I have, in a previous post, attempted to show that any means of gaining knowledge outside of the existence of the Creator God, the God of the Christian Scriptures, is fruitless. There can be no objective validation of truth outside of the existence of the infinite, personal God. Though there is much more that could be said concerning the subject of "truth" and the denial of the God of the Scriptures, this post will not deal with truth qua truth. Instead, ethics/morality shall be the topic of discussion.
In the Christian worldview, there is one basis for morality: the existence of the holy, creator, covenant making, law giving God. Because God has created the world, the world is naturally in a position to do His bidding. Whatever He asks, creation must respond in obedience. Take, for example, the creation account in Genesis 1. God gives a command, and that command is obeyed. One sees this throughout the chapter: God says, "Let there be X" and there was "X." The sovereignty of the creator God demands the world to fall into accord with His command.
When the creation of man occurs, man is made in the same way, through the command of God, but he is made different. He is made in the image of God. God gave man a mind, a will, and affections by which he may willingly and freely follow God's towards the end of glorifying God and enjoying the blessings God has granted to him (marriage, work, and the rest of creation itself). By following God's commands, man is happy. By honoring what God has established as law, man is blessed. As the law reflects the lawgiver, so to the commands of God reflect who God is, and by inviting man, who is made in God's image, to follow His statutes, God is inviting man to be like Himself. Thus you have the command of Jesus in Matthew 5:48: "You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." God, then, is not only the one who establishes the law but is the objective standard, the highest example, by which one is to measure His actions. "I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy" (Leviticus 11:44; cf. 1 Peter 1:16).
To recap, the Christian sense of morality is primarily concerned with obedience to God. He has established His law and is our example by which we are to live. To know how to live unto God, one must turn to His Word, the Scriptures, for "the Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God [, the objective example for obedience,] and what duty God requires of man [, the commands that He has given us to follow for our good and His glory]" (Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 3). However, this is only the vertical relationship, how one is to act in relation to God. Of course, horizontal relationships, particularly that of interpersonal ethics, are established by God in His law, there is another foundation as to why we are to act ethically and show respect to other people.
I said earlier that man is made in the image of God. Apart from this fact, man is merely an animal. He has no objective respectability. His dignity and worth are indelibly tied to him being made in God's image. When we act in an unethical manner toward's man, we are show disdain for the image of God. Now, of course, some might argue that man has lost worth and dignity after the Fall, but this simply is not the case. Both the fact that man's worth is tied to him being made in God's image and that that image is still present as part of the fundamental constitution of man's nature is found in an account after the Fall, Genesis 9: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image" (v.6). Now, I wish not to get into the discussion of capital punishment, but one basic principle that is exemplified here is that man must not murder another man because that man is made in the image of God. Further more, one is supposed to love their neighbor as themselves (Leviticus 19:18; cf. Matthew 19:19). I have no doubt that such a command is based upon the fact that man is made in the image of God.
Therefore, in the Christian ethic, God is in view first and foremost. His commands are to be followed. He is the ultimate, objective ethical standard. He has made man in His image, and, therefore, man is by nature worthy of respect, love, and dignity. If one sees these things and acts upon them, they are acting in a right and good manner. If they tarry from these things and act to the contrary of them, they are acting in a wrong, sinful, and evil manner. This is the Christian ethic in a nutshell. This is the only ethic which can stand. It is either this ethical system or no ethical system at all.
Now, those last statements might sound a little obtuse to some. How can I say that? Are there not secular ethical systems in existence? Cannot atheists follow these systems and be ethical? The rest of this post shall deal with how any and all ethical systems that exclude the existence of God, particularly the Christian God, cannot stand from an epistemological standpoint.
I propose that for an ethical system to stand firm it must have two things: a universal, objective, authoritative "oughtness" (a God who exists and commands), and objective human dignity (man being made in the image of God). Without these things, no ethical system can stand.
Without the existence of the God who commands, by what authority can there be an "ought"? If all there is is this universe, what sort of objective ethical "oughtness" can we have? The laws of this universe cannot give an ethical imperative. Indeed, if we hold to an atheistic, particularly scientistic, worldview, and believe that all there is is this universe, made up of subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules that move and work by law, and we, as humans, are made up of subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, etc., how can we have an ethical system apart from "what is, is right?" We are left with a completely mechanical universe, determined by the laws of physics. How can this produce an ethical imperative? Will we not, no matter what we do, follow these laws of physics? Does it then matter if we kill, steal, or destroy? If it happens, it happens, and that is right.
However, how we act, how we move, how we live, cannot have any sort of tag of "goodness" or "evilness" to it objectively speaking without something or someone authoritatively defining these words, giving them ultimate meaning. How can universals such as "good" or "evil" be anything objective in a closed system universe? Sure, one could call "good" that which follows the laws of physics and "evil" that which does not, but how can one defy such laws in a mechanistic, deterministic, universe? Would that not make, then, "ethics," "goodness," "evilness," "right," "wrong," merely subjective terms as they cannot be defined objectively? Thus, the ethical system of scientism could not be "what is, is right" for "right" has no objective meaning. Therefore, all that can be said is "what is, is" (though "being", "is-ness", or "existence" cannot be defined without God either, but that's a different topic).
There is, then, silence from an atheistic worldview. There can be no imperative; there can only be what is. No right, no wrong. No intellectually honest ethical system based upon objective imperative, on "oughtness". If an atheist does believe in an objective ethical system, then he does so on borrowed theistic presuppositions: authoritative "oughtness" and objective definitions of ethical terms.
The second necessity of an ethical system is objective human dignity. If we are to treat other humans in an ethical, respectable manner, do they not have to have such a dignity, the dignity as implied in the Christian understanding of man being made in the image of God? But we are working from the presupposition that there is no God; therefore, there is no one in whose image man is made. If one wants to take the position of atheism, which presents itself today mostly in scientism, then all than man is is a complex organism made up of cells. And all cells are are complex collections of molecules. And all molecules are are a complex collection of atoms. And all atoms are are a complex collection of subatomic particles. Man is merely made of subatomic particles. If this is the case, on what basis can anyone call him "dignified?" Sure, man is complex, but complexity does not impart worth and value by any objective means. What value does he have over that of a rock, which is simply a less complex compilation of subatomic particles? One might say that life is more valuable that non-life; but what is life? Is life not a bunch of atomic structures and energy working in a specific, complex manner? Sure, we can stand in amazement at the complexity, but to import objective respectability is to do so without warrant. Human dignity, respectability, worth, etc. can only be subjective in the atheistic worldview. To think of human dignity objectively is to lie to one's self apart from the existence of the personal, creator God who made man as the crown of creation, a being made in His own image.
The conclusion, then, if one is willing to deny the existence of God, is that morality, good, evil, right, wrong, etc. have not objective meaning and thus have no objective hold on anyone's life. Any ethical system is merely a clever, but dishonest, construct built by complex, yet impressive, collections of atoms, what we would call "humans." One is left to do what one wants, free from the bonds and restraints of "imperatives" and "objective authority." The universe doesn't care. What is, is. One might call this freedom, others might call this insanity.
Yet is there not a yearning, a yearning to do good, to do right? A want to stop evil? A desire for things to be in order? A desire for man to treat his fellow man with dignity and respect? There are two choices: either you can live in the lie which you know is a lie, that there is objective, ethical meaning apart from the existence of God, or you can acknowledge this yearning as a sign that there is Someone in whose image you are made, making you dignified, and that there are universal, objective imperatives found in the Scriptures and in the One of whom the Scriptures speak.
Soli Deo Gloria
Monday, July 4, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
The Existential Maneuver and the "Worship Experience"
"If one who lives in the midst of Christendom goes up to the house of God, the house of the true God, with the true conception of God in his knowledge, and prays, but prays in a false spirit; and one who lives in an idolatrous community prays with the entire passion of the infinite, although his eyes rest upon the image of an idol: where is there most truth? The one prays in truth to God though he worships an idol; the other prays falsely to the true God, and hence worships in fact an idol... It is the passion of the infinite that is the decisive factor and not its content, for its content is precisely itself. In his manner subjectivity and the subjective 'how' constitute the truth" (From Faith and the Absurd in Concluding Unscientific Postscript).
The above words of the "Christian" existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard may seem striking, even heretical, to the conservative Christian. For someone to say that it is completely arbitrary as to what or whom religious devotion is directed but that only the manner in which said devotion is conduction can decide the truthfulness of the situation is preposterous, a manifestation of the denial of the Scriptures, and a clear sign of a liberal conception of plurality.
Kierkegaard, in other works, speaks of the "letting go" of the objective rationality of God's existence, attributes, etc. and making a "leap" of faith into the unknown. Only such, says Kierkegaard, can be constituted as a genuine faith (See Kierkegaard's The Absolute Paradox found in Philosophical Fragments).
Yet it is this same conception, this conception of the subjective, existential, passionate moment, this "letting go," this "leap" contrary to rationality, that drives many "conservative" Christians today in both doctrine and worship.
Dealing with doctrine first, I don't know how many discussions I have been in with other Christians and have found a certain point of disagreement concerning what the Bible says. When something of this sort comes up, my first move is to systematically work from the Scriptures, to exegete a passage of Scripture that elaborates the point of discussion, not merely to cherry pick a verse, drop it, and leave it at that. Of course, if the person opposite of my position is one of at least some biblical competency, they will retaliate with Scripture concerning their position. My next response is one of dismantling their usage of the passage, explaining what it says in light of the context. More often than not, their response to my correction is one like this: "Well, there are some things we just can't know about God. He's much greater than our understanding." The existential move of the "letting go" of objective knowledge is instituted, side stepping the issue, though the Bible clearly attests to the objective truth to which I am holding for the purpose of our understanding said truth. In essence, such a person is saying, "My faith is pure enough to the point that I don't need to know this. I am leaping into the unknown, but you have to have things figured out. Shame on you, you unfaithful rationalist!"
Now to be sure, I in no way believe God can be comprehended in His entirety, but I do believe that the Scriptures teach us what we are to believe concerning God. Such an existential move of "letting go" of the reasoning of Scripture cannot hold such a view, that God reveals Himself in the Scriptures. If one treats a single truth concerning God that is clearly attested to in Scripture as something that cannot be known, on what basis can any other truth concerning God that is clearly attested to in Scripture be known? A single negation of the efficacy of the Scripture to reveal to us a truth that is expressed in the Scriptures must cause either skepticism concerning the rest of what Scripture says concerning Him or a flat out denial of the rest.
Perhaps a tangible scenario should be given. Let us say that a self-proclaimed Bible-believing Christian states that God does not sovereignly control all things but leaves some things to contingency, to chance. Some verses that are contrary to this view are Matthew 10:29 ("Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.") and Ephesians 1:11 ("[He] works all things according to the counsel of His will."). One can either accept what the Scriptures say, that God is sovereign over creatures that aren't worth a penny and, indeed, all things, however small and insignificant they are, or one can make the existential maneuver and say, "We can't really know this about God. This is a mystery." If the latter is the position stated, then what the person is really saying is, "We can't really know this about God because the Bible is insufficient in imparting such knowledge to us on this topic." And since such truth is clearly laid down in Scripture, one is saying, by implication, "We can't really know anything about God from the Bible because it lacks sufficiency." Indeed, this is where Kierkegaard ultimately fell, believing that revelation is objective and is, therefore, against faith, which is subjective. One is therefore forced to believe in a God who they cannot know about for they have denied the sufficiency of Scripture to impart knowledge. They must take a leap of faith unguided by the objective truth, the Scriptures.
Such a position cannot be lauded as biblical Christianity. Scripture teaches that truth is objective; it is outside of our own conceptions. We do not determine truth subjectively. God is truth (John 14:6). The Word of God is truth (John 17:17). Such an existential maneuver as seen above is a denial of the truth, God and His Word.
Such an existentialist view of the Scriptures makes its way into Christian worship. The emphasis on subjectivity rather than objective truth in much of Christian worship is quite apparent. Lighting, lazers, and the like are used in order to provoke the passionate, existential moment. "Real worship," "true worship," "spiritual worship," turns into something that has to be felt, something that makes one warm and fuzzy inside, though there may be no appeal to the mind. The elements of it must appeal to the affections first and foremost. Thus worship, to the Christian existentialist, is more about the experience than objective truth. The existential moment of passion is in the hyped feelings of the worship experience. It is with this passion of the infinite, the mysterious, the unknown, that the cause of "true worship" is found.
This is, however, not what worship is about. A very simple statement in the Scriptures is very indicative of how one is to worship. John 4:24 states that "Those who worship [God] must worship in spirit and in truth." There is no doubt that the existentialist Christian worships in spirit, disregarding mere formality. Passionate worship I believe is much needed. They have passion, but passion for passion's sake. They reject the objective "truth" in which Jesus commands people to worship; they jettison the truths concerning God in the Scriptures for God is "unknown." And by neglecting the truths concerning God found in Scripture, they neglect God who has revealed Himself in the Scriptures.
Worship is to be informed by the truth of the Word concerning God. If we do not know who God is and what He is like from the Scriptures, our passionate worship is merely worship of self.
I find what John Piper said concerning John 4:24 to be very true:
In conclusion, to avoid false worship, one must accept what the Scriptures say concerning God. To pull an existential maneuver, calling something that is clearly stated in Scripture to be ambiguous in order to protect one's own favored position from the accusation of falsity, leads not only to a practical denial of Scripture's sufficiency to convey truth and, if one actually believes that their existential maneuver is correct, the denial of the "truth" aspect of biblical worship.
Soli Deo Gloria.
The above words of the "Christian" existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard may seem striking, even heretical, to the conservative Christian. For someone to say that it is completely arbitrary as to what or whom religious devotion is directed but that only the manner in which said devotion is conduction can decide the truthfulness of the situation is preposterous, a manifestation of the denial of the Scriptures, and a clear sign of a liberal conception of plurality.
Kierkegaard, in other works, speaks of the "letting go" of the objective rationality of God's existence, attributes, etc. and making a "leap" of faith into the unknown. Only such, says Kierkegaard, can be constituted as a genuine faith (See Kierkegaard's The Absolute Paradox found in Philosophical Fragments).
Yet it is this same conception, this conception of the subjective, existential, passionate moment, this "letting go," this "leap" contrary to rationality, that drives many "conservative" Christians today in both doctrine and worship.
Dealing with doctrine first, I don't know how many discussions I have been in with other Christians and have found a certain point of disagreement concerning what the Bible says. When something of this sort comes up, my first move is to systematically work from the Scriptures, to exegete a passage of Scripture that elaborates the point of discussion, not merely to cherry pick a verse, drop it, and leave it at that. Of course, if the person opposite of my position is one of at least some biblical competency, they will retaliate with Scripture concerning their position. My next response is one of dismantling their usage of the passage, explaining what it says in light of the context. More often than not, their response to my correction is one like this: "Well, there are some things we just can't know about God. He's much greater than our understanding." The existential move of the "letting go" of objective knowledge is instituted, side stepping the issue, though the Bible clearly attests to the objective truth to which I am holding for the purpose of our understanding said truth. In essence, such a person is saying, "My faith is pure enough to the point that I don't need to know this. I am leaping into the unknown, but you have to have things figured out. Shame on you, you unfaithful rationalist!"
Now to be sure, I in no way believe God can be comprehended in His entirety, but I do believe that the Scriptures teach us what we are to believe concerning God. Such an existential move of "letting go" of the reasoning of Scripture cannot hold such a view, that God reveals Himself in the Scriptures. If one treats a single truth concerning God that is clearly attested to in Scripture as something that cannot be known, on what basis can any other truth concerning God that is clearly attested to in Scripture be known? A single negation of the efficacy of the Scripture to reveal to us a truth that is expressed in the Scriptures must cause either skepticism concerning the rest of what Scripture says concerning Him or a flat out denial of the rest.
Perhaps a tangible scenario should be given. Let us say that a self-proclaimed Bible-believing Christian states that God does not sovereignly control all things but leaves some things to contingency, to chance. Some verses that are contrary to this view are Matthew 10:29 ("Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.") and Ephesians 1:11 ("[He] works all things according to the counsel of His will."). One can either accept what the Scriptures say, that God is sovereign over creatures that aren't worth a penny and, indeed, all things, however small and insignificant they are, or one can make the existential maneuver and say, "We can't really know this about God. This is a mystery." If the latter is the position stated, then what the person is really saying is, "We can't really know this about God because the Bible is insufficient in imparting such knowledge to us on this topic." And since such truth is clearly laid down in Scripture, one is saying, by implication, "We can't really know anything about God from the Bible because it lacks sufficiency." Indeed, this is where Kierkegaard ultimately fell, believing that revelation is objective and is, therefore, against faith, which is subjective. One is therefore forced to believe in a God who they cannot know about for they have denied the sufficiency of Scripture to impart knowledge. They must take a leap of faith unguided by the objective truth, the Scriptures.
Such a position cannot be lauded as biblical Christianity. Scripture teaches that truth is objective; it is outside of our own conceptions. We do not determine truth subjectively. God is truth (John 14:6). The Word of God is truth (John 17:17). Such an existential maneuver as seen above is a denial of the truth, God and His Word.
Such an existentialist view of the Scriptures makes its way into Christian worship. The emphasis on subjectivity rather than objective truth in much of Christian worship is quite apparent. Lighting, lazers, and the like are used in order to provoke the passionate, existential moment. "Real worship," "true worship," "spiritual worship," turns into something that has to be felt, something that makes one warm and fuzzy inside, though there may be no appeal to the mind. The elements of it must appeal to the affections first and foremost. Thus worship, to the Christian existentialist, is more about the experience than objective truth. The existential moment of passion is in the hyped feelings of the worship experience. It is with this passion of the infinite, the mysterious, the unknown, that the cause of "true worship" is found.
This is, however, not what worship is about. A very simple statement in the Scriptures is very indicative of how one is to worship. John 4:24 states that "Those who worship [God] must worship in spirit and in truth." There is no doubt that the existentialist Christian worships in spirit, disregarding mere formality. Passionate worship I believe is much needed. They have passion, but passion for passion's sake. They reject the objective "truth" in which Jesus commands people to worship; they jettison the truths concerning God in the Scriptures for God is "unknown." And by neglecting the truths concerning God found in Scripture, they neglect God who has revealed Himself in the Scriptures.
Worship is to be informed by the truth of the Word concerning God. If we do not know who God is and what He is like from the Scriptures, our passionate worship is merely worship of self.
I find what John Piper said concerning John 4:24 to be very true:
The two words, spirit and truth, correspond to the how and the whom of worship. Worshiping in spirit is the opposite of worshiping in mere external ways. It's the opposite of formalism and traditionalism. Worshiping in truth is the opposite of worship based on an inadequate view of God. Together the words "spirit and truth" mean that real worship comes from the spirit within and is based on true views of God. Worship must have heart and worship must have head. Worship must engage your emotions and worship must engage your thought. Truth without emotion produces dead orthodoxy and a church full of unspiritual fighters. Emotion without truth produces empty frenzy and cultivates flaky people who reject the discipline of rigorous thought. True worship comes from people who are deeply emotional and who love deep and sound doctrine (http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/god-seeks-people-to-worship-him-in-spirit-and-truth).Truth about God must be known to worship God aright. And such objective truth concerning God can be only be found in the Scriptures. If those truths do not spark a passion in worship, then those truths are not really true to the worshiper. If there is a presence of passion in worship without truth, then it cannot be said to be the God of Scripture who is being worshiped.
In conclusion, to avoid false worship, one must accept what the Scriptures say concerning God. To pull an existential maneuver, calling something that is clearly stated in Scripture to be ambiguous in order to protect one's own favored position from the accusation of falsity, leads not only to a practical denial of Scripture's sufficiency to convey truth and, if one actually believes that their existential maneuver is correct, the denial of the "truth" aspect of biblical worship.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)