A Love-Hate Relationship
So we just got our own DVD copy of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and because Tommy's been sick these past few days we've watched it several times. The visuals are fantastic, and I've thoroughly enjoyed seeing how well the filmmakers brought the story to the silver screen. The Dawn Treader itself is a beautiful rendition of Lewis' description, the standing wave bordering Aslan's Country is incredible, and the Dufflepuds just flat-out rocked!
But the film is ill at a deeper level. Beneath the visual appeal and the fun action, Hollywood killed something at the soul of Lewis' story. Hollywood murdered Reepicheep.
No Clue
Here's what I mean. Modern movie-making understands swordfighting, CGI magic effects, and saving the world through heroic acts of individual triumph. Hollywood does these things well. But it doesn't understand - genuinely, it has no blasted clue - how honor, nobility, authority, and selfless sacrifice work. Thus it has no way of understanding what CS Lewis was actually depicting in his novel. This cluelessness is evident everywhere in the film, but perhaps nowhere more clearly than in the interactions between the honorable mouse-knight Reepicheep and the monstrously irritating Eustace Clarence Scrubb.
Comparing one scene in the film with that of the novel makes this clear. At one point in the movie the selfish Eustace -- a snotty, self-centered brat who is swept into Narnia against his wishes -- steals food from the ship's galley. He's caught in the act by Reepicheep, who makes a casual reference to theft of rations being a capital offense at sea and then challenges Eustace to a duel. But not to worry: none of this is serious in the film. Hollywood's Reepicheep does not have capital punishment in mind, nor is he concerned with honor, or the difference between right and wrong. Rather, Hollywood Reepicheep simply wants to help Eustace learn to swordfight, so that he can eventually become a hero. The "duel" turns out to be nothing of the sort. Instead, it's a one-on-one lesson in swordplay (how this relates back to the stealing of rations is left unexplained).
Compare this scene with the same one in Lewis' book, which begins not with Eustace stealing food but rather with him grabbing Reepicheep's tail and swinging him around just to be mean. Despite being swept off his paws in this most undignified manner, the knight-mouse deftly draws his sword in mid air and manages to deliver two piercing stabs to Eustace's hand in quick succession causing (gasp!) real, actual injuries. Of course this forces the brat to drop the mouse, who then immediately challenges him to a duel to the death. Significantly, Eustace is flabbergasted at this demand and runs away, with the mouse in hot pursuit. When Eustace finally refuses to fight, it is (again significantly) Reepicheep's turn to be stunned. He's shocked that anyone would lack so much honor as to refuse a duel after issuing an insult. So to teach Eustace a lesson about honor, Reepicheep (in front of everyone else on board) turns the flat of his blade on Eustace and beats several welts into his skin, using his sword like a switch. Now Eustace, Lewis is careful to note, has never been spanked by anyone before, either parent or teacher, and in fact has been taught that such things are barbaric, so this is a new experience for him. All the others on board, however, approve of the beating and Eustace is forced to mumble apologies as the scene ends.
Two Completely Different Lessons
Do you see the depth of the difference? It's not just that the scene played out a little differently on screen than it did on page - that happens when books are turned into films and it's no big deal. The difference is one of honor, of authority, of principle. Of worldview. You see, Lewis is showing how Eustace has been transported into a world that operates by a completely different set of rules than those of his world (20th century England). In fact, I said earlier that Hollywood murdered Reepicheep but they actually murdered Eustace as well, because depicting 20th century England is exactly Lewis' purpose for Eustace in this story. Eustace is the ultimate Enlightenment-besotted 20th century secular rationalist: a smug young boy who arrogantly thinks we've outgrown all old superstitions. Consequently he builds his whole life simply on "scientific fact" and is thus "too smart" to believe in old magic tales (in other words, religion). In Lewis' book Eustace reflects the spirit of his (our) day, believing that chivalry is an insult to women, that pacifism is always an enlightened position, and that the Medieval belief in honor and codes of conduct is all hogwash. By bringing Eustace to Narnia, Lewis shows him (and through him, us) just how wrong he is, and how foolish all his "enlightened" modern sensibilities are.
The Transformation Of Eustace
The transformation of Eustace - depicted most clearly in the dragon episode - is one of the main lesson of the book. Eustace goes from a smug secular rationalist to a humble, honor-driven follower of Aslan the True King. And he only accomplishes this with Aslan's help (and a small assist from the flat of Reepicheep's blade). This is totally different than the transformation Eustace experiences in the film. There Eustace becomes "a great warrior" under Reepicheep's tutelage. And the lessons the mouse taught him don't consist of just swordplay, but rather of long-winded babbling about how Eustace is actually "an extraordinary person" deep down inside (despite a total lack of evidence). These drivelings sound like pages right out of a contemporary self-help book, or daytime psycho-therapeutic TV program.
Which of course, they are.
And that's how Hollywood murdered Reepicheep, and Eustace as well. In the film Eustace is a deprived little boy who just doesn't believe enough in himself, while in the book he's an empty modern secularist who, without realizing it, has denied everything that makes life worth living. In the film Reepicheep is a psychologist-tutor who helps Eustace discover all the "amazing potential" locked inside him, but in the book Reepicheep embodies everything modern man has scoffed at: the devoted follower of Aslan who is committed to principle and honor at all costs.
And perhaps most importantly, in the film salvation for Eustace comes through self-actualization under the guidance of a therapist, whereas in the book salvation for Eustace comes from realizing that he is wrong and Reepicheep is right; a lesson that began with the flat of Reepicheep's blade smacking his flesh and only ended when the razor tips of Aslans' own claws ripped into his very heart.
The same fundamental missing of Lewis' point is evident throughout the film at almost every turn. As the credits of the movie roll and I listen to the film's theme song waft through our family room ("We can be the kings and queens of anything if we believe, it's written in the stars above...") I realize that Eustace learned far more from Reepicheep than Hollywood managed to.
The Murder of Reepicheep
Faith & Science: Where Angels Fear To Tread
Some of you may know that I studied Physics for 2 years as an undergraduate at Cal, and once even entertained the notion that I would spend my life as a professional astrophysicist. Well I didn't get along too well with higher mathematics, so I eventually realized my calling in life was probably not to be a scientist!
But while I'm hardly a science expert I do still have an interest in the sciences, and this interest came up again recently. I've been writing a series of brief articles which look at life from the perspective of a Biblical worldview. In wrapping that series up (links to the whole series can be found here) I found myself pondering the long-running tension between science and faith.
I've thought a fair bit about this tension over the years, and about the way science is understood by those who have made a career of it, as well as those who haven't. Questions such as:
- Do we have to rule out the idea of God in order to do science effectively?
- For a Christian, do the findings of science represent what the Bible calls "man's wisdom" (which, in the Bible, is bad) vs. "God's wisdom"?
- While it will probably always be a challenge to figure out how faith & science relate to one another, are they actually opposed to one another?
(Image above of the Eagle Nebula courtesy of NASA)
The Difference A Biblical Worldview Makes
I've been doing a lot of writing lately, but almost all of it has been at the Colson Center web site rather than here on my own blog. However, my cute wife just chewed me out big time, pointing out that just because I wrote elsewhere doesn't mean I can't link to it - and she's right!
At Harvest Church right now I'm teaching through a series of messages explaining what a Biblical worldview is, and how it affects everyday life. I've also been writing articles on the same subject. In fact I've just finished a series of 8 short articles that describe how to live Biblically in 8 major areas of life:
1. Relationships - Community In A Box
2. Money /Possessions - Materializing The Kingdom
3. Education - Justification For Higher Education
4. Politics & Government - Hollow Power
5. Religion / Spirituality - My Way Or The Higher Way
6. Culture & Entertainment - A Truly Special Effect
7. Environment / Creation Care - Global Caring
8. Science & Technology - Supervised And Personal
Book Review - Why You Think The Way You Do by Glenn Sunshine
This book addresses something I think is important to know: how the way we think has changed over the centuries right up to the present day. In fact I once fantasized briefly about writing this book myself, but the thought went away when I realized how much research I'd have to do to lay it all out correctly. Fortunately Dr. Glenn Sunshine, who as a history professor has a better background for this book anyway, had been compiling the research for a few years already and chose to put it in book form. I've gotten to know Glenn over the past couple years, and have learned to appreciate his insights as a historian, a thinker, and a Christian.
In this book Sunshine describes what the dominant worldview in the West has been, starting with the Roman Empire. He explains that the well-known decadence of the Romans, from slavery to sexual license to infanticide and more, was the result of the basic assumptions about life in the Empire. He also shows how the gradual flourishing of Christianity introduced an entirely different view of life - one based on the Bible - and how this Biblical worldview not only counter-acted many of the evils of Roman society, but became the basis for Western societies into the Middle Ages. He provides a good summary of how Naturalism (the belief that there is no God of any kind; the physical world is all that exists) became such a force in the West just in the last couple centuries, as well as explaining the popularity of postmodern thinking today.
The reason I think it's important for Christians to understand this is basically twofold. First, it helps us understand that all ideas come from somewhere: they come from a worldview. For example, the notion that science has dis-proven God's existence is a one popular today, but it's not a brute fact. Rather, it's a philosophical assumption (ie. an opinion) rooted in the Enlightenment. Learning to recognize the worldview roots of such ideas we encounter increases understanding, helping us sort out fact from opinion. Secondly, knowing why certain ideas have gained traction helps us dialogue more effectively with people who hold other, different worldviews than we do.
This book is written for the layman. It describes the flow of thought in the West for the past 2,000 years as a story, making it easier to grasp. In the process, it explains how Christianity is the foundation for virtually all of the good aspects of Western society, from human rights to science & technology, to personal liberty and representative government. And by implication then, it describes what we stand to lose if Christianity is completely dislodged from the Western worldview by Naturalism and/or postmodernism.
Along those lines, Sunshine ends the book with a list of eye-opening parallels between modern America and ancient Rome. He argues that after two millennia we have come full circle, and that the American worldview is now looking increasingly like the Roman worldview during the decline of the Empire. And he suggests several things Christians and churches can and should do about it. Worth the read.
To get a sense of what's in the book, here's an audio interview with the author.
How Does A Christian Think?
That's a critical question to our spiritual growth. Becoming more like Jesus means seeing life the way he sees it, and making decisions that reflect his values and goals. Any tools that are really effective at helping us do that are worth knowing about.
And so I want to pass on the launch of a brand new, very cool project on the web called The Chuck Colson Center For Christian Worldview. Colson has been teaching and writing on the subject of developing a thoroughly biblical view of life for decades now, and this site catalogs and archives almost everything he's done and makes it easily accessible to everyone for free. It also connects many like-minded Christian ministries together such as Summit Ministries and Focus on the Family's The Truth Project.
But that's just the beginning.
The site also has constantly fresh and updated articles and Bible studies from a variety of writers to help you grow spiritually:
- "Worldview" is a short devotional that helps readers learn to see the world we live in through the lens of a biblical worldview.
- "Ancient Paths" is a weekly Bible study guide that connects us to the wisdom of theologians throughout church history. You can subscribe to this one weekly for free.
- "Changepoint" is an column-length article designed to address many aspects of life in our fast-paced society, and provide practical insights on how Christians can live out their faith right now.
I am privileged to serve as one of the contributors to the Colson Center site, contributing to each of the three columns mentioned above on a monthly basis. Currently the site features a Worldview article I wrote based on an experience Amy and I once had growing grapes, and tying that to the lesson Jesus teaches us in John 15. Also, this week's Ancient Paths Bible study is one I put together on the deceptiveness of sin, following the insights of 17th century Puritan theologian John Owen. Feel free to check them out, and as always I welcome your feedback!
I'm told that a strong "get the word out" effort will commence in a week or two to let people know the site is now active, but you get advanced notice! Drop by the Colson Center and familiarize yourself with one of most promising, easy to use tools for Biblical worldview to come out yet.
A "Proposer" In Action - Why We're Involved in Politics (part 2)
It's one thing to discuss the differences between imposing and proposing in concept, but real-life examples may make the difference even more clear. The first such example that jumps immediately to my mind is William Wilberforce.
Wilberforce was the British member of Parliament in the late 18th and early 19th century who is best known for abolishing the slave trade, and later slavery itself, throughout the British empire. He joined Parliament as a young man, and his charisma and powerful rhetorical skills all but guaranteed him a long career of power, success, and self-indulgence. That all changed when God interfered, and Wilberforce committed his life to Jesus. Over the next few years his priorities and goals in life all radically shifted, and it is instructive to see how this career politician lived out his faith as a legislator. (A great brief summary of Wilberforce's life and what made him unique can be found here).
Two things stand out to me about Wilberforce's life. First, he was a passionately committed Christian. In today's parlance Wilberforce was a "conservative evangelical," and many of his opponents would label him with the modern-day term "fundamentalist." Wilberforce's book Real Christianity is a head-on, no-holds-barred assault on the shallow, meaningless Christianity of his day. He lambastes the the fact that almost all 19th century Englishmen called themselves Christians, but in truth they lived secular lives that were guided by secular goals. The book is incisive, biblically accurate, and intelligent, but it is not diplomatic or delicate - Wilberforce minces no words. If an American evangelical wrote that book today he would immediately be pilloried as a narrow-minded bigot. Of course Wilberforce was no bigot. He was simply a (very intelligent) man who had the audacity to believe that the Bible was actually true, and should actually inform our lives and our priorities. And that's the case he proposed to his countrymen.
Which leads me to the second thing about Wilberforce: his faith was not a segregated component of his life, it was the driving force behind everything he did. Wilberforce understood that Christianity is a worldview, and his commitment to Jesus formed the basis of his entire political career. In a 1787 journal entry Wilberforce famously wrote "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners [moral values]." Wilberforce sought not only to end slavery, but to re-awaken morality in a secular, decadent age. In other words, Wilberforce didn't just intend to end slavery by seizing political power and forcing an end to the slave trade by law (impose). Rather, he recognized that he needed to appeal to the conscience of his fellow countrymen - to persuade them of the evils of the trade, and make his case in their hearts, not just in Parliament (propose).
To this end, Wilberforce and his allies engaged in many public efforts outside the halls of government. They went directly to the British people through speeches and rallies, petition drives, books and pamphlets (one a first-hand account from a former slave). They initiated campaigns which thousands of people joined, such as a refusal to buy or use sugar from slave plantations. They enlisted the help of famous British artistic potter Josiah Wedgewood, who created a medallion that was one of the enduring images of the abolition movement (pictured right).
In all these efforts, Wilberforce and his friends were appealing to the hearts and minds of their fellow countrymen. They were proposing a much better way of life: a humanitarian, life-honoring, compassion-saturated, truth-dedicated way. And it worked.
Wilberforce began his political quest to abolish slavery in 1787, and his first official bill to abolish the slave trade was handily defeated. But on February 23 of 1807, after twenty years of work both inside and outside government, a bill abolishing the slave trade was passed by a whopping 283-16 vote. It was the death-knell of British slavery, and in 1833 (more than 45 years after his quest began) slavery itself was outlawed in the British Empire. Wilberforce died three days later.
In all of this, Wilberforce was a great proposer. He frequently took unpopular stands (even against his own party), and was routinely mocked by his opponents. If job-approval polling had existed back then he would have made the even the least popular American presidents look like rock stars in comparison. In fact his moral stands likely cost him a chance to become Prime Minister. Being a Proposer doesn't mean we're always trying to make the public happy. It often means just the opposite.
Wilberforce was after the truth, not just popularity or re-election. And over time, with perseverance, he was able to persuade the majority of his countrymen of the rightness and justice of his cause, and re-awaken their conscience.
So, my fellow Christians, what about us? How do we become Proposers today rather than merely Imposers? How do we advocate for a better way of life, rather than just try to get our way? On issues of great concern to evangelicals, such as the breakdown of traditional family structures, moral laxity, and other things we believe are hurting our nation: are we making that case? Are those who disagree with us hearing a well-reasoned, passionately-believed, and consistently-lived explanation of why we think what we think about poverty, the environment, abortion, marriage, national security, immigration, etc.? We generally know where we stand on these issues, but we may need to become better at making the case for those issues - making a great Proposal.
One thing this definitely implies is that we can't just sit in our churches and bemoan the sorry state of affairs, emerging only briefly to vote in a given election. We have to engage people, and not just in election years. We have to think carefully about how to make our case in this era where politics and religion are taboo subjects. These are not easy things to do. It wasn't easy to get the British to talk about slavery either, but thank God Wilberforce didn't let that stop him.
If you haven't yet seen the film Amazing Grace which chronicles the life of Wilberforce and his fight against the slave trade, I highly recommend it. It's a high quality and entertaining film, but it also effectively captures the faith and actions of this man who did so much to propose a better way of life based on God's truth... and succeeded like few others have.
Worldview 101 (part 6) - So What?
Well, a lot actually! As I mentioned before Christiany is much more than just a relationship between myself and God - it's a worldview. The relationship that Jesus enables me to have with God through his death and resurrection becomes the grid through which I learn how the whole world works, and how I fit into it. In other words, Christianity teaches that God doesn't just reconnect me with himself. He goes on to explain all 4 worldview questions: where I came from, what's wrong with the world, what he's doing to fix it, and what the purpose of my life is in relation to all that.
Here's a current example: we evangelicals are typically the most theologically conservative group in the nation, holding the Bible to be the innerant message from God which is the final authority on all matters of life. Yet a recent survey from the Pew Research Center indicated that 57% of American evangelicals now say they don't believe Jesus is the only way to God, despite clear Biblical statements to the contrary. 57%!! That's more than half! Shocking, isn't it!?! Actually, such news shouldn't be shocking. For several years now, respected pollsters at The Barna Group have been telling us that less than 10% of Christians (and less than half of all Protestant pastors!) have a biblical worldview.
And that is why worldviews matter. If I'm not aware of the ideas prevalent around me I will absorb some of them uncritically into my own personal worldview. And some of these ideas are contrary to Scripture. The Christian life is a call to serve truth in a truth-denying world (as Jesus did before Pilate), to serve people in a self-absorbed world (as Jesus did in the Upper Room), and to live for God in a hyper-individualistic world (as Jesus did in Gethsemane). But we can't live Jesus' life apart from Jesus' teachings.
Worldview 101 (part 5) - Postmodernism and the New Tolerance
In the process of writing the wrap-up post for Worldview 101 it occurred to me that one other perspective deserves a brief mention due to its prevalence in America today: Postmodernism. This isn't a really coherent view of life like some of the other worldviews I've written about. Nevertheless the collection of basic ideas we call Postmodernism is extremely popular in America today, particularly among younger and college educated people, and it's becoming more widespread every year.
Postmodernism is really the grandchild of Naturalism rather than a totally unique worldview. Some thinkers took the ideas of Naturalism to their logical ends, such as the belief that there is no higher reality beyond matter and energy and thus there is no meaning or truth (a belief called "Nihilism"). Postmodernism rejects Naturalism's confident assertions about the nature of reality, and questions whether we can truly know anything so certainly.
As a worldview, Postmodernism can be described using the 4 worldview questions:
1. Origin - where did we come from and thus what are we?
The true nature of reality is hidden. Exactly how we got here and what we are is not knowable with any certainty. In fact, if any absolute truth is out there at all we can't know it for sure. Consequently, the "truths" we think we know aren't really true. One of the main goals of Postmodern thinking is to jolt your sense of what is real. This can be seen in the "Postmodern architecture" photo above, wherein the building doesn't appear to be a basic rectangle sitting straight up and down as we all "know" buildings must. And the bizarre goldfish picture (right) is trying to do the same thing by blending categories that we all think of as separate (a bedroom and a goldfish bowl).
Where did the "truths" we think we know come from? They're just social constructs. That is, people we respect (our parents, religious leaders, historical figures, etc.) have created their own stories that give meaning to human events, but they're just stories. (Was the European settling of of America the dawn of a new age of freedom or the death of freedom? Depends on who's story you listen to: the European's or the Apache's...)
2. Problem - what's wrong with the world?
In a word: metanarratives. That's a fancy way of referring to any over-arching story or idea that ascribes meaning to human existence. For example, "America is a shining city on a hill, a beacon of liberty" is a metanarrative. It's a story Americans utilize to give our nation meaning. But of course, the Postmodernist will point out that that the Sioux and Choctaw didn't see it that way when they were rounded up into refugee camps.
You see, to Postmodern thinkers, all such metanarratives come from people and people alone. They're not actually true, they're just someone's opinion; one group's made-up beliefs that are used to dominate and subjugate another group. These metanarratives are only power trips: heavy clubs used by people to beat others into submission. And when two different overarching stories collide, bloodshed results; whether it's white America vs. Native America, or the Palestinain Arabs vs. the Jews, or even "the Hatfields vs. the McCoys."
Incidentally, as with all worldviews, the Bible lays out a metanarrative: Christianity's compelling picture of God's plan to redeem the earth. But Postmodernists are more likely to see that story as the source of Old Testament era genocide and the modern-day Arab/Israeli conflict than the life-giving, meaning-producing explanation of history we Christians understand it to be.
3. Solution - how is the problem fixed?
End metanarratives. Give everyone the ability to construct their own individual story which will give them their own "meaning," but do not allow anyone to apply a metanarrative to the rest of the world. (Interesting how Postmodernism reacts against much of Naturalism, yet ends up sounding a lot like it...) Humanity is simply here, and as long as we are, we should stop trying to force our preferred meaning-stories onto other people. Only then will we enjoy some kind of peaceful existence.
4. Purpose - why am I here?
Stop asking stupid questions. Since there is no truth or meaning that we can really know, there is no real "purpose" for humanity. You construct your own story to make whatever you want of your life, I'll construct mine, and let's just agree to leave it at that.
An important connection exists between postmodernism and the modern-day concept of "Tolerance." Classical tolerance is a good thing: it's basically the idea that in a pluralistic society wherein people disagree, we should all choose to disagree agreeably. In other words, we respect other people's right to hold different views, and we hold respectful (even if sometimes passionate) debates about truth. This classical tolerance is what the American political system was built around.
However, Postmodernism swept in and, like a parasite, latched onto classical tolerance and morphed it into something new and more sinister. The New Tolerance essentially means no one can disagree. Because truth isn't there in Postmodern thought everyone's view is just "their take," and thus no more valid than anyone else's view. In other words, no one's ideas are any better than anyone else's ideas because there is no standard by which to measure "better," there is only opinion. Consequently debate (even respectful debate) is meaningless, since the point of making arguments is to persuade people that your view is more "right." The Postmodern world is a value-free and truth-free world of nothing but individual opinion - utterly meaningless.
And the only "sin" one can commit in this amoral world is to disagree with someone else, because disagreement is seen as a form of coercion: forcing your own metanarrative on someone else. Thus the "Tolerance police" take zealous offense at anyone's claims of truth, seeing such claims as "oppression" and hostility. Thus "Tolerance" has gone from the concept of respectful debate to the concept of no debate allowed.
In a nutshell, I think postmodernism has identified a real problem but has come up with a terrible solution. It is true that various "metanarratives" have been used throughout history in horrible ways. But it does not follow that all metanarratives are equally horrible. Nor do I see any reason to believe that the amoral, value-free world of postmodernism, with it's chilling effect on honest debate, can protect the principles and values that make human life worth living.
Nonetheless, Postmodern-fueled Tolerance is a potent force in America today, even affecting huge numbers of Christians, as we'll see in the next and final post of this series.
Worldview 101 (part 4) - New Age
The third widespread and influential worldview in America is a little slippery and more difficult to define than the other two, but its impact can't be denied. "The New Age" is a label we put on a wide variety of different belief systems. These systems share a common root despite their differences, and that root doesn't come from America or from anywhere in the Western world; it comes from the East. In fact, New Age is essentially Eastern religion dressed up in Western clothes.
This Eastern worldview is called Monism. As the name suggests Monism is basically the belief that all is one. This is virtually synonymous with Pantheism - the belief that everything is God. The main idea is that there really are no distinctions (differences) of any kind: there is no right and wrong per se, just different sides of the universal oneness. There are ultimately no individual people either: we're all part of the cosmic oneness, and our belief that we're distinct individuals is an illusion. It's a difficult worldview for us Westerners to grasp, but millions of people in other nations think this way. And increasingly, so do Americans as various Eastern concepts are "smuggled in" and dressed up in Western clothes via New Age beliefs.
As with all worldviews, Monism/New Age can be understood via the 4 worldview questions:
1. Origin - where did we come from and thus what are we?
We are all part of the great universal oneness. Everything, from people to animals to trees and rocks are all ultimately just expressions of the universal reality. Sometimes referred to as "god" or even "God," the universal oneness is not a person as in Christian thought. Rather, Monists see "God" as just mankind's attempt to re-connect with the cosmic oneness of which he ultimately is a part.
2. Problem - what's wrong with the world?
In a phrase: the illusion of distinctions. The problem with the world in Monism is that so many people are unenlightened: they don't yet realize that they're not distinct individuals. They haven't yet grasped the truth that they're part of the great oneness of the universe. Consequently, everyone runs around looking out for "#1" (himself) which is continually throwing everything out of balance. The details on how this works out will vary widely depending on which Monist/New Age belief system you examine, but at the root that's the understanding of the world.
3. Solution - how is the problem fixed?
Simple: obliterate distinctions! Get as many people as possible to realize the truth of the cosmic oneness. Dispel the illusion of distinction, so more and more people can get in touch with the great Oneness of the universe. Eventually, when enough people do so it will usher in a New Age (hence the name) of human existence. It will be utopia.
How does one get in touch with the cosmic oneness? There are hundreds of different ways, depending on who you talk to. Examples include things like,
- Eastern mind-emptying meditation
- the use of cosmic-energy-focusing crystals
- astral projection
- yoga (can be more than just good exercise!)
- radiating "light"
- channeling astral/spirit guides.
But again, no matter the particulars the ultimate goal is the same: to transcend this shadowy existence where people are imprisoned by the illusion of distinctions, and become free to merge with the vast cosmic oneness.
4. Purpose - why am I here?
The purpose of life is to transcend this prison-like existence and merge with the Oneness. And to help as many others as possible do the same. The goal is to open as many peoples' eyes as possible and free them from "primitive" religions (like Christianity) and dead Naturalism (which denies the existence of any cosmic Oneness) so that they too can transcend this confining life. By so doing, The New Age of human existence will begin.
Monism in AmericaIt's interesting to see how such a non-American way of thinking has become influential in America. Typically, Eastern Monist ideas get combined with Western individualism to form a whole new belief system: The New Age. Americans are urged to tap into "higher power" via spirit guides or crystals to achieve their own individual goals. Or they're told to reach within themselves where they'll discover a previously unknown power source deep inside - an idea that appeals strongly to the individualistic, "I gotta' be me" mindset of postmodern America.
Yet regardless of whether the power comes from the cosmos or from within the person, the promise is the same: that such power will enable people to break free from all the negative influences that imprison them, be that illness, poverty, depression, low self-esteem, or addictions. Some motivational speakers (not all) fall into this category, and millions of books which advance these ideas are sold every year from the Self Help sections of American bookstores.
All of these these are particular forms of the same basic view: Eastern monism, re-spun to make it palatable to a Western audience. And while few Americans buy into the entire worldview of Monism, huge numbers of us are working these ideas into our personal worldviews via books, speakers, celebrity personalities and other gurus.
In the final installment of Worldview 101 I'll try to draw this all together and suggest what difference it might make in a Christian's life.
Worldview 101 (Part 3) - Christianity
1. Origin - where did we come from and thus what are we?
3. Solution - how is the problem fixed?- caring for the earthly environment even as we live off it,
- advocating for justice and defending the defenseless, be they sexual slaves in Asia, the forgotten poor in backwater nations, or the unborn,
- developing and strengthening cultural forms such as better government systems, legal systems, and family units,
- creating art, and pursuing truth and understanding through various sciences (physical, social, and theological),
- and much more.
In short, the Christian life is infused with meaning and purpose. And unlike the "purpose" one invents for oneself in the framework of Naturalism, the purpose and meaning found in Christianity is real.
Worldview 101 (part 2) - Naturalism: A Wasteland of Death
Having briefly talked about what a worldview is and why it's important, I now want to get practical. What "worldviews" are really out there, how do they look, and how do they work in real life? I'm going to outline the 3 most influential worldviews in America today (Naturalism, Christian Theism, and Monism) using the 4 key questions, and then contrast them with one another.
The first worldview to address is Naturalism. This worldview has nothing to do with loving nature or the outdoors! Rather, Naturalism is the belief that the physical world ("nature") is all there is. It's the assumption that there is nothing beyond matter and energy; no spirit world, no supernatural, no immaterial. Thus there is no God, nor spirits of any kind - which also means that human beings do not have a "spirit" or "soul" of any sort. A human is a complex machine, a biochemical meatbag. And that is all.
Here's just one recent example of Naturalistic thinking in action. Recently I received the latest copy of The California Monthly, the alumni magazine for UC Berkeley (GO BEARS! Sorry, that just slipped out unexpectedly...) One of the feature articles described the amazingly advanced brain research the university is doing, including research on consciousness. They're essentially asking the question "how does this electrochemical, biological machine called the brain become self-aware and conscious?" Their current hypothesis (brace yourself): consciousness is an accidental byproduct of the brain's complicated electrochemical activity. Do you see the Naturalistic assumptions? I can identify a few: 1) the brain is only a physical machine, 2) there is no soul or mind, so 3) consciousness must be an illusion, and 4) must be an accidental byproduct of what's real: the physical, chemical processes in the brain.
Note that these are all assumptions, derived from a Naturalistic worldview. In other words, never has a scientific experiment proved the non-existence of the soul. Nor could it. The soul's non-existence is simply assumed. This is the worldview of Naturalism operating before our eyes, and coloring the way these scientists do science.
By the way, there's a delicious irony in the fact that these scientists are using their own conscious thinking processes to prove that conscious thinking is just as illusion. It's a self-refuting proposition: if conscious thinking is an illusion, then why should we trust their research (i.e. their conscious thinking) which tells so?
Like all worldviews, Naturalism can be described using the 4 worldview questions:
1. Origin - where did we come from and thus what are we?
No one really knows where life originated, but once the first living cell arrived we evolved according to some Darwinian mechanism. Thus, a human being is fundamentally no different than an ape, an earthworm, a dandelion, or a bacteria. We are all just machines - biological machines that happened to evolve. Thus life has no true meaning: we simply are. Nor does human life have any special value - we're just matter & energy like everything else. This view has all sorts of frightening implications for things like meaning and ethics...
2. Problem - what's wrong with the world?
Naturalism's view of origins is sort of like a nuclear bomb, laying waste to all questions of purpose, meaning, and morality. Thus questions like this one have no real answer: a logically consistent Naturalist (a very hard thing to find, by the way) simply says the world is what it is - there's no sense in saying it's bad or evil.
Still, Naturalists are just like everyone in that they have opinions on how to make the world a better place. The problem that needs fixing, according to Naturalism, is mis-used power. In the absence of morality and meaning, power is all that's left to discuss. Who is going to get to do what? And everyone has a different view of the best allocation of power. Naturalism-influenced dictators like Hitler believe their regime or race should have all the power. Modern-day secular Naturalism says every individual must have maximum power. This is the only way to improve the world. Which leads to...
3. Solution - how is the problem fixed?
In a word? Choice. The problem of mis-used power is best fixed by allowing maximum individual autonomy. Remember that in this framework there is no absolute standard - no higher meaning or purpose. We simply are, and so the best thing to do is let everyone be exactly what they want to be. Of course that doesn't work in the extreme - it's anarchy. So most every Naturalist favors some limitations on individual freedom for purely pragmatic reasons. But how much, where, and why? There is no basis for consensus here, only (you guessed it) power: whomever has control of the influence in a culture will get their ideas across.
Naturalism's focus on limiting power is what gave rise to worldviews like Marxism: if we just make sure everyone is treated absolutely equal, then we'll usher in a new utopia of human existence. While the state was to be the arbiter of fairness for Marx, today we've learned to mistrust the state because it has...power! And that power can be abused. So secular thought in Western societies now revolves around maximum individual autonomy, which is the only real value in Naturalism. And it trumps all other values, which explains Naturalism's accommodation to issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Should individual autonomy be limited even slightly to maintain standards like the value of human life or the institution of marriage? Not if you think those standards are just made up by someone else. And that's precisely what a Naturalist thinks, because no standard is really real - every concept of right & wrong is just someone's opinion.
4. Purpose - why am I here?
In the case of Naturalism, this is an utterly meaningless question. Dr. Will Provine (a strident atheist) made this point articulately in Ben Stein's film Expelled - there is no meaning or purpose for life in Naturalism. You and I are just pebbles, washed up on the "shore" of existence by the blind forces of chance, time, and natural selection. And life has no ultimate meaning: even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat!
Thus the best we can do is invent our own "meaning." In other words, you make one up - you pretend your life has a meaning of your own choosing. But the mentally strong realize that, of course, this meaning isn't real. And your destiny? Annihilation. Once you're gone, you're gone. You cease to exist, and your material body (which is all you are, remember) will dissipate back into the earth.
In conclusion, the important point is to recognize that this view, like all worldviews, is an assumption. The basic assumption of Naturalism has been taken in hundreds of directions by people throughout history, but the root is always the same: the barren, stark view that the material world is all there is. Like an intellectual nuclear bomb this view lays waste to all of the things that make life worth living: our concept of meaning and purpose, of love, of beauty, of the value of life, and of right and wrong. In the framework of Naturalism, these ideas are all figments of our imagination. And he who has the most power, wins.
Next up: Christian Theism. In the meantime, a question for you: where do you see evidence of Naturalism in the way people think today? Post a comment - I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Worldview 101 (part 1) - Why Worldview Matters
We all have one, but it’s largely invisible. It determines our values, molds our perceptions, and profoundly shapes every decision we make. Yet we’re rarely, if ever, aware of it.
Our worldview is simply our basic assumptions about how the world works, and how we fit into it. The key word there is "assumptions." You see, while we each hold a web of beliefs regarding how the world works, these beliefs are held so deeply that we’re not even aware of them any more than a fish is aware of the water it swims in.
In this way a worldview is much like a pair of sunglasses. As a teenager I was fond of ruby tinted, blue-blocker sunglasses. Right after I put them on everything appeared reddish, but the effect didn’t last long. Soon I was seeing the blue of the sky and the green of the grass normally (or so I thought) and I would eventually forget I even had the glasses on. Until I took them off, that is. Then that blue sky suddenly looked really blue, and boy that green grass was green! The sunglasses were affecting how I perceived the world around me, even when I wasn’t aware of their effect. Our worldview functions the same way, tinting our view of everything around us even though we’re not aware of it.
A worldview consists of many assumptions, but they can be summarized with four key worldview questions:
- Origin – where did we come from?
- Problem – what’s wrong with the world?
- Solution – how do we fix it?
- Purpose – why am I here?
Every worldview answers all four questions, albeit very differently. The answers we give to these questions form the basis of our personal worldview. And for a Christian, becoming aware of our own worldview is critical for at least three reasons:
First, Biblical Christianity is a worldview: it's God’s worldview. Christianity was not given to man in order to simply fulfill our spiritual needs. Rather, even a cursory read of the Bible shows that it offers answers to all of life’s biggest questions. In the Bible, God is offering us a pair of glasses that will help us see the world with 20/20 clarity. In other words, if I don’t understand what a worldview is, I may never fully understand my own faith.
Second, it’s vital to spiritual growth. For the Christian, spiritual maturity is about much more than learning Bible stories. It’s about becoming like Jesus in how we think, feel, value, and act. Understanding my own worldview gives me the opportunity to compare it with the Bible’s. But if I’m not aware of my own worldview, I run the risk of unintentionally re-interpreting the Bible through a pair of glasses I don’t even know I’m wearing.
Finally, it’s essential to the task of witness. Learning how worldviews work is a lot like learning to speak another language. It helps me translate Jesus' offer of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18-20) into terms that someone with a completely different worldview is more likely to understand.
Worldviews matter - a lot! My next few posts will look at how the Bible answers the four key worldview questions, and contrast those answers with some of today’s other popular worldviews.
Because in the Christian life, few things are more important than comparing my view of the world and how I fit into it with Scripture.
Book Review - Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
- The core tenets of the Christian worldview are explained and compared with popular alternatives. Christianity is validated as the best explanation of life as we know it through comparison, logic, and human experience; not through a priori assumptions about the Bible's veracity.
- Non-Christian readers get a good explanation of the Christian faith that does not demean them or insult their intelligence. I think this is why so many people like Lewis: agree or disagree, one finds interacting with him emotionally nonthreatening, though intellectually rigorous.
- Christian readers get a picture of what "thinking Christianly" looks like - something churches nowadays generally do not excel at, I'm sad to say. In an era of Christian practice where the role of the mind has gone out of style and personal feelings are heavily overvalued, Lewis presents a refreshing look how I believe God intends the mind to be used in the life of faith.
I think that last point is why this book has been such an enduring hit among Christians: paradoxically, it's popular because it's so novel in Christian circles. A quick walk down the aisle of a typical Christian bookstore reveals very little substance when comapared to Lewis. Authors don't write at that depth much anymore, because we readers generally don't buy their books if they do. And the lives of Jesus' followers are impoverished as a result.
Belated Thoughts on the Pope's Visit
Pope Benedict left the United States on April 20, concluding a 6-day tour in our nation, and I for one am impressed. I should say that since I’m a Protestant the pope doesn’t hold a unique place in my faith, nor do I have any religious allegiance to him. Yet having said that, I love this guy!
I remember some hugh and cry when Benedict was elected to the papacy in 2005 because some felt he’s too conservative. Apparently many thought that the Catholic Church would be better served by a pope who’s more willing to “get with the times,” and start thinking more like a 20th century postmodernist and less like a heir of the 1st century Apostles.
Trouble is, the pope is precisely the latter. In fact (regardless of one’s convictions on apostolic succession), a Christian by definition is one who has embraced Christianity: the worldview laid down by Jesus and the Apostles. All Christians are thus heirs of the Apostles, and the pope is the single most visible and influential Christian in the world. I’m delighted to see that this pope evidently views his role in these terms. Consider some of his objectives while Stateside:
- Re-energizing Catholicism the United States – in other words, if you’re going to call yourself a Catholic, it’s going to mean something. One example is his reiteration of the church’s stance against abortion to Catholic US politicians. Benedict seems more intent on contending for Catholic theology than winning popularity contests.
- Declaring that moral relativism is dangerous, and that there is absolute right and wrong. He spent some time combating secular assumptions in Catholic universities, urging the schools to stay true to their mission.
- Confronting the necessary but uncomfortable. I appreciated his remarks on the well-publicized priest sex scandals of recent years. Again, the fact that he addressed this subject when he didn’t “have to,” meaning it wasn’t dominating the 24-hour news cycle at the time, show an inclination to do what’s right, vs. what’s expedient.
Now I’m no expert on Pope Benedict, or even Catholicism in general. Nor do I make light of differences between Christian faith traditions. However, a heavily postmodern, secular age such as ours strikes me as precisely the time when dedicated Christians of all stripes (what C.S. Lewis would call “mere Christians”) should unite around the essentials of our faith, and winsomely live that faith among our fellow men. I think a Catholic church full of energized people who know what they believe and why they believe it, and who are committed to proclaiming the gospel in word and deed, is a good thing.
And I think a pope who applies his heart and mind to the task of advancing biblical truth in a relativistic world is to be commended. To the extent that Benedict pursues an agenda like the one above, you can add this one, lowly, non-Catholic’s voice to his chorus of supporters.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
I just returned from the movie theater where I watched Ben Stein’s documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Though I’m a strong proponent of Intelligent Design ("ID") in science, I wasn’t sure what to expect from the film. I ended up really enjoying it, though not quite for the reasons I might have expected. My fresh-from-the-theater reactions boil down to three points: one big and two smaller.
The main reaction I have is that I’m pleased that Stein let supporters of Darwinism speak. The film doesn’t do a lot of cutting and splicing of interview segments to put interviewees in the worst possible light. Instead, Stein asks pretty simple questions and just lets Darwinists talk. And what they said more often than not was damning to their cause:
- There was the Iowa State professor who called religious people "idiots," and said knowingly that "those people" are still out there. (Yes they are, and one of them has even figured out how to use a computer and blog! Amazing... :D )
- There was scientist PZ Meyers who said that religion is like knitting: something meaningless that people do for fun and comfort, but which has no bearing on the real world.
- There was the passionate and honest atheist Will Provine stating flatly that to accept Darwinism means to give up on any idea of right and wrong, and to abandon the notion that life means anything. I really found Provine's honesty refreshing – at least he admits the logical consequences of his worldview and lays them out for all to see. Good for him, even though I profoundly disagree with his worldview. (Correction: I had originally credited Michael Ruse with Provine's statements in this post.)
- And of course there was that famous (infamous?) attacker of all things religious Richard Dawkins, smugly and freely stating his view that anyone who believes in God is terribly ignorant... at best.
And this was just the tip of the iceberg. It all struck me as the kind of thing these atheists actually believe, but more often than not won't say in public because they don’t want to offend the 80% or so of Americans who believe in some kind of God (mostly the God of the Bible). Instead, pronouncements from the scientific community are often spun for mass consumption by various groups who are more PR-savvy than your typical biochemist probably is. Expelled got more directly to the source, and that source showed its true colors more often than not.
Two other things I was pleased with. First, the pro-ID people interviewed were articulate, intelligent, explained their points clearly, and were obviously every bit as credentialed as their Darwinian counterparts. Anyone who is unsure of ID’s basic premise (which I would guess is many people, since ID is often not reported on accurately by mass media) will get a great summary from this film. The David Berlinski interview in Paris about half way through the film is worth the price of the movie ticket by itself.
Second, I’m pleased that the film was not overly comedic or mocking in its tone. Stein is a master of blunt one-liners and deadpan humor, but I was afraid going in that a comedy routine with put-downs or overdone cheap shots would undermine the film’s message. However, Stein was actually pretty reserved in this regard and didn’t make himself the center of attention, which allowed the film’s message to come through loud and clear – often by the lips of Darwinists themselves.
Overall I’m very pleased with Expelled and I strongly recommend seeing it. I think anyone (except perhaps staunchly committed Darwinists) will get a very clear picture of the state of science education in this country today, and will see why such a monopoly on thinking (in other words, being closed minded) is not good for faith, for science, or for education.
The "Light Ages" and the "Endarkenment"
A new breed of militant, antagonistic atheists has gained a voice recently. These "anti-theists," as some of them prefer to be called, think that belief in any religion (especially Christianity) is at the root of all that's wrong with the world. Thus, if we can just convince people to give up religion (which is nonsense anyway) the human race will finally be able to achieve great progress.
To be fair, modern "anti-theists" didn't come up with that idea on their own. In fact, they're just taking the latest step in what has been a centuries-long pattern (especially among academic elites) of seeing Christianity as a dead weight that holds humanity back.
For example, most historians refer to the 1,200 or so years between the fall of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Enlightenment as "the Dark Ages." They believe that the Greeks and Romans achieved very advanced cultures, but that after these empires fell Europe regressed into a crude, barbaric existence that was largely unchanged for centuries. What prevented progress during these "Dark Ages?" It was Christianity, with its superstitious belief in God. In fact, as the thinking goes, it wasn’t until Christianity was abandoned by cultural elites in favor of atheistic reason ("the Enlightenment") that Europe was "freed" from the barbaric "prison" of primitivism known as the Dark Ages. In other words, most academics believe that getting rid of Christianity results in cultural progress.
But not all. A sociologist named Rodney Stark recently wrote a book called The Victory of Reason, in which he shows that in fact, Christianity is directly responsible for the vast successes of the West including the rise of science, technology, capitalism, and human rights.
In fact, Stark shows that the whole idea of the "Dark Ages" is a myth: "…during the so-called Dark Ages, European science and technology overtook and surpassed the rest of the world!" His book details several key advances in science, art, economics, and human rights which took place at this time. Far from being held back by Christianity, Stark shows how these advances were actually caused by Christianity.
So where did the "Dark Ages myth" come from? Stark says, "The idea that Europe fell into the Dark Ages is a hoax originated by antireligious, and bitterly anti-Catholic, eighteenth century intellectuals who were determined to assert the cultural superiority of their own time…" In other words, people just like today's "anti-theists" were eager to justify their own anti-Christian worldview. In the process they claimed Western successes were the result of their own atheistic worldview, when in fact they arose because of the Christian worldview. It's a textbook example of revisionist history -- and this revision has been repeated so often in the past 300 years that most people still believe it despite strong evidence to the contrary.
I'm thoroughly enjoying my read of The Victory of Reason, and I encourage you to read it too. That way, the next time you hear someone claim that religious belief holds back progress in science, human rights, or anything else, you'll be prepared to shed some light. The same light, as it turns out, that brightly illuminated the terribly-named "Dark Ages."
Posts
