21st Century Theology; Week 2

We are in the 2nd week of this series I’m calling 21st Century Theology. Like I said last week, the purpose of this series is to teach us how to relate to a world that has aligned itself against God’s word. Last week we looked at 6 different, or actually 7, including a Biblical worldview, different worldviews. I gave brief descriptions of each. After describing the worldviews, I posed the question:

Why is it important for us to know how/why other people think? Why should we care? In short, we should care, because we are called to reach those individuals.

This week we are going to look at 3 of the worldviews in depth and discuss some practical ways that we can live a faithful witness in front of them. After I pray I will talk about why I chose the particular ones I did.

PRAY!

Imagine if NASA called you up this week and asked you to come in and take a look at their newest rocket and troubleshoot a problem they can’t figure out. You know the old saying:

“You know, it’s not rocket science.”

Well, in this case you’d be wrong…I don’t know about you, but I would feel quite inadequate to perform such a task. Not only do I not know anything about rockets, I wouldn’t even know where to begin. It reminds me of an old movie with Chevy Chase and Dan Ackroyd called “Spies like Us.”

In this scene, Dan and Chevy are acting like they are doctors and have been asked to perform a surgery on a tribal chief.

PLAY CLIP

As I said, we are called to reach people, but we often do so with a very limited understanding of the people we are trying to reach, or worse than that, we simply don’t care, as we view our way of looking at things as superior to theirs. I’m not suggesting that we don’t hold the truth, obviously I do…else I should get another job. We are instructed to be fully convinced that Christ is the answer. But there is a difference between being convinced that Christ is the light of the world and feeling personally superior to someone. In fact, I don’t want to jump ahead too much here, but how we relate to people has pretty much everything to do with what we think of them on a personal level.

For our scripture today, we will be looking at Romans 2. After we go through the worldviews, then I will tie in Romans 2.

I understand that I normally begin with a passage first, but because our topic is so specific tonight, we will look at our passage in a bit. In other words, don’t worry, I promise I’ll tie in our subject with scripture. So, before we look at our text, hang with me as we look at 3 of the worldviews I spoke of last week

Humanism

Naturalism

Postmodernism

Why did I choose these 3 to look at in depth? Other than we don’t have time for all of them? I chose these 3, as they are the 3 most popular views in America, behind Theism. If you remember, Theism is the Worldview that believes in God and encompass Christians,, Jews and Muslim. It is distinct from a Biblical worldview, but it still fits in Theism. Let’s take a look at each one and examin how they define things such as

Truth and Morals

Humanism:

Morals:

Humanists stand for the building of a more humane, just, compassionate, and democratic society using a pragmatic ethics based on human reason, experience, and reliable knowledge-an ethics that judges the consequences of human actions by the well-being of all life on Earth. In other words, morals come from man. We made our own morals. Humanists believe that the origins of our moral capacities lie inside human beings and our evolution as social animals. They believe that, when deciding how to act, we should use reason and empathy, considering the consequences of our actions and the likely impact on other people and animals.

Truth:

humanism teaches people to rely on their senses and perceptions to discover truth. Man is the ultimate purveyor of truth; we decide, through experience what is or isn’t true.

Naturalism:

Morals:

An action is morally right to the extent that it tends to produce happiness (or pleasure, broadly construed) and morally wrong to the extent that it fails to produce happiness or tends to produce unhappiness (or pain, broadly construed). For the most part, things are considered “morally right” because of a consensus.

John wonders if it is morally permissible to spend some money going to the movies when he could instead use it to buy food for a homeless man. He thinks long and hard about what to do, but cannot come to a conclusion. He decides to ask his friend, Sofia, whose moral judgment he trusts (since every time they disagreed about moral questions in the past he came to admit that she was right). She tells him it is morally permissible for him to go to the movies instead of helping the homeless man. He comes to believe that. When asked why he believes that going to the movies was morally permissible he simply answers: “because Sofia told me so and I trust her”.

Truth:

The Naturalist view rejects anything that is not physical in nature. This includes ideas such as the soul. They believe that “truth” is what we can see and is relative to the individual. Naturalists do believe that “truth” exists, but it has to be observable and measurable. For example, it is true that 2 plus 2=4.

I’m sure you noticed some significant similarities between the two. Both believe that man is god. Man is the source of truth, and outside of what we experience, truth does not exist.

The one significant difference between Humanism and Naturalism is politics and purpose. Humanism is the political side of naturalism. Naturalism believes that we are mere accidents on the cosmic stage. While Humanism does subscribe to evolution, they have placed man in the place of God. For Naturalists, man is not god, we are an accident. Neither believe that morals or truth exist outside of what man determines to be moral or true. There are many flaws with this type of thinking, which we will get to.

Postmodernism:

Morals and Truth

Postmodernism came to light in the late half of the 20th century. The view began growing in the universities, as a political theory. This view was supposed to be in reaction to the “theistic” worldview, that truth and morals are absolute and do not change over time. The Postmodern worldview is both similar, but also very different than Naturalism and Humanism. Postmodernists reject any concept of morality or truth. In fact, they even reject the basic truth that 2 plus 2 = 4. That may seem ridiculous, but it is true. The basis on which they reject all claims of morality and truth is that both of those concepts were invented by those seeking to exercise control over people.

There is no objective reality or truth, only subjective perspectives. The main issue that even secular critics have with Postmodernism is that it does not offer any solutions or answers to life; its only reason for existence is to point out how everything else is wrong. In other words, Postmodernism is like a spoiled kid that isn't happy with anything, but isn’t smart enough to come up with an alternative solution to the problem.

So, those are the 3 most popular or growing worldviews here in America. H & M are fairly straight forward, as both believe that man is the source of ultimate truth and morality. It is through human reasoning that man has progressed as a species. Postmodernism is a bit different, as it simply rejects all claims of truth or morality and asserts that both are used simply as a means of control.

Let’s now take a step back from that and look at our text for this week. It is found in the book of Romans.

We will be covering the verses 12-16 of ch. 2 We will talk about these passages, then I will tie everything together and offer up some practical suggestions on how to effectively reach people with the worldviews we are talking about today.

To give you some quick context to these passages, in verses 1-11, Paul is talking about judging one other unfairly, but then turning around the doing the same things you criticize others for. Paul is saying: listen, you think you are righteous, simply because you have the law of moses, but the law of Moses does not make you righteous. In other words, you are in the same boat as those you criticize. Then, starting in vs. 12, Paul says:

Romans 2: 12-13

“For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.”

In these few passages, Paul addresses a couple of different issues, both of which apply to the subject of truth and morality. Of course, these aren’t the only passages that deal with this topic, but we will get into those later.

In verses 12 &13, Paul is talking about the difference between Jews and Gentiles. For example, when he references those “without the law,” he is referring to Gentiles…as they were not taught the law of Moses; however, those w/ the law are Jews, as they were taught the law of Moses. God is saying that whether or not you are a Jew or a Gentile, whether you know the law of Moses, or you do not know the Law of Moses, everyone is found guilty of sinning against God.

Then, in verses 14 to 16, Paul then explains his previous statement. After all, wasn’t it the law of Moses that pointed people to the idea of righteousness and ultimately Christ? Partially, but the law was mainly there for another reason:

Paul explains the purpose of the law in Romans 3, one chapter over.

Romans 3:19–26

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

It was the revelation of what sin is and how sin separates us from God that lead the Israelites to understand the concept of righteousness and ultimately Christ. We first must be aware that sin exists, before we are able to understand righteousness. So, for the Jew, the Law of Moses was given to them, so they would be aware of their need for a savior, someone to pay for that dept they owed to God, for living in sin.

As we know, and as Romans says, Christ is that payment. That is why through Christ we can be reconciled to God. This is why Paul said, first to the Jew (because they were already made aware of their sin), then to the Gentile, who needed to be made aware of their sin.

For many Jews back then, the fact that they had the law of Moses and the Gentiles did not was a source of spiritual pride; but it turns out, the Jews were held more accountable for their actions, as they were already aware of our sinful nature.

So, we know how the Jews became aware of sin and righteousness, but the Gentiles do not have the law, so how can God judge those who do not know the law of Moses?

Now, back to Romans 2, where Paul addresses the Gentiles:

Romans 2: 14-16

“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”

In essence, Paul is telling the Roman church that even though the Gentiles do not know or follow the law of Moses, they still follow the basic principles that are laid out in the law of Moses. Both Jews who have received God’s revealed law and Gentiles who live according to what is written on their hearts will be judged on the basis of their obedience to that law or code in the day of judgment. In these verses, Paul establishes that everyone, regardless of whether they have a revealed law, is in the same predicament regarding final judgment.

What does Paul mean by Gentiles are a law to themselves? What does he mean when he says that the law was written on their hearts, and their conscience bears witness.

Romans 1:20

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

What Paul is saying is that mankind, both men and women have an inborn sense of right and wrong, of good and evil. Across all time and all cultures, humanity has always held certain standards that have not changed. Have there been the odd civilization that has practiced abominable things, such as child sacrifice and things of that nature, sure; for the most part though, humanity has progressed because humanity has something called a conscience. Our conscience is what separates us from the animals. Our conscience is what makes humanity so unique. We have the ability to judge right from wrong. Even in civilizations that practiced terrible things, there were still certain activities that were considered evil or wrong.

Conscience:

The moral goodness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good.

conformity to what one considers to be correct, right, or morally good

Everyone has a conscience. Even those that we consider “evil,” guys like Adolph Hitler or Ted Bundy have a conscience. Now, their moral compass may not point North, but there are things that people like that consider to be wrong.

I’ll give you an example.

One of my hobbies is studying anti-social behavior; in other words, I like to study and learn about those in our society that do terrible things, like serial killers, mass murderers and the like. I realize this is not a field of study for everyone, but I’ve always enjoyed knowing what makes people tic. Why one person can’t step on an ant, but another person can maim and torture little kids.

The serial killer, Ted Bundy is a classic example of a person we would view as not having a conscience; except that is not the case. For example, after Ted Bundy got caught, he ended up escaping prison…twice. Ted would always kill one particular type of person…an adult female with dark hair…every victim he killed, except for 2…his first and his last. Both his first and last victims were children. He killed the first one because she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. His last victim was also in the wrong place at the wrong time. Days before his execution, Bundy confessed on tape to authorities to 30 murders in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah, Colorado and Florida between 1973 and 1978. Authorities suspect he may have killed many more -- as many as 100. He was very ashamed of these two kills, as they were children. Why would a guy like Ted Bundy have any shame, whatsoever? Because, despite the fact that he was deranged and a psychopath, he still had a small part of him that drew lines between what is acceptable and unacceptable.

The naturalist or humanist would argue that Ted Bundy only felt shame because of societal pressure; but guys like him do not care about societal norms at all.

So, with that said, now let’s tie our passage in Romans together with our topic dejure.

The book of Romans says that both Jews and Gentiles will be held accountable to God, the Jew, because they have been made aware of their sin through the Law of Moses. The Gentile, because God created each of us with an innate sense of right and wrong. I used the example of Ted Bundy because he is an example of an extreme situation, but even people like him, however squeed it may be, still have a sense of good vs evil.

As I said before, every culture, across all time have understood a basic sense of good vs evil.

Here is the problem though, the Law of Moses can not repair the relationship between a person and God; neither can the law of conscience…that is where Christ comes into the picture. This is why Jesus tells us to go out and tell people about Him. A Biblical worldview believes that God’s Word holds the answers to life’s problems and it offers the ultimate hope of us being reconciled to God through Christ.

Humanism and Naturalism:

Both H. & N. believe that morality and truth are are (essentially) man-made and have evolved over time. More than that, though, those who do not believe in intelligent design (at a minimum), believe that humanity are an accident of nature…that we evolved from lower life-forms to what we are today.

Now, it’s not my goal today to debate evolution vs creation, as we all believe that God created all that we see, including humanity. Probably everyone who will watch this online will probably have a Theistic worldview, if not a Biblical worldview. My goal is to provide you with some comparison and some practical steps when it comes to approaching a person like this with the good news of Christ. I’ll talk about this for a moment, then we will finish up with the Postmodern worldview.

Let me state first, that the best way that we can reach anyone with the gospel is to simply live out what we believe. In a second, I’ll give you an example of what happens when we don’t do this. Other than that, or when we do need to engage with someone who has a H or N worldview, we must approach them with our logical side, not our spiritual side…for the most part, and we must start small.

For example, to a person who believes that humanity are simply an accident, it does no good to start quoting scriptures about how God created the world. They do not believe that the Bible holds any answers. Instead, we must appeal to their reason and logic. There are 2 good places to start.

Faith

Morality & Truth & Evolution

Faith:

The H & N do not “believe” in faith…after all, faith is unseen and can’t be measured. Except, everyone has faith, and it’s not hard to prove, at all. For example, we have faith that God is real. We come to that conclusion based upon evidence…whether that be our own life experiences or whatever. The H & N put their faith in the fact that there is no God, they come to that conclusion based upon evidence (from their point of view). Either way, they still have faith.

Faith is believing in something that can’t be seen or experienced with our 5 senses. Believing that something doesn’t exist is still faith.

According to the H & N, nothing exists outside of that which can be experienced with our 5 senses. The concept of faith is something that everyone understands, but is unable to be explained logically. This topic simply gets the person thinking outside of their view that all that exists is our physical reality.

Now, it’s not your role to convince someone that faith exists…but it is an interesting topic that can open up different avenues of conversation.

Morality & Truth & Evolution

H & N believe in one of two things:

Natural Selection or Survival of the fittest. Either way, the reason man has become who we are today is because we were more “fit” or were naturally selected, via our brains…meaning we were smarter. Either way, both of these, compared to intelligent design, speak loudly of morality and truth. For example, if humanity simply evolved because we are stronger, faster, or smarter than other species, then that means that those who are stronger, faster or smarter should be way more “moral” than those who are not as fast, strong or smart. Additionally, those born with birth defects should no be allowed to exist, as they are a blight to our gene pool. Except most people do not think that. If we only evolved because of those factors, then things such as compassion and empathy would be viewed as a negative human trait, not a positive.

So, why does humanity, as a whole, think that compassion and empathy, and love for that matter are good things? How can traits that should be viewed as weakness find acceptance in society?

The person who believes in the Biblical worldview believe that humanity has these traits because they are the “law of God, written on our hearts.” Although this alone will not convince a person, it will open their minds to other worldviews and other possibilities.

Again, I want to emphasize, our main role is to simply allow our lights to shine, to live what we claim to believe. When we don’t we wind up with a situation with

Ravi Zacharias. If you do not know who that is, he was probably the most well known Christian apologist, before he died a couple years ago. He had the ability to explain God’s word with the wisdom of Solomon. There were many great videos of him debating hardcore atheists, as well as Muslims. I had so much respect for him. His ministry, Ravi Zacharias ministries was super wealthy. Unfortunately, he died of cancer while in the prime of his career. After he died, it turned out that he was a sexual deviant. He ruined his entire ministry and made a laughing stock out of Christianity in general. It was a dark time, that’s for sure. We must be careful to live out what we profess, as God is more concerned with our heart than how smart we are.

Let’s quickly switch to how we deal with those who believe in Postmodernism

Postmodernism:

Unfortunately, the younger generations are hopping on the Postmodern train in mass. Most think this is simply a result of being raised in homes where the parents were Theistic in their worldview, but did not live it out in front of their kids. As a result, the kids rejected all forms of “absolute truth & morality.” It’s called “Postmodern” because the majority of the US held a “Modern” worldview for the previous 100 years, where truth is absolute and morality is based upon that truth.

Admittedly, dealing with a PM person is difficult, as they think everything is about a struggle for power and authority.

The best way to approach a PM person is with general spiritually. One thing that most PM have in common is that they are searching for answers, as the PM worldview only critiques, it does not provide any answers. The Church, as an organisation is mostly viewed in a very negative light, however, spirituality is not. I’ve been able to engage PM people with the concepts of justice, how Christians we are called to be just and care for the poor and needy in society. This is a way to break down any walls that are there, especially if they know you are a Christian. Do not be afraid to admit the historical wrongs of people within the church, because it’s for sure that people have done terrible things in God’s name. Don’t be defensive, that’s for sure. Make a clear distinction between man and the heart of God. Also, don’t be afraid to admit that there are some things in scripture that are difficult to understand. Unlike the H & N, who are not interested in spirituality at all, the PM person is generally open to spiritual things. Most importantly though, be genuine.

Christ is our example, when he engaged with the people around Him, He wasn’t snarky or defensive…the only time Jesus got upset was when he dealt with the religious leaders. Let the person know that you will pray for them.

To wrap up, if you want to learn more about these things, as we just scratched the surface, I can recommend a book called “Can a Smart Person Believe in God.” I can give you the details if you would like. Above all, and equal to being genuine is remembering to pray for those in your circle that subscribe to these worldviews. Once God gets a hold of a person, their perspective on life and the world will change. We are not called to change them, only to love them.