Only Two Worldviews
By Jay Wegter
“You’re intolerant!” and the problem of ‘mute’ Christians
Countless students who profess Christ are actually ‘stranded’ between two mutually exclusive worldviews. As a result these young adults walk around with a palpable tension as they are pulled in two different directions. They know something is wrong; they can see popular culture’s growing enmity and hostility toward the historic Christian faith. But, they live with the apprehension that if their Christianity becomes too visible, it may result in their being labeled intolerant; obnoxious; or closed-minded.
Because believing students often find themselves caught between the worldviews (the worldview of their Christian friends, and the worldview of their non-Christian friends); their attempts at adaptation produce neutralized testimonies instead of relevancy. But, our culture of relativism gives unbelievers a set of believable lies to frame every cultural issue. What is concealed behind these lies or, ‘plausibility structures’ is the worldview incorporated when the unbeliever frames, or defines the issues from his life view perspective. We need to consider just how pervasive this ‘redefinition’ ploy actually is.
The academic culture marginalizes those who deny moral relativism (accusing them of insensitivity, intolerance, political incorrectness). Philosophically we are marooned on a desert island— surrounded by an ocean of moral relativism which suggests that all opinions are relative with no objective basis in unchanging moral truth. This present state of affairs is evidence of God’s wrath revealed from heaven. It’s common to hear, “Who are you to judge?” As a believer, I answer back, “I certainly do have a right to make moral judgments—I am a rational person aware of the fundamental principles of logical and moral reasoning. I think I am qualified.” Popular culture assumes moral relativism—that there are no universally right and wrong answers, thus no appropriate judgments by which to make moral distinctions (which apply to every person, time, and place—only subjective opinions—like tastes and preferences) (Francis Beckwith, Gregory Koukl. Relativism: feet firmly planted mid-air).
Truth with a capital “T” had to die before relativism could become popular. Alan Bloom (The Closing of the American Mind, 1987) notes that students entering university are nearly all moral relativists. And that if that belief is put to the test their reaction will be uncomprehending. They are astonished it is not self-evident. The trend started in academia and then engulfed the common person. It started with the death of truth in the 60’s—namely that anything could be known for certain—all we can know now is opinions (Beckwith, pp. 19-20).
Relativism’s has produced a toxic brood of offspring—‘three’ in particular: political correctness, multiculturalism and the new tolerance. Relativism depends upon the assumption that “no one knows for sure”—it sees knowledge as relative and objective truth as non-existent. By objective truth we mean truth independent of the knower and his consciousness.) “No one knows for sure” is seen in the multi-culturalists’ assumption that every judgment can be reduced to a cultural perspective. But, “Every judgment can be reduced to a cultural perspective” is self-refuting because it itself is a judgment coming from a cultural perspective. Remember, the assumption of PC is that there are no norms of knowledge and morality that transcend a person’s culture (Beckwith, pp.79-84).
Alan Bloom’s students couldn’t defend the opinion that truth and morality are both relative. The student indoctrinated in political correctness closes his mind to the possibility that truth even exists. To propose that objective truth cannot be known is self-refuting—it presupposes what it denies (Ibid, pp. 86-87).
If one abandons the idea that one set of laws applies to every human being, and all that remains is subjective, personal opinion. Once morality is reduced to personal tastes, people exchange the moral question, “What is good?” for “What feels good?” They assert their desires and try to rationalize them with moral language. This is thinly veiled self-interest—pleasure as ethics—pleasure defining morality (add technology). Without moral truth, respect and dignity are eroded away. A society held captive by relativism begins to lose its capacity to think in morally coherent ways and to draw ethical conclusions (the ‘seared conscience’, 1 Tim 4:2). Moral irrationality devastates lives (Beckwith, pp. 34-35).
If all morals are merely personal preference then all moral judgments (justice) are indeed ‘imposing your morality on another, and we are only pretending to be ‘morally liberated.’ (Ibid, pp. 21, 24). Why praise animal instinct, argues C. S. Lewis? Why such praise for those who have submitted to the inevitable? (C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, p. 34). Virtue is hard work; giving in to animal passions is easy. If we reject moral principles, we sentence ourselves to fall into the position in which all we have left are natural impulses.
God’s Word proclaims moral truth; not moral values
Why do ideas have consequences? Because this is God’s world and because truth is eternal and all truth is God’s truth and all truth is backed up by God’s sovereignty and authority. A professed “truth-seeker” is a poser and pretender, unless he or she has an infallible standard for truth outside of self by which to evaluate truth claims. The truth standard outside of us is God and His Word. God’s truth includes a transcendent moral order which ‘transcends’ the individual. This is the polar opposite of morality relative to the individual which is so popular in mass/pop culture. Situation ethics are tantamount to the arrogant claim, “I have an absolute right to choose right and wrong for myself.”
Because this is God’s world, ideas have consequences which are both temporal and eternal. Every man and woman employs a truth grid to evaluate ideas. In other words, they determine the merits of an idea on the basis of a grid of evaluation. Ideas that are approved by our diagnostic grid shape all of our choices. Ideas proposed in life may the offer that they are reasonable and rational; that they are prudent; that they will make one happy; that they will provide: escape; identity; meaning; purpose; amusement; etc.
But all ideas pass through some gate of evaluation if one is even a remotely socialized person. Only an infant applies no diagnostic grid for ideas and choices. This brings us back to the issue of truth-seeker versus truth-escaper. For the question Jesus posed is as follows: is man an unbiased truth-seeker, OR, is the human condition characterized by spiritual and moral darkness?
Scripture reveals that man’s truth-seeking is radically jaded by innate depravity. Therefore, man’s propensity to choose the wrong diagnostic grid skews all of his searching efforts. God’s authoritative testimony of man’s natural condition proposes that man is easily mislead because of his love of sin and imagined autonomy. Man chooses a life view which gives him permission to live by his lusts and animal passions (see Romans 1; Philippians 3; 2 Timothy 3 and 4; etc.). The proof that man is biased against God’s truth is that man readily sits in judgment upon the veracity of God’s Word—setting aside the divine epistemology and arrogating to himself that role of determining how to what I know. According to God’s Word, people do not love the truth because the truth blocks the free expression of their lusts (i.e. who amidst their lusts wants to hear, ‘payday someday’?).
The Word of God authoritatively proclaims that TRUTH is a Person, the Lord Jesus Christ; Creator; Owner; Upholder; Redeemer; and Judge. All the treasures of God’s wisdom and knowledge reside in Him. He is the focal point of the universe. He is the rationality and ordering principle of the universe—the eternal Logos (Jn 1:1-4; Col 1:15-20). All things are summed up in Him (Eph 1:10).
The human condition is also defined by the life-long antipathy between animal passions and virtue. Truth and passion are locked in combat in our daily experience. Which of the two will govern our choices? Ultimately we can only retain one or the other. Under the influence of fleshly passions, moral objectivity evaporates. And, in the long run, either we are being conformed to the truth, and saying a firm no to our animal passions, OR, we are saying no to the truth and saying yes to our animal passions. We cannot successfully live a dichotomized worldview. Should the flesh set our behavioral standard, we lose what truth we have.
Because this is God’s world, truth is the way the world works under God’s moral government. Without God’s truth; we do not know God; we do not know the universe or ourselves or man’s place in the universe. Divine truth is God’s infallible answer to ultimate questions. Only by God’s truth can we know God and only by His truth can we live wisely unto God. We need God in order to find God. Man’s proposed autonomous reason is what makes him a fool in God’s sight (see 1 Cor 1; Rom 1; Prov).
Mass popular culture exists to promote the suppression of God’s truth. Social groups gather around common ideas about happiness; meaning; and fulfillment. When people draw close in social bonds, there is a common praising of their grids, life views, and ideas. Thus, the choice of one’s grid of evaluation has a powerful social corporate dimension (see 1 John 4:1-5 and who is ‘of us’). Who you run with shapes your worldview grid (1 Cor 15:33). The closest friendships are based upon common grids of evaluation—what we praise and worship IS our functional god.
God’s laws are inseparable from truth, justice, and love. In that sense, God’s laws provide a safeguard of love to God and neighbor. The species of ‘love’ so often lauded by Hollywood is a lawless love divorced from truth and justice (which winds up being no real love at all—only animal passions, desires, and emotions). What the Ten Commandments really are is the ten safeguards of love to God and neighbor. Only these commands keep love, truth, and justice joined together.
In our introduction we established that ideas have consequences because this is God’s universe; and because this is a moral universe. Man has a design and purpose and place in the universe which has been determined by his Creator. Only when man is occupying His created purpose do we have true moral and spiritual order. Moral and spiritual disorder produces physical chaos. When we think of the example of a crime and drug-infested ghetto, it is obvious that the breakdown of family is a huge part of the cause. The misery in a ghetto is in part traceable to moral and spiritual chaos.
Without fathers and nuclear families committed to virtue, people will operate by animal passions. They want to ‘feel good’ without moral and spiritual order. Human families are to bring order to the creation including moral and spiritual order— the is part of the dominion mandate established by our Creator. This ordering principle is accomplished by raising up God-fearing communities committed to obeying God’s commands. Obedience to God’s commands brings fruitfulness in all three areas: physical; moral; spiritual.
But there is a logical relation, cause and effect relation, between the three areas: spiritual order produces moral order which produces physical (or societal order). Romans chapter one is the divine record of what happens to culture when spiritual order is rejected. Romans one ends with a description of society in disarray under anarchy (as a result of rejecting God’s spiritual and moral order). Wrong theology yields wrong spirituality which yields wrong sexuality (Rom 1:18-27) (Peter Jones).
Secularists know that whoever ‘defines the terms’ is ultimately in control of the dialog. We as Bible believing Christians gladly submit to God as Definer of what He has called into existence. Our Creator is Definer, Owner, Upholder of all that He has made. He gives definitions; relations; categories; boundaries; and limitations—ultimately this constitutes a ‘blueprint’ for the creatures made in His image. A huge part of comprehending biblical worldview is coming to the understanding that God alone is the source of the categories in the created order. Thus, the things in our culture which are sinful commonly involve a misuse of something—ripping it out of its God-given category or changing and perverting it.
Man the rebel seeks to normalize and legitimize his rebellion by tearing the defining role from God and usurping it for himself. Now since a majority of the cultural issues today center upon ‘how the human body is to be used,’ is not surprising to see a massive campaign of ‘redefinition’ taking place in order to justify immoral uses of the body. Sexual perversion, abortion, same sex marriage, and pornography have been re-framed and redefined as freedom, individuality, reproductive rights, free speech, democracy, equality, personal expression, sexual orientation, etc. The rising generation is often oblivious to the reality that redefinition is taking place on a comprehensive scale. Satan’s original lie was an exercise in redefinition—a distortion of God’s Word. Redefinition is a prime tool of the powers of darkness in the spiritual battle of the ages.
Rebellion against God and His moral order is seen in the new tolerance
The most egregious cultural symptom of redefinition occurs in the ubiquitous charge of “you are being intolerant.” In our age of moral relativism, to make a moral evaluation is increasingly being equated with intolerance. But, the cost of retreat in the face of intimidation is greater than most would admit. Believers are called to be salt and light—but mute covert Christians are neither salt nor light.
What Christian students are often missing today is an understanding of what lies behind the charge of intolerance. Just beneath the surface of the accusation of intolerance is ultimately a redefinition ploy. The charge of intolerance has an immobilizing effect—like the proverbial cobra which hypnotizes its prey with an icy stare; students are often stopped dead in their tracks by the accusation of intolerance.
When students hear the charge of intolerance, they are hesitant to engage for a reason—the notion of intolerance (as a criticism against those who make moral evaluations) has been culturally framed so that it is associated with a particular set of emotions. The charge of intolerance frightens people. They are fearful of the stigma associated with the charge of intolerance (a history of racial and sexual prejudice). What they can’t see is that tolerance has been redefined to mean moral ambiguity. As a consequence of not seeing the redefinition agenda, the charge of intolerance pressures them into silence in the face of genuine evil, injustice, and wickedness when prejudice is not even remotely in view.
This knee-jerk surrender at the very thought of being labeled bigoted or intolerant is also a telling indicator of our culture’s loss of critical thinking. Where critical thinking is in short supply, emotions rush in to fill the vacuum. Our society has ‘tutored’ this rising generation to think in terms of emotional comfort. The implicit message is, “by always seeking what I perceive as my emotional well-being, I will always be acting in the interest of my highest good.” This is the polar opposite of what the Prophet Joel and what Jesus taught when they imbued their hearers with the urgency of repentance: “Rend your hearts and not your garments; if your eye offends pluck it out; be miserable, mourn and weep” (Joel 2:13).
Webster’s New World Dictionary definition of tolerance: “A fair and permissive attitude toward those whose race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own.” Genuine tolerance requires that we allow the person who espouses beliefs we consider wrong the right to do so. This is known as “civic tolerance.” It is one of the virtues enshrined in the laws and constitutions of civilized and democratic societies. We respect a person’s right to hold beliefs different from our own. We treat them courteously and allow them to express their views in public discourse, even though we may strongly disagree with them and vigorously contend against their ideas in the public square.
But while people have a right to hold and express their views, respect or civility should not be confused with the “new tolerance.” There is a huge difference. Civic tolerance maintains that all persons should be respected and their views should get a courteous hearing, the new tolerance goes much much further by arguing that all views and practices have equal worth, merit, or truth. Tolerating or respecting people (civic tolerance) is confused with tolerating their ideas and practices (the new tolerance). In the new tolerance no idea or behavior can be opposed, regardless of how graciously, without inviting the charge of being “judgmental,” “intolerant,” “disrespectful,” “bigoted,” “extremist” or some other harsh accusation (“DON’T JUDGE ME!” The Gospel of Tolerance vs. Church Discipline By © Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, Ph.D.).
Webster’s dictionary defines tolerate as “to recognize and respect [others’ beliefs, practices, etc.] without sharing them” and “to bear or put up with [someone or something not especially liked]” (pp. 15-16). Similarly, the Macquarie Dictionary defines tolerance as “the disposition to be patient and fair towards those whose opinions or practices differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.” According to McDowell and Hostetler, this definition is compatible with Scripture because a traditional view of tolerance has meant such things as “respecting and protecting the legitimate rights of others, even those with whom you disagree and those who are different from you” (A Christaf Discussion Group facilitated by Dr Nola Passmor, 3/1/2005).
Under the U.S. constitution each person has an equal right to hold his or her belief. But under positive tolerance all beliefs are equal in the sense that they are morally equivalent. (EX: According to the ‘new tolerance’ if I say the claims of Christ are superior to the claims of Mohammed, or anyone else, it makes me a bigot who is going against virtue.) Traditional tolerance was simply the right to hold to one’s belief and practice it and still be respected and treated fairly. However, “positive tolerance” demands praise and approval for all beliefs and lifestyles. Same sex marriage advocates demand, “Now we not only want your neutral permission, we demand your positive praise and approval.” To be considered tolerant, you must from your own heart, regard the beliefs and lifestyles of others to be equally valid to your own or you’re not tolerant. You must treat the ideas of others the same as your own.
Tolerance (as understood by our founding fathers) is reserved for those who think we are wrong. Disagreement is the prerequisite to tolerance—did you get that? Tolerance of ideas should be distinguished from tolerating people. The two are commonly confused. If we reject another’s idea or behavior we’re automatically accused of rejecting and attacking the person (or of disrespect). To say we are intolerant of the person because we disagree with idea is confused. (In this view of tolerance, no idea or behavior can be opposed without inviting the charge of incivility.)
Historically our culture has emphasized tolerance of all persons but not tolerance of all behavior. This is a critical distinction, because in the current rhetoric of relativism the concept of tolerance is most frequently advocated for immoral behavior (premarital sex, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc.). Ironically in the new tolerance there is little tolerance for the expression of contrary ideas on issues of morality, religion, etc.
Our culture of moral relativism (ambiguity) has turned tolerance has turned on its head! We are told to tolerate most behavior but not to tolerate beliefs that oppose those behaviors (this is backwards). Contrary moral opinions are labeled as ‘imposing your view on others.’ How did disagreeing with the beliefs of others become “hate speech, or hate crime?” What passes for tolerance today is actually intellectual cowardice—a silencing of dialogue (crisis in dialog—lost forum for ideological debate, framed issues). Those who hide behind the word “tolerance” are often afraid of intellectual engagement. It is easier to hurl an insult than to confront the idea, evaluate it, refute it, or be changed by it (Beckwith, 148-151).
The new tolerance says, “I must be indifferent when it comes to values and lifestyles. I must not impose my values on another. I must not make moral judgments. The moment you are not indifferent regarding values, truth claims, and lifestyle, you have crossed the line into bigotry. You are biased, prejudiced, and discriminatory if you care enough to make a moral evaluation.”
Christian love says, “I must act and speak truth in love. So if I see someone in a destructive belief or lifestyle I will stop to speak truth in love. Therefore, the new positive tolerance is opposed to Christian love! The reason why is because Christian love makes a moral judgment. Jesus exposed the lifestyle of the woman at the well (John 4) as a sinful lifestyle—what He did in confronting her was love!
The principle of tolerance does not follow logically from relativism. Relativism is bankrupt and not a true moral system (it’s actually the position of intolerance). It is self-refuting and makes morality unintelligible. If relativists conclude that morality is relative, then they certainly cannot conclude that they may impose the objective moral rule of tolerance on other cultures. There is no moral basis in relativism to say “All people ought to be tolerant of others’ viewpoints.” The principle of tolerance only makes sense in a world in which moral absolutes exist, and only if one of those absolutes is “All people should respect others’ right to differ.” The ethic of tolerance can be rational only if moral truth exists and is objective and absolute. Tolerance is an absolutist principle (Ibid, pp.154-155).
On the worldwide web there are numerous sites filled with bitter anti-Christian material. These are often the same sites that are promoting tolerance. Why is there such ferocious opposition from the “paragons” of tolerance? The reason is because the truth claims of Christianity (which are absolute and exclusive) are the death-blow to postmodernism which is simply a cloak for intellectual and moral self-government (i.e., self-centeredness, self-worship, idolatry). A great many of those who ‘debunk’ traditional values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process (C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, p. 29).
A theory we have as to the motivation behind the postmodern tolerance view is that when people think of positive tolerance they primarily have in mind sexual freedom. Firstly, homosexual rights and acceptance in Western culture and, secondarily, other deviant lifestyles surrounding sexual immorality like pornography, abortion, fornication, adultery, transsexual/transgender lifestyles seem to be the driving motivation. It is quite plausible to believe that positive tolerance is really an irrational and demonic defense for an exploding sexual revolution in our culture (Josh McDowell, Right from Wrong).
It is time for Christians to unmask the lie beneath the culture war
What is disguised as a culture war between viewpoints on substantive moral issues is actually endemic to the spiritual battle of the ages. The culture war is ultimately about worldviews in conflict— the world according to God, or the world according to Satan. And, this conflict is ultimately traceable to its fountainhead—the Edenic Lie. Our culture’s growing enmity toward biblical Christianity is an indicator that the erroneous worldview which opposes historic Christianity can only operate under camouflage for so long—if the trend continues, open defiance against biblical Christianity will replace today’s measured opposition.
Satan’s original lie drove a wedge into the mind of man. A dichotomy within man’s heart was formed in the process. Our first parents, once having acted upon the devil’s lie, became blinded to God’s glory—they regarded God’s glory and man’s highest good as mutually exclusive—that’s the dichotomy. Satan’s lie created a breach, or wedge, in man’s thinking between the will of God and the good of man. In effect, Satan told a lie about God’s goodness; a lie that once believed would ‘logically’ justify human self-determination, and justify the enthronement of autonomous human reason.
Lucifer’s lie about God’s goodness scribes the very outline, shape, and contours if you will, of the spiritual darkness that rules every unregenerate soul. The luciferian lie has four basic parts: 1.) “God is not good and loving.” God is withholding your highest good. He is even threatened by your human potential. This became an excuse to think negatively about God. 2.) “God is not truthful.” “You shall not die.” God is not to be feared—He makes idle threats, doubt leads to denial. The lie cast doubt upon the authority; authenticity; reliability; and truthfulness of God’s Word. This became an excuse to think skeptically about God. 3.) “God is not righteous.” God is not going to comprehensively punish sin. His judgments have no teeth—trust yourself instead. His dictates are not really commands; only advice. This became an excuse to think irreverently about God. 4.) “God is not gracious.” Since God is not good, truthful, and righteous; you need to be your own god. Experiment a bit; liberate yourself; determine truth; reality; right and wrong for yourself. This became an excuse to think independently from God, and an excuse to worship created things (the autonomy lie).
The lie has repeatedly incubated and expressed itself throughout human history. Its present morphology (by which it takes captives) is in the form of philosophies which suggest that ideas do not have consequences, and that man is the measure of all things—man has the right to define himself and his entire existence. That is of course but a small variation from the original lie, “you shall not die.”
God’s Word exposes the erroneous worldviews where sin seeks cover
Because believers do not normally think in terms of two antithetical (or mutually exclusive) worldviews; they are too easily intimidated by the charge of intolerance. Believing students who have not been grounded in biblical worldview find it easy to be on the defensive—attempting to legitimize their convictions against the culture’s stereotypical perceptions. A foundation in biblical worldview can help equip believers so that they do not allow themselves to be unwittingly dragged onto the turf of non- Christian worldview. To be dragged onto non-Christian turf is to feel like those who launch stereotypical objections against Christianity actually have a salient argument when they suggest that the Christian viewpoint is antiquated (a layover from the age of prejudice) and therefore nearly irrelevant in this culture. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The lie is an attempt to blur the distinctions which God has made—and then to call that blurring of distinctions, “freedom.” By contrast, biblical worldview teaches us that to embrace divinely ordained distinctions is love; and to reject them is self-destruction. God’s laws, limits, and boundaries which He has placed upon mankind are infinitely wise, good, just, and loving—they preserve our humanness. They enable us to reflect the Creator. They are safeguards of love in our relationships.
Our culture is dead set on obliterating the creation distinctions established by our Creator. In the process, the West is well on its way to amputating the soul of man. Once a culture no longer defines mankind as the image and likeness of God, theism is lost, and a monstrous substitute rushes in to take the place of the knowledge of God (the result has been the same through history: spiritual holocaust is followed by physical holocaust).
As long as the Lie is in place as a set of accepted cultural forms, the immensity of the consequences of what a person worships will be concealed. The power of the gospel involves exposing and eradicating the lie from the heart of the sinner. The gospel is at the center of our worldview. The gospel exposes man’s idols as the cause of his brokenness. The healing health of the gospel begins by cleansing us; giving us right-standing with God and delivering us from the soul-destroying habit of worshipping created things.
The justified person shows reverence for his or her Creator by respecting the wise and just limits and boundaries that God has placed upon us. Submitting to God’s ‘blueprint’ for us protects us from damaging ourselves and others, and it protects us from blaspheming God and the gospel.
The Lord Jesus Christ is at the center of our worldview. His identity and uniqueness set biblical worldview apart from man-centered systems of thought. Christ is God’s authoritative ‘mouthpiece’— through the Word of Christ God gives us His authoritative view of the world. When we order our lives by ‘God’s view of the world,’ we move out of our innate self-deception and into the reality of living unto God. Our Creator’s infallible view of the world brings clarity to every ethical cultural issue we face today. Christian students today desperately need this biblical framework in order to understand how the gospel overturns the ancient lie (with its current cultural forms). The gospel gives you God; the gospel lets you taste God’s goodness; and the gospel gives you clarity and discernment by giving you God’s view of the world.
What now? How can Christians be salt and light in a decaying culture?
The idols of our culture cannot be tipped over by means of morality, rhetoric, or social reform.
Who God is; His plan (what He is doing); who we are; how He is only known in Christ—are only known by means of the gospel. The gospel alone is the power of God for salvation. The gospel is not just ‘how to get to heaven.’ The gospel is the radical antithesis of sin meeting divine justice at the cross of Christ so that sinners may meet the God of all grace. Therefore the gospel is a militant encounter between idols and the living God (1Thess 1:9). The gospel breaks the power of sin; but first it sheds its intense light to illuminate God’s character to our understanding, and it illuminates our bondage to idols.
This exposure of modern idols by means of the evangel is what it means to press the claims of the gospel; for the power of the gospel is evidenced in the kingdom transfer from darkness to light; from the lie to the truth—the restoration of the helpless sinner to God and His will. Thus the truth of the gospel defines the exact contours of the battle front between truth and error—between the lies which enslave and the truth of Christ which liberates (Peter Jones and Matthew Bohling).
Cultural issues today are framed in the way in which they are because the erroneous worldview behind that ‘framing’ is anchored in the worship of created things. This is the very reason why we must see the gospel as more extensive than merely granting eternal life to the undeserving sinner. The gospel is a lens which allows us to see that there are only two worldviews—the worship of God and the worship of the creation (and the creature) (Rom 1:18-23).
The better we understand this contrast (or antithesis) between ‘only two worldviews’, the more equipped we will be to effectively preach the gospel to this generation. Here is the reason why: biblical worldview allows us to see with clarity the structure of unbelief and the content of unbelief. Man’s love of autonomy makes him easy prey for the lie that ideas do not have eternal consequences. The more clearly we see the sinner’s dilemma (with its present cultural forms of the ancient lie); the better able we will be to speak grace into his situation.
Worldviews are in conflict—energized by the spiritual battle of the ages. The destinies resulting from these two respective worldviews could not be further apart—eternal heaven versus unending perdition. Therefore Christian students must be trained to speak God’s truth into the darkness as an act of supreme love. To fail to do so—to attempt to solve the worldview dichotomy and quandary by desultory behavior (from the Latin, straddling two horses) is tantamount to retreat.
It is a great misnomer to imagine that one may go through life in Yahweh’s world without a totalizing worldview (meta-narrative) which controls every action, decision, and affection. Students who think that they can find de-militarized ground in this battle of the ages are greatly mistaken (the autonomy lie). To pretend that one is standing on neutral ground is to compromise in an attempt to survive—but this is not surviving. To go along in order to get along is not true peace.
Our culture’s growing enmity toward biblical Christianity is forcing our hand. This can be a good thing because we are being confronted with the fact that reaching for imagined middle ground does not faithfully represent our Savior. Biblical antithesis is what is called for. To follow Christ is to be a worldview-changer. To follow the Savior is to answer the gospel call to an antithetical life. The culture is all too ready to give a ‘free pass’ to those who embrace its redefinitions. But the Christian who owns his biblical worldview verbally and publicly must steel himself to the reality that he will be ostracized to some degree (Jn 15:18-25).
The rising generation has grown up fearing giving offense—they have measured their social effectiveness by the very base standard of being liked. Not giving offense has replaced the love of the truth and the courage to stand for the truth. What is really needed by followers of Christ to live under His eye, for His approval (Jn 5:44). Then, and only then is it possible to find one’s place in the battle of the ages. The uniqueness of Christ is the unifying truth in our biblical worldview. As Lord of the cosmos and Lord of the church He gives us the clarity to see what is at stake in this ages-long battle.
Believing students frequently have but a vague notion of the spiritual battle in which they are engaged—they are tempted to write off this opposition to historic Christianity as a ‘cultural issue’ that they have to accept. This is why a comparison of the two worldviews is such vital equipping. It opens up the understanding to the fact that the new tolerance (while making strident appeals for fairness and inclusion) is radically exclusivistic; and not inclusivistic as it claims to be. The exclusivist agenda of the new tolerance is hidden inside the Trojan horse of ‘fairness.’
The new tolerance is unbendingly monistic (the pagan idea of the one-ness of all things). It opposes the divinely ordained distinctions that are inherent in biblical theism. This erroneous worldview behind the new tolerance is a deadly weapon used to normalize sin; death; and immorality, and to dispense with need for regeneration. What remains are variations on the utopian theme—mankind, through the pursuit of social justice, social engineering, and sexual politics will usher in a new age of equality and prosperity (Peter Jones, God of Sex).
When we see today’s issues through the Word of Christ, we will have the clarity we need to discern our culture. We will have the biblical worldview tools and biblical framework necessary to resolve the cultural issues of our day without compromise. Christ’s Word provides the strength we need to pursue transformation by the truth with boldness and confidence.
By contrast, students living between (or straddling) the two worldviews are hoping to defuse the antipathy with niceness; harmlessness; and dialectic. That is not the example set by our Lord. He kept joined what our culture is desperate to tear apart—Jesus kept joined truth and love—mercy and justice. Christ did not seek harmony and peace by relativizing truth and morality. He proclaimed the message given Him by His Father in heaven. Turn from your idols—for they are your actual oppressors and destroyers.
Students need to see that there are two historic worldviews locked in combat. And they need to see the immensity of the consequences of each of these worldviews. The present form of the ancient lie is using the charge of intolerance to tear apart truth and justice and mercy. The very idea that lawless love (‘love’ without God’s moral absolutes) is ‘real love’ is central to the Edenic Lie. What does it cost to put us back in possession of the truth? Let us never forget that the price to restore us to the truth was the death of the Truth Incarnate. Jesus dies to put us back in possession of God’s truth (Jn 8, 14). There is so much at stake—so much life and love at stake. We cannot be mute, it is the blood bought truth that sets sinners free.
CONCLUSION: Either the creation is ultimate, or Logos is ultimate. Whichever is ultimate IS the ordering principle of the universe. What knowledge shall govern our lives? Why should it? Relativism has caused this generation to lose the ability to answer these most basic ultimate questions. As author Richard Weaver notes, this generation no longer has the ability of abstraction—the capacity to think about life through the grid of first principles is absent—“we have become moral idiots” (Richard M. Weaver, Ideas have Consequences). Why does knowing who God is and knowing man’s place in the cosmos precede all other questions about what we know and how we know it? The answer to the foundational question: “What is a human being?”—shapes all of our social relations? The answer goes back to man’s place in the cosmos. If man is a cosmic coincidence, then morality is up for grabs. But if man is made in the image and likeness of God, then the divine ‘blueprint’ for our social relations must govern our lives if humanity is to flourish.
The problem in the world today (expressed through the culture war) is that people want Eros and not Logos (Peter Jones). There is war declared on Christian worldview—war on the truth of man as the image of God. Mass culture works constantly to destroy this knowledge. The libertine agenda of Eros sees Christian worldview (with Christ’s throne rights) as hostile to its rebellious trajectory.
Philosophic naturalism is used to war against the Christo-centric worldview of Logos. It does so in order to marginalize the authoritative truth of Christianity. ‘Science’ is cast as rationality, and faith is cast as irrationality. But biblical faith is faith in the truth. ‘Science’ (in the name of objectivity) has usurped the role of the Creator. It has replaced divine revelation as the explanation of all phenomena. We as believers must know why there is no scientific definition of truth (note that transcendentals, or ‘first principles’ such as love, logic, beauty, justice, rationality, moral order, etc. cannot be studied under a microscope).
The progressives have taken the field in a massive redefinition plot. Satan’s agenda to sow doubt upon God’s infallible Word “Hath God said?” is manifested today by humanist answers to the following: What is man? What is man’s place in the cosmos? What is human flourishing? What is freedom? Humanist answers to these ultimate questions seek to legitimacy by appealing to the religious dogma of Darwinism. It is the sinner showing his love of darkness—for in order to pursue the sexual utopia of Eros, mankind must usurp God’s role as Definer of the creation and its relationships. The redefinition plot uses such terms as ‘marriage equality’ to hide the perversion it is promoting. Remember, whoever controls the definitions controls the dialog and dominates the playing field.
God owns us by virtue of creation. So, how did we get to the place as a culture in which man is reduced to animal matter? Truth with a capital “T” had to die. The sacred canopy had to be totally obscured. Christ the Logos, had to be expelled from education so that mechanistic determinism could be the ordering principle of the universe. People gravitate to absurdity in order to justify worshipping Eros. (EX. Does the elemental table explain marriage, Beethoven, the Mona Lisa?). Humanism and Darwinism and Hinduistic pantheism have formed a thick cloud to hide the sacred canopy of divine transcendentals (moral absolutes; divine transcendence; mankind as the image of God; etc.). So in lieu of the sacred canopy, what now is seen as supplying the ordering structure of man’s existence? How long can Western culture live off of the fumes and dividends of Christian worldview without having a Christian worldview?
Relativism and its unclean offspring (positive tolerance, political correctness, and multiculturalism) are utterly dogmatic in their claim that freedom comes from throwing off divinely ordained teleology. The Bible teaches that everything about you has a design, purpose, or goal for which it was created by God—everything from your body parts to the faculties of your soul. Relativism, in denying that man is the image of God, suggests that you are sole owner of self. Then it doesn’t matter what you do with the ‘blank canvas’ of self: drug it, pierce it, eroticize it, kill it, promote it, degrade it, or paint it. You are a blank canvas and the world is your oyster—you owe nothing to God. He does not define your entire existence. The world is your raw material to use as you write your own identity and your own sexuality (including gender).
By contrast the Bible says we are terribly fallen, alienated from God, in need of regenerating grace. Only those regenerated will love God, live and love His perfect pattern (teleology). That is the biblical definition of freedom (Jn 8). Therefore in the culture war we are looking at two different gospels—two different/opposing sources of redemption. Our young people must be taught biblical antithesis—to think critically about these mutually exclusive sources of freedom (Gal 5:1, 13).
Biblical cosmology says that God’s redemptive plan is restorative. Satan’s cosmology normalizes sin, death, suffering, perversion, and rebellion. In the evil one’s cosmology, the mind of man determines reality—this is the height of arrogance that the dependent creature of dust should press his imagined autonomy upon his life—and then declare that God’s good precepts are restrictive, confining, and antiquated.
Unsaved people long for paradise as well; BUT, they want the kind of utopia that comes through social engineering. The Christian gospel truth of a utopian existence to come (heaven) is tied to the reality that the first thing in the creation brought to absolute immortal perfection is the glorified body of our Lord Jesus. That means that the empty tomb is the proof—the guarantee/warranty that the whole creation will be made new. Christ’s resurrected glorified body is the first installment of the new creation.
God creates by separating. The separated distinctions He has made are known as ‘creation structures’—these distinctions make God-glorifying relationships possible. Our neo-pagan age has declared war on these divinely ordained distinctions. And it has done so in the name of freedom. Our satanically energized world system has declared war on God, the distinction Maker. Man is showing that he is under wrath revealed from heaven by choosing an entirely different set of ordering principles.
The spiritual battle raging beneath the culture war is using sexuality as the fulcrum to deconstruct the knowledge of God. For no issue reveals one’s worldview more than sexuality (see Paul in Romans one). What you worship is at the heart of your worldview (Rom 1). The mountain peak of human sexuality forces the issue—either down the slope of biblical theism, OR down the other slope of monism (pantheism/paganism) (Peter Jones).
The college campus today is the main place of indoctrination in relativism. Sadly, most churches lack the vision to prepare their young people for the philosophic assault that is waiting for them on the campus of public universities. It is a crime to throw them to the wolves like sheep. On these college campuses, biology, anthropology, and psychology are treated as absolutely authoritative in explaining what man is and his place in the cosmos. Only the truth of the gospel can equip us to expose the hiding places of sin within rebellious worldviews. How we need to train our young people to be able to mount a theological defense of the truth that Christ is Lord of the cosmos, and there is salvation in no other (Acts 4:12).