Christ paid the price for my sins by His crucifixion and atonement, He brings hope through his resurrection and purpose through his example and teaching. He is a personal Christ who walks and talks with me by His Spirit (Heb 13:5). It took no secret knowledge for this personal discovery, because through the gospel the “sound has gone out (Rom 10:18)” and “He was not willing that any should perish (2 Pet 3:9).” Jesus included me (John 17:20)! I have concluded that the Christian Bible is truly God’s Word in man’s language, that it is surely the inspired testament of our Creator.

But how can I claim that I arrived at these beliefs other than by “selective sampling?” How can I know that I have found the truth? Of course, these are questions of epistemology, but more importantly, of worldview. How do I look at the world? What are my presuppositions (not presumptions)? What motivates me? What brings purpose to everything? A monotheistic worldview causes me to relinquish my propensity for control, my self-centeredness; and to place God squarely in the center of the design. That view would include Judaism, the Muslims and Christianity. But what distinguishes the Christian worldview from others?

John Byle’s book, The Divine Challenge: On Matter, Mind, Math & Meaning, answers the question in terms of the struggle between God and man over who will rule. In this context Byle shows the superiority of the Christian Worldview over its main competitors. Only Christianity is coherent and meaningful. The challenges of modern naturalism and post-modern relativism ultimately self-destruct. Using the concept of “three worlds and three mysteries” found in matter, mind and math, found in Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind, Byle asks why mathematical laws play such a large role in the physical universe, how the physical world of matter can produce perceiving minds and how a perceiving mind can create mathematical concepts. These are great mysteries that deserve an answer not found in any other worldview than Christianity. The others leave us with no firm foundation for either truth or morals. What are the presuppositions of the Christian worldview? Byle lays them out this way in his Chapter 10, entitled “The Christian Worldview”:

1. God is the Ultimate Reality

A. God is sovereign
B. God is All-Powerful
C. God Knows Everything
D. God is a Spirit
E. God is Tri-Personal
F. God is Everywhere
G. God is Good
H. God is Infinite

2. The Universe Totally Depends on God

A. All Things Were Created by God
B. God Created Freely
C. The World Always Depends on God
D. Creation out of Nothing

3. Man Was Created to Be God’s Steward

A. Created in the Image of God
B. The Fall and Its Fall-Out
C. Redemption Through Christ

4. God Created Man to Know

A. The Bible is Our Standard
B. Our Faculties Were Created Reliable
C. Our Heart is in Control

5. God Sets the Standards

6. History Unfolds God’s Plan

Since the Christian worldview flows from the Bible, the key Christian presupposition is that the Bible is God’s written Word and, as such, the absolute standard of truth. The prime worldview teaching of the Bible is the total sovereignty of God, who is the ultimate reality. Furthermore, the Christian worldview survives these general criteria for any viable worldview:

1. Is this worldview internally coherent?

2. Is this worldview consistent with experience?

3. Is this worldview livable?

To these the Christian adds:

4. Does this worldview stand the test of Scripture?

5. Does this worldview present sufficient reason to believe it, i.e. Does everything that happens have a place in God’s purposeful, all-encompassing plan? Consequently, does it uphold the principle of causality, i.e. everything that happens is caused, directly or indirectly, by God?

Byle warns against the danger of compromise (p194-195):

Worldviews come as package deals. Compromising Christianity with modern, post-modern or pagan ideals introduces an inconsistency into our lives that will eventually undermine our commitment to God. ‘No man can serve two masters’ (Matt 6:24). Likewise, no inconsistent worldview can hope to survive. Hence, we should diligently test the spirits of the day, discerning their source and implications.

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

This is no easy thing. It is difficult to avoid contamination from the society in which we live. It requires us to test and cleanse our every thought, bringing it in line with God’s Word and will:

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor 10:4-5).

Christianity, like its rivals, is all-embracing. Hence, worldview wars are total wars, covering every aspect of reality. The Christian must therefore be constantly alert, relying on God and applying the full armor he supplies:

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (Eph 6:10-12).

In his concluding Chapter 15, “The Challenge Settled” (p.280-281), John Byl summarized the nature of worldviews:

We stressed that the question was one of opposing worldviews. Everyone has a worldview, although most people may be unaware that they are viewing reality through the spectacles that a particular worldview provides. All worldviews are based on presuppositions, on basic initial assumptions about reality that are rarely stated explicitly. Such worldview presuppositions set our standards for what we consider to be reasonable. Different worldviews may entail radically different views of rationality. Nevertheless, conflicting worldviews can usually be assessed in terms of quite general criteria such as consistency, experience and livability. Any viable worldview must be able to accommodate the basic commonsense notions needed for normal conversation and scientific activity. In particular, we stressed the necessity of truth and logic, as well as the importance of the principle of sufficient reason. Embracing a worldview is not a dry academic exercise. Our worldview sets the direction for our life. It determines the path we follow and the goals we seek. It guides us in deciding how to live our lives. Our answers to worldview questions are matters of life and death.

If John Byle is right, we cannot adopt a candy-store mentality whereby we decide to accept this and that from the Scripture without accepting the rest. We may argue over the interpretation of a particular passage or the preeminence of a certain doctrine. We may “see through a glass darkly” as in Paul’s explanation of our current state of “corruption,” but we are aware in our faith-step that there is an underpinning of full revelation:

Now I only know in part, but then I shall know just as I also
am known (1 Cor 13:12).

We are not God, but we reflect the image of God. He reveals Himself to us by general, progressive and direct revelation. That we can understand Him can be explained only in terms of His preparation of our minds and hearts to understand. “Show me Your glory,” said Moses to God. God replied, “I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen (Exod 33:18-23).” And that will be sufficient (by implication). And then in that wonderful balance found throughout scripture, He says through the prophet Isaiah,

Seek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts. Let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon. For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord (Isaiah 55:6-8).

“Oh, that I knew where I might find Him,” we cry out! Though infinite, God has not made himself inaccessible. We are encouraged to understand by acknowledging Him:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own
understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall
direct your paths (Prov 3:5-6).

For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord,
thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to You. And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart (Jer 29:11-13).

Without such a worldview we would easily be discouraged, confused and misguided by influences other than God. Without it we might try to lay human autonomy as the foundation of our worldview, reminiscent of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. Its first floor might be science, which gives understanding, its second floor technology, which gives it power, and its third floor economics, which gives purpose for the rest. The fourth floor may be consumerism, feeding superficial pleasures and driving the economy (Byl 290-291).

Sound familiar? That we live in a Christian society may be more a sentimental statement than one of particular honesty. Is Byl’s Babel metaphor consistent with Christianity? Often, in fact, our culture wars against the Christian worldview. In America we are pragmatic but lack purpose and direction. No longer do we have “unum” in our “pluribus.” We do not even have unity within our churches. In this humanistic environment, in this celebration of diversity and distrust of authority, do we facilitate our defense of the faith and our evangelistic fervor with a consistent Christian worldview? Because, without it we are not salt; we are not light.

R.C. Sproul in his book, The Consequences of Ideas, relates this story (p200-202):

My personal baptism into the public education crisis occurred in the 1960s when we sent our firstborn, our daughter, off to first grade…. After a few weeks the school hosted a parents’ night in which the principal would explain the school’s philosophy of education. I attended eagerly. The principal… was both winsome and articulate…. He went through each segment of the school day, demonstrating that every moment was spent in purposeful activity. This tour de force overwhelmed the audience with its detailed and erudite explanation of every element in the curriculum. When finished he asked, “Are there any questions?” Spontaneous laughter erupted. Only a fool would raise a question after the principal had so masterfully covered all the bases. I risked everyone’s disdain by raising my hand…. I said: “Sir, I am profoundly impressed by your careful analysis. You have made it clear that you do everything for a purpose. But there are only so many minutes in a day, and therefore you must be selective in choosing what specific purposes you want to achiever. My question is, Why did you select the particular purposes you have chosen? What is the ultimate purpose you use to decide which particular purposes you select? In other words, what kind of child are you trying to produce and why?” The principal’s face turned ashen, then beet-red. Without rancor and with humility, he replied: “I don’t know. Nobody has ever asked me that question.” “Sir,” I responded, “I deeply appreciate your candor and your spirit, but frankly, your answer terrifies me.” What I heard in this public forum was pragmatism with a vengeance. There were purposes without purpose, truths without truth. There was no norm to determine what is ultimately pragmatic. I though of Jesus’ words, “What profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul (Matt 16:26)?” Jesus was being practical. He was saying that every practical goal of proximate success sooner or later must be measured against an ultimate norm for its ultimate practical result.

According to Sproul we have been suffocated by naturalism, but have refused to open the door to a transcendent God. He quotes Etienne Gilson (1884-1978) who defined modern philosophy as “mere by-products born of the philosophical decomposition of the Christian living God.” Gilson insisted that our real choice in philosophy is between the skepticism of Emmanuel Kant and the theism of Thomas Aquinas. Sproul contends that we need to reconstruct the classical synthesis by which natural theology bridges the special revelation of Scripture and the general revelation of nature. The thinking person could embrace nature without embracing naturalism. All of life, in its unity and diversity, could be lived coram Deo, before the face of God, under His authority and to His glory (p.203).

If we are to represent our Savior to our contemporaries, we need to adopt His worldview, that is, the “Christian worldview.” We do not have to compromise for political correctness or fear of offense.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being save it is the power of God (1 Cor 1:18).

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

Each of the tenants outlined above (p.2) by John Byle can be compared to our prevailing culture. We must ask what in popular behavior and belief contradicts the Christian worldview. Taking each line, compare the Christian worldview as described by Byle with competing worldviews, with the view of many of your friends and family, with the current view as taught in American educational systems.

In what sense is one's worldview a “matter of life and death?”

How can a consistent Christian worldview influence our culture?

Use of the phrase “politically correct,” is usually derisive; it suggests an absence of moral values and integrity of evaluation. What is the opposite of politically correct? What word or phrase comes to mind? Does that phrase reflect your Christian worldview?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Byle, John. The Divine Challenge. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2004.

Geisler, Norman. “Worldview,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1999.

Penrose, Roger. Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. Oxford University Press, 1994.

Sproul, R.C. The Consequences of Ideas. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000.