Unified by Love?

It has been explained by a Christian apologist that disunity amongst Christians is not at all an indication that there is no God at the helm, as long as the disunity relates to doctrine and not to the one true essential point of unity…loving one another.

This seems at first glance to possibly have the appearance of a good point. But with the application of logic, let us see if this little nugget may actually be self-defeating for the Christian.

The word “doctrine” connotates the noun “teaching.” Think of it as an accepted way of understanding something or believing something. For instance, it is a doctrine that American Presidents believe that democracy is good, and “teach” that other countries should also adopt democracy for their governmental health. A foreign leader who refuses to adopt democracy for his country could be said to have a “doctrinal” disagreement with American leaders.

In religion, doctrines are necessary in order to establish order and to prevent sheep from being led astray by wolves. How are the wolves recognized except by their variances from orthodoxy (from the latin for “right doctrine”)? People are quite capable of appearing to love even when they don’t, but their status as faithful Christians can be called into question if they introduce thoughts/ideas/beliefs which are contrary to acceptable doctrine.

I have elaborated on this point before, in a recent post called “Theists Need Religion”.

Who gets to decide what issues are essential or fundamental or central, and what issues are secondary or simply a matter of different perspectives or levels of maturity? Is the Doctrine of the Trinity essential? Is the Doctrine of the Humanity of Jesus essential? Is the Doctrine of Predestination essential? Is the Doctrine of Original Sin essential?

If doctrinal disunity is perfectly acceptable and no one has the authority to say which are essential and which are secondary, and all people have to do is love one another…then what stops the atheist, muslim, jew, mormon, etc from going to the Christian heaven when they die…as long as they have been unified in loving one another?

Presupposing the Conclusion

To the atheist who asserts that god does not exist, the Christian responds, “That cannot be proven.”

To the atheist who states that they simply do not believe that gods exist, the Christian responds, “God does not believe that atheists exist. Atheists have to believe in God whether they acknowledge it or not. Their words and actions betray their self-deceit because all good things are of God, and atheists speak, think, and try to act on the basis of good.”

To the atheist who states that it is impossible to know whether gods exist, the Christian responds, “The existence of God can be known through the use of ordinary observation and reason, because God’s creation testifies to His existence…and truth only makes sense if it originates with a supernatural source…and reason only makes sense because God Himself is Logic…yada yada yada, many other goddy statements…”

To this last response, the atheist makes an observation beyond reasonable dispute in saying, “Claims of certainty with regard to knowledge of the existence of gods are impossible apart from the presupposition of the existence of the claimant’s particular god. Such a presupposition renders the claimant’s argument circular and therefore only acceptable to those who would choose by faith to accept a circular argument, contrary to logic. Indeed, the believer's argument presupposes its own conclusion."

Theists Need Religion

Arguing against religion is an unwise path for the theistic apologist, because the claims of theism benefit from religion and conversely, are harmed by individualism.

Allow me to remind you that I am agnostic and was formerly a Christian. Ironically, this post is written for the benefit of a theist who has recently indicated in my comment boxes that "religion" is to blame for some atheists and agnostics either giving up on the Christian faith or refraining from trying it in the first place. The commenter's position generally is to say that Christianity is about "relationship", not "religion." I think this person is hurting her own endeavor by opposing a vital part of the theist platform. So...keep in mind that I am not in favor of religion and am not an adherent to Christianity or personal walks with Jesus, etc. I am an agnostic, benevolently writing to help a Christian stop arguing against herself.

If only one Creator God exists and wants to convert people to follow him and wants these converts to follow him in a particular way (such as having a personal walk with Jesus and turning from sin and obeying his commands and principles, etc), then he is highly unlikely to be in favor of a disorderly and haphazard message about who he is and what he requires of his followers. Instead, he is likely to provide a means of unity among his people.

Unity among Christianity is supposed to be one of the sure signs of legitimacy since God is supposed to be One in Three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Jesus is reckoned by the Bible to have desired that his followers be unified just as he was unified with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

So, what is required for unity? Follower A says that all they need to have in common is Jesus, but then also mentions that he doesn't believe in the Resurrection. Follower B says that belief in the Resurrection is a fundamental tenet for unity, but then also mentions that he believes women can be pastors. Follower C says that only men can have the role of pastor because Jesus was a man and chose men to be apostles not women, but then he also mentions that homosexuality is not a sin. Follower D says that no one who condones homosexuality can be a Christian, but then he also mentions that there are a few books which belong in the Bible which didn't get included. Follower E says that the Bible is God's complete Word and nothing can be added or taken away. And so on and so on and so on and so on.

So, what is required for unity? Historical Christian Answer: Faith in Jesus of course...but also Faith in a God-ordained and God-preserved religion which serves as an objective point-of-reference for properly discerning God's intentions throughout historical events and through the God-breathed Bible. Since the time that Jesus lived 2000 years ago, the vast (and I mean vast) majority of Christians have believed that Jesus chose his apostles to ordain leaders and to preserve the true faith throughout every generation by handing-on (see the latin "traditio", where we derive "tradition") right doctrine (orthodoxy) and right practice (orthopraxy) through faithful leaders who appoint faithful leaders who appoint faithful leaders, etc.

According to the historical Christian belief, after a few generations of faithful handing-on, the legitimate successors of the apostles began to deliberate about formally declaring certain religious writings as having been inspired directly by God. These successors (within the very clear context of formal religion...not loosy-goosy every man for themselves individualistic warm-fuzzy Christianity) debated and discussed and finally settled on what is known as the "canon". Christians believe that this process was guided by the Holy Spirit (otherwise it would just be the opinions of men). But some Christians believe that the Bible is essentially a very direct gift to Christianity from God...forgetting that the Bible is actually a product of formal, orderly, traditional religion.

These Christians who think that religion is bad for Christianity do not see how much worse individualism is for Christianity.

Here is the result of the individualistic rejection of the traditional, God-ordained, God-preserved religion of the successors of the apostles: there are well over 20,000 Christian denominations world-wide with many, many, many variances on who God is and what he requires of his followers. And here is how that happens:

Pastor A: God is XYZ and desires XYZ.
Follower A: The Bible says that is not quite right, pastor.
Pastor A: This is the traditional way of understanding the Bible on this point.
Follower A: But here are a few verses that contradict that teaching.
Pastor A: You are taking those verses out of context and not interpreting them correctly.
Follower A: But I prayed about it and the Holy Spirit confirmed that I'm right.
Pastor A: The Holy Spirit confirms interpretations of the Bible through the teachers of the Church, not through your private prayers.
Follower A: No, the Holy Spirit works in my heart and helps me directly. I'm going to the church down the street that sees this the way I do.
[then onto the new church, same situation, multiple times, various issues...then lo and behold]
Follower A cannot find the ideal church which agrees with his view on every point all the time, so Follower A calls a few friends to start meeting at his house on Sunday mornings, and shortly thereafter becomes a pastor teaching followers and encountering the same individualism among them that started this never-ending hoorah in the first place.

So my advice to all people who can't figure out why they should abandon the whole practice of Christianity is to do this for the sake of your Christian cause: adhere to an historic religious structure within Christianity that will give you some slight appearance of unity at least, instead of blatant do-what-you-want-to-do individualism which is a clear indicator that God (if he exists at all) does not exist in the way, shape, and form that Christians think that he does.

Religiosity Not The Problem

I am considering, when time permits, writing a brief treatment of why a Christian should not blame “religion” for an atheist’s or agnostic’s departure from the Christian faith. First of all, in my own story, I know that “religiosity” is not the problem. I know this because I’ve “been there and done that” with this line of evangelizing…"Christianity is about relationship not religion; it’s not about what church you go to or what rules you follow, it’s about your personal walk with Jesus.” Believe me, I really have been there and believed that sort of line and used that sort of line on others. I understand the point, completely.

But in the end, I can argue quite well from the Christian standpoint, that this angle is seriously flawed as an approach to “communicating the reality of Christ.”

Exposing the Limitations

Please find time to read a humble and interesting article by Mark Vernon titled "How To Be Agnostic" (LINK) in which he points out that, "Socrates came to understand that the key to wisdom is not being able to prove beliefs, but understanding the extent of your ignorance. He was agnostic in not assenting to philosophical systems, and instead went around ancient Athens asking awkward questions. For him, the importance of reason was not that it could potentially understand all but that it exposed the limitations of all our understanding. Hence the word philosopher was invented for him; he was a lover of wisdom that is desired precisely because it is lacked."

Open Letter To All "Concerned"

Dear Christian Concerned About My Agnosticism,

You recent letter expressed that you are concerned about my loss of faith. It seems to you that I have lost my grip on truth or possibly that I never fully understood it in the first place. You suggest that we should both be open to dialogue about these things because this path I am now on is self-contradictory, as I can’t help but presuppose the existence of the Christian God even as I suggest that he may not exist at all, and is highly unlikely to exist in the way that Christians imagine that he does. And you want me to know that you are not trying to bully me back into a personal relationship with Jesus; you just want me to hear your heart and open my own heart to that God who is knocking on the door for me to invite him in.

Thank you for your concern. Allow me to assure you that I really am quite familiar with “truth” from the Christian’s standpoint. And I “know your heart” because my own “heart” was also very much consumed with following and serving Jesus Christ as my lord and savior for years before my recent de-conversion. I could almost write every word of your side of any conversation for you and have you give a hearty amen (including giving appropriate biblical footnotes).

Your sincerity and honesty are admirable insofar as they go, but the Christian “truth” prevents you from being completely intellectually honest. You do not recognize that your self-perceived openness to dialogue is not actually very open. Your apologetic methods force you to hear the words of atheists and agnostics with impenetrable incredulity. This does not make for a productive use of time and energy.

People generally want to spend time in conversation with other people who will at least reserve some inkling of some percentage of a possibility that the opposing view might be right. But when one person in the exchange presupposes something as grand as the existence of God (and not just any notion of a God, but the Biblically presented Christian God), then it is difficult to avoid rather immediate exasperation.

By all means, don’t let this letter squelch all semblance of conversation between us, but please be aware of my propensity toward frustration if you intend to continue coming to me with the posture exhibited in your recent letter.

Peace,
Non Sicuro Pensatore

Answering the Answerer

In response to my "Presuppositional Apologetics" below, Karla the Answer Bearer writes, "Your claiming this method as being unfair. It would seem maybe it has credence, and you don't like it. I will say, I never enter these conversations to "win an argument." She goes on to write some other lovely comments that you should read. This post is my response for the general benefit of any readers who may share her perspective:

I do not claim that the presuppositional method of apologetics is unfair. I suggest that utilizing the method without disclosing intent is dishonest, and I suggest that the method may sometimes reveal arrogance and ignorance on the part of the one utilizing it.

Thank you for elaborating on your interest in conversation. I’m sure that as you endeavor to help others grow, you do in fact have warm-hearted intent. Believe me, this is all very fresh for me. I am very familiar with the desire to disarm someone who disagrees by couching an apology as simply conversational, and a longing for mutual benefit and growth.

You, like all people everywhere, believe that you are right…regardless of your openness to discuss and hear other viewpoints. And believing that you are right (which is not at all a bad thing), you intend for others to believe as you believe (again, not a bad thing, very natural). When you engage in an “interchange of beliefs,” you want to avoid hostility and the reduction of the discussion to “mere debate,” but ultimately this desire is aimed at bringing others to your point-of-view. So yes, you do want to “win the argument”, and make no mistake, just because you don’t want to use the term argument doesn’t mean that you are not making one. Presuppositional, classical evidential, etc. At the end of the day, you are putting forward a position in contrast to another position. And I am inclined to think that you are not at all ignorant of these things, since your blogger profile indicates your strong interest in apologetics.

I should remind everyone that I am not at all opposed to this very natural exchange of ideas. Let us all continue to “grow” and “see people” and “discuss” and “interchange” and avoid “hostility” and pursue “truth.” But also, let us be honest in the process.

And for the record, my post was written before I stumbled into your discussion with GodlessWoman. It was inspired by the blog of Peter Hitchens.

Presuppositional Apologetics

Surely the first step in winning an argument is to believe that one is arguing the “right” view . It seems also that step two for some people is to think, talk, and act with a confidence bordering on arrogance…suggesting that being right is a foregone conclusion and that the process of arguing is mostly a formality simply to demonstrate the idiocy of the opponent for thinking there is a legitimate alternative to one’s view.

If you sense that someone is attempting to subject you to this sort of argumentation, proceed with caution. For instance, take it as a red flag if you hear someone with an opposing viewpoint say something to the effect of, “you are borrowing words and ideas from my worldview in order to construct your own.” This is a sure sign that you are dealing with what is popularly known as “presuppositional apologetics,” the method of argumentation which seeks to reduce an opponent’s platform down to its most basic words and ideas and then suggest that those foundational tenets are actually borrowed from the “right” platform.

Someone using these tactics is capable of making an unsuspecting opponent appear rather dim-witted. I would liken it to two teenage boys who agree to “trade punches,” but one of the boys is holding a roll of nickels in his fist without disclosing the advantage. In other words, the notion of presuppositional apologetics may not be “bad” on its own, but if one participant is not familiar with the method, and the advantage is not disclosed to him, there is a certain dishonesty in the situation and a presuppositionalist might win the argument based on method alone without having the upper hand in terms of actual substance.

In fact, it’s important to note that some presuppositionalists may not be attempting to produce any sort of substantial argumentation in favour of their own position. If the first two steps of argumentation mentioned above are executed well, the inadequacies in actual argument might be overcome simply through deconstructing an opponent’s platform.

Wikipedia has some interesting tidbits regarding Presuppositional Apologetics, including this: "The goal of presuppositional apologetics is to argue that the assumptions and actions of non-Christians require them to believe certain things about God, man and the world which they claim they do not believe. This type of argument is technically called a reductio ad absurdum in that it attempts to reduce the opposition to holding an absurd position; in this case, both believing in facts of Christian revelation (in practice) and denying them (in word). So in essence, evidential apologetics attempts to build from a common starting point in neutral facts, while presuppositional apologetics attempts to claim all facts for the Christian worldview as the only framework in which they are intelligible." - Read the rest HERE.

Purpose-Driven Faith

“Religion expresses the human need for meaning, not a demand for explanation. For those who have it, faith entails understanding the limits of the human mind and an acceptance of mystery. Even if all the problems of science are some day solved, humans will still be searching for purpose in their lives, and for that reason alone they will need religion.” – John Gray in a book review for The Globe and Mail called “Don’t Write Off Religion Just Yet”

Mr. Gray reviews a book by David Berlinski called The Devil’s Delusion Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. I have not read Berlinski’s book, but I am given to understand that it is not a work favourable toward worldviews which are not theistic (it may in fact have been written in response to atheist Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion). In this review, Gray makes no secret of the fact that he agrees with Berlinski in supporting religion and opposing those who are not religious. He does not use the time and space of his article to put forward a compelling case for religion, preferring instead to rant against contemporary atheism while generally reducing the rather large topic of religion down to a very simple suggestion that only religion can give people meaning, and that as long as humans want to have purpose in life, they must continue to take up religion as their solution.

As objectionable as Gray’s simplification may seem on its face, I imagine that many people on both sides of the faith coin would agree with him. The community of faith has adequately marketed itself to the general public as the place where meaning and purpose are found, where the “void” and emptyness that all unchurched people are supposed to inevitably feel can be resolved. The marketing works. Generally speaking, when a person struggles to mentally or verbally capture their purpose in life, they seem to frequently and instinctively turn to religion in the same way that a person with a runny nose turns not to facial tissue, but to Kleenex. Mr. Purpose-Search Paul and Mr. Void Vic cannot just turn to personal reflection and conversation with companions, they “need religion.” They need to accept the limitations of the human mind. They need to accept mystery. They need to lay it all at the cross and trust God.

To find purpose and meaning elsewhere is to be labelled “depraved” and “tormented” and even “deluded” by the devil himself. And as I have indicated elsewhere, this sort of tone from religious people has sometimes been provoked by animated atheists.

From my present position, I would be inclined to get nose-to-nose (figuratively) with Gray regarding this review and express disagreement in frank terms. However, it occurs to me that Gray is unintentionally working against himself, and rather than disagree with him, I should encourage him to continue working against himself.

Religion, properly speaking, does not teach that the need for purpose and meaning should be a primary motivation for an individual’s adherence. For Christianity, the reason people “need” to submit and obey is that there is a just God at the helm to whom all must give account. The notions of purpose and meaning fall in line as person-oriented, and the chief principles of religion for Christians are God-oriented.

So, when an eager evangelist for any religion rushes out to proclaim that people need purpose and “for that reason alone they will need religion,” it reduces the burden of persuasion for the person who is endeavoring to say that religion is not a necessary element of a good life. In other words, some believers may want you deal with pointed questions about the existence of God and what God requires of mankind, but folks like this reviewer (John Gray) essentially throw all that out and the only burden on me is to say that a meaningful life can be had apart from religion. Presto, no more need for argument.

Who Created Who?

While attending Bible College, I encountered a type of “apologetic” or defense of Christianity which attempted to establish that all thoughts, beliefs, emotions, etc could be linked back to God because of basic, borrowed presuppositions. In other words, every non-Christian (regardless of their particular stripes) could be argued with on the basis that their system of beliefs depended at its very core upon the Christian’s Triune God. I believe this was referred to as Presuppositional Apologetics and was in large part attributed to Cornelius Van Til and a contemporary defender Greg Bahnsen.

I am not a scholar in any manner of speaking, and was not so well-versed in this method of defending the faith that I can readily recall all of the details. But I seem to recall that the idea was to take pretty much any statement resembling a belief from the non-Christian and show them that they were borrowing a presupposition from the Christian faith.

Here’s an example of how I imagine this playing out:

Non-Christian (NC): I love my wife.
Faithful Defender (FD): Good. Why?
NC: Because she’s x, y, z, and we’ve been together x number of years.
FD: Yes, but how do you know that you “love” her? Where did you get the concept of “love” and marriage.
NC: I don’t know, I guess I’ve always just been taught that a man and a woman fall in love and agree to limit their romantic love exclusively to one another and become united through marriage and stay together until one of them dies.
FD: Yes, most people are taught that, but the origin of those ideas is the Christian God who created us and designed us so that one man and one woman will love one another and become married. Marriage was also created by God as the institution through which this love should be morally expressed and through which procreation should happen. Love and marriage didn’t just come into being on their own through a process of evolution. They were ordained by God, but now other belief systems have borrowed these ideas and others from Christianity in order to suit their own desires.
NC: Oh really, well that makes sense, tell me more.

And so on until the non-Christian recognizes his utter dependence upon God for every thought he has, and he has “no choice” but to bend his knee in allegiance to the origin of all good things.

For a Christian, this all makes perfect sense, of course. The Christian’s God is an absolutely perfect fit with the Christian’s understanding of the world, “coincidentally”.

OR…the Bible and all Christian philosophy then and now works together to comprehensively create a God to suit the various worldviews of the Christians. Surely, this is self-evident by noting the literally tens of thousands of denominations worldwide, each of which offers a slightly different definition of who God is and/or what he requires of his creation.

Do you approve or disapprove of abortion? What about homosexuality? What about women leadership? What about clerical celibacy? What about divorce? What about creation vs. evolution? Alcohol? Dancing? Homeschooling? Was the Bible written by God through humans or was it a collection of simply human writings that help us understand God? Do you believe children should be baptized or just adults? Should children receive communion or just adults? Should women work outside the home or should they strictly stay home and take care of the house and children?

Whatever you decide to believe about these things, however firmly or loosely committed you are to any such notion, I guarantee that I can find you a group which will say that your beliefs are the true and purest expression of “real” Christianity and that you are definitely going to heaven. I can also find you a group claiming to be Christian who will say that you are likely going to burn in hell for eternity.

Now you tell me…is it us normal folks out here (normal = not religious) who are borrowing ideas and beliefs and making things up to suit our desires? Or are Christians just creating God in their own image?

Why don't you believe?

I had an "aha" moment today with regard to my newly acknowledged religious disbelief.

One of the first conditioning drills a new Christian is supposed to do is become familiar with basic arguments or reasons for his faith (apologetics), and become comfortable sharing these (intermingled with personal testimony) with friends, family, and strangers. Surely, the primary reason for this early drill is so that the new convert won't be easily persuaded to abandon his newfound faith. I think a secondary reason for this is so that when a Christian begins to express doubts, a mentor can quickly gain leverage for reigning him in by pointing out that the doubter has not spent sufficient time reflecting on the Truth. In other words, the person has not equipped himself properly to answer his own internal question of "why do I believe?"

Well, surely I don't have to point out that this method is rather generic and can be applied to any number of varying sects, religious or otherwise.

My "aha" moment today came when I thought back on a "conversion" experience in college. I had been baptized as an infant and was raised attending church, but I didn't have a very serious Christian faith and so when I went to college, I abandoned religion in general. During college, for a variety of possible reasons, I began pondering "the meaning of life" and instinctively turned to what was most familiar...Christianity. Only this time, I was ready to really "dig in" and invest myself, taking on the mantle with full vigour. This experience resulted in ten years of rather active Christianity which in my life is ending before your very eyes in this journal.

As I thought back on that conversion experience, it occured to me that the reason I was so ready to be persuaded by Christianity was that I had not spent enough time familiarizing myself with the basic arguments or reasons for my lack of faith. I was not ready to defend myself when I was confronted with a nice-sounding alternative.

It seems that I abandoned my agnosticism because of ignorance.

Some Christian friends might want to offer this answer when asked why I have "de-converted": "He didn't pray enough, or read the Bible enough, or understand his faith enough." But "aha", I should have been answering challengers to my Christian faith all along by saying, "I am a Christian because I did not spend enough time reflecting on the truth."

For what it's worth, scientists have offered a real explanation for "aha" moments:

CLICK HERE: It may not appear in the shape of a light bulb above your head, but researchers say "Aha!" moments are marked by a surge of electrical activity in the brain.