Luthardt on the Religious Nature of Presuppositions

“If we carry back the antagonisms of the present to their ultimate principle, we are obliged to confess that it is of a religious kind. The way in which a man thinks of God and the world, and their relation to one another, is decisive for the whole tendency of his thought, and even in the question of the purely natural life.”

        ~ Christoph Ernest Luthardt, Apologie des Christentums

Law Court Justice in Christian Perspective

Reconciling Christianity toward suspects and convicted persons, yet at the same time pursuing justice for the offender and for the victim is in itself recognizing that this is truly the epitome of the meaning of justice found in the very character of God.  Justice, according to Black’s Law Dictionary (2011), is, “The fair and proper administration of laws” (p. 426).  This vague definition, especially for the Christian, demands what is “fair and proper,” but does nothing to explain what exactly that means. 

Walter C. Kaiser (1983), offers this in regards to justice, “Justice demands impartiality; not compliance with the masses or favoritism to the poor, and would also be best served by extending that same impartiality even to one’s enemies” (p. 110; see Ex. 23:1-9; Lev. 19:15; Deut. 22:1-3).  This obviously moves us toward a more biblically-informed approach to justice.  Christians are to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God (Mic. 6:8).  This means that justice is commanded for the Christian.  As such, what does this justice look like?

Justice and righteousness are, according to Peter A. De Vos (1973), “nearly synonymous” (p. 360).  This means that the righteousness of the Lord is the justice of the Lord.  God himself is justice and righteousness.  Jeremiah 50:7 says, “All that found them have devoured them: and their adversaries said, we offend not, because they have sinned against the LORD, the habitation of justice, even the LORD, the hope of their fathers.”  To effectively administer justice, is to recognize that God himself has established its basis.  Kaiser (1983) rightly offers,

What, then, I would ask, is God’s honour apart from God’s justice?  His honour can be nothing but the reflex action or display of His moral attributes; and in the exercise of these attributes, the fundamental and controlling element is justice.  Every one of them is conditioned; love itself is conditioned by the demands of justice; and to provide scope for the operation of love in justifying the ungodly consistently with those demands, is the very ground and reason of the atonement—its ground and reason primarily in the mind of God, and because there, then also in its living image, the human conscience, which instinctively regards punishment as ‘recoil of the eternal law of right against the transgressor,’ and cannot attain solid peace but through the medium of valid expiation.  Thus has the law been most signally established by that very feature of the Gospel, which specifically distinguished it from the law—its display of the redeeming love of God in Christ (p. 147-148).

It is clear from this explanation that God’s justice and God’s love are mutually dependent. 

As such, the Christian can rightly seek justice for the offender and for the victim and at the same time seek God’s love in acting “Christianly” towards the suspects and convicted persons.  For it is through God’s justice that Christ died to pay the penalty for sin and our transgression against the holy God.  But, by God’s grace, it is through God’s love that this act satisfied the penalty for our sins and thus made us righteous before the same God.  As Psalm 89:14 says, “Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.”  Christians can seek justice for the transgression and still exhibit love and kindness towards the transgressor. 

--Fanny

  

__________________________________

References

Black’s law dictionary (2011) (4^th ed.). Bryan A Garner (Ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

De Vos, Peter A. (1973). Justice. In Baker’s dictionary of Christian ethics. Carl F. H. Henry (Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company.

Kaiser. Walter C. Jr. (1983). Toward Old Testament ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

The Case for Reciting Creeds in Worship with Albert Aymer

[Albert] Aymer has a message for churches doing all they can to make worship relevant and contemporary. “Remember that worship transcends time and space,” he urges.

One of the best ways to do that is to use creeds in worship.  Continue reading at the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship.  

Toward a Liturgical Worldview

Being a disciple of Jesus is not primarily a matter of getting the right ideas and doctrines and beliefs into you head in order to guarantee proper behavior; rather, it’s a matter of being the kind of person who loves rightly—who loves God and neighbor and is orientated to the world by the primacy of that love. We are made to be such people by our immersion in the material practices of Christian worship—through affective impact, over time, of sights and smell in water and wine.

The liturgy is a “hearts and minds strategy, a pedagogy that trains us as disciples precisely by putting our bodies through a regimen of repeated practices that get hold of our heart and “aim” our love toward the kingdom of God. Before we articulate a worldview, we worship. Before we put into words the lineaments of an ontology or an epistemology, we pray for God’s healing and illumination. Before we theorize the nature of God, we sing his praises. Before we express moral principles, we receive forgiveness. Before we codify the doctrine of Christ’s two natures, we receive the body of Christ in the Eucharist. Before we think, we pray. That’s the kind of animals we are, first and foremost: loving, desiring, affective, liturgical animals who, for the most part, don’t inhabit the world as thinkers or cognitive machines…My contention is that given the sorts of animals we are, we pray before we believe, we worship before we know—or rather, we worship in order to know.

James K. A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Cultural Liturgies, Vol. 1), 33—34   

Worldviews: the Proper Place of Evidences

When offering Christian and creationist evidences, we must be sure that we make clear that these facts must be understood within the broader context of the Christian worldview. We must resist the temptation to present the evidences as self-interpreting, as though both Christians and non-Christians will view the facts in terms of the same criteria and standards of “proof.” Take the lynchpin of the faith, e.g., the resurrection of Jesus. Both the Christian and the non-Christian have the same historical data before them. The Christian interprets these data through the lens of Scripture, concluding that Jesus is therefore the Messiah, warranting the obedience and faith of all peoples. The non-Christian, however, views the same data through the lens of his naturalistic presuppositions, concluding that, since we live in a random world of chance, weird things do happen, if indeed Jesus of Nazareth came back from the dead! 

                                                      

Therefore, without the context of the sweeping redemptive-historical framework of Scripture as the interpretive grid, Jesus resurrection—the crux of the Christian faith—is a fluke of nature at best and unintelligible at worst. So it is with all evidentially based arguments. We should avoid attempting to treat evidences as neutral facts open to anyone’s interpretation, and then try to move the unbeliever toward truly Christian content and understanding. Rather, we must be unapologetic in our apologetics, showing non-Christians that not only is this or that evidence or fact understandable in terms of Scripture but also every facet of human experience. 

Secondly, then, evidences have their place, but we must be careful to not give them a higher place than is warranted, when considering the conversion of non-Christians. From academic antitheists to agnostic Joe, who works down at the gas station, nearly all unbelievers present their resistance to the gospel and biblical truth as merely the intellectually respectable problem of a lack of evidence for God’s existence, creationism, Christ’s resurrection, etc. The tempting response is to begin pouring out the best information, evidences, and arguments we have; we begin trying to show the unbeliever that there are sufficient facts available to meet his rationalistic demands of proof. 

One glaring problem with this idea is that it presumes that unbelievers simply lack sufficient evidence for obedient belief in the living God, which is itself an assumption of atheism; the idea is perfectly unscriptural, even anti-scriptural. Even the most comprehensive biblical anthropology would never suggest that a person’s unbelief and disobedience is an intellectual problem, as though God has not presented each and every human with sufficient proof of his reality, his nature, etc. (see, e.g., Rom. 1:18ff). Instead, biblically speaking, man’s problem with God is a moral one. “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7). Unbelievers are not ignorant of God, but are “haters of God” (Rom. 1:30); he is not doing good by seeking God, since “none seeketh after God” and none doeth good” (Rom. 3:11, 12). So, if we take the biblical view of man, especially fallen man, seriously, we need to be careful to address the unbeliever’s really real problem, his sinful attitude toward Christ, rather than his perceived problem of an alleged want of evidence. The saving gospel, as set forth in the Self-attesting Word, is what the unbeliever lacks, not intellectual satisfaction. He doesn’t need new evidences but a new heart and a new mind.

All of this is easy to discuss in the abstract, but all too often, when I am personally engaged in apologetic and evangelistic conversations, it is easy to slip into the mode of moving forward as though the conclusion of an airtight argument with result in the unbeliever’s immediate concession to the truth and confession of Christ. Even if that were true, it would have the effect of his faith standing in the wisdom of men rather than the power of God, which is his original problem (1 Cor. 2:5; cf. Gen. 3)!  

Worldviews: Faith Goes Deeper Still

Scripture and experience have taught me how little the creation-evolution debate actually has to do with evidences and “science.”  Solid creationist materials have highlighted that what is at stake in this is an all-out clash of worldviews.  Even the humanist materials have, consciously or not, alluded to this reality here and there, mentioning the socio-situational relativity of the scientific enterprise.  This observation helps us get beneath the fact-lobbing type of discourse and into a deeper analysis of the conflict between not facts and evidences per se but each perspective’s philosophy of fact and philosophy of evidence, and most importantly the nature of epistemological authorities.  However, I now question if the worldview level of analysis is sufficient for truly understanding what is at stake for the subjects holding one or the other of these antithetical perspectives. 

I believe to really get at the root of the divide, at least of the personal, existential, or psychological level, we need to look even deeper than mere worldviews.  Worldviews are not selected like pudding or pie at a buffet; neither are they caught passively like a common cold.  Rather, just as philosophical theorizing and scientific hypothesizing have a particular worldview undergirding them, that worldview is not a self-sufficient, self-grounding paradigm.  Worldviews are themselves a more or less self-consistent, more or less internally coherent and systematic expression of a deeper heart commitment, namely a faith. 

Every worldview—again, consciously or not—is characterized by faith.  When we are plumbing questions of the origin and destination of the world, and by extension ourselves, the unity and diversity of our experience, and such matters, we soon discover that the answers to these questions are far beyond analytical or linear reason and even farther from inductive, scientific thought and theory.  The answers ultimately grow out of what Herman Dooyeweerd called a ‘religious ground-motive.’  This is equally true for both Christian and non-Christian worldviews.  This religious ground-motive is prior to and tethers the entirety of one’s life attitude or outlook.  As Solomon said, “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23; cf. Matt. 12:35).  So, just as worldview is logically and practically prior to one’s epistemic authority and philosophy of facts and evidences, so also is one’s deepest heart commitment, that is, faith, prior to his worldview.

This realization has had a subjective and objective effect on my thinking about the creation-evolution debate.  With respect to the subjective side, this realization has granted me an even sounder cognitive rest in my faith commitment to a young-earth creational view.  Understanding the pre-worldview commitments involved helps to undermine any insecurity that a Christian may have in the face of evolutionary theories and so-called evidences.  The debate is ultimately not, as it is often misunderstood to be, faith versus reason, even less is it religion versus science.  It is one faith commitment versus another; it is ultimately two antithetical religious ground-motives in mortal combat.  Additionally, because the relatively young-earth creational view is perfectly self-consistent and self-referentially coherent, as an integral element of the biblical worldview; and, because of my faith commitment to the biblical worldview through the gospel of Jesus Christ, I find myself at imperturbable cognitive rest in the biblical creational perspective. 

With respect to the objective side, these observations have serious implications for apologetical and evangelistic engagements.  If these observations are so, then no amount of so-called scientific evidence will change a person’s mind, toward either direction in the debate.  This does not disparage the right place and purpose of evidences within the broader context of a particular worldview.  What it does do is encourage the apologist-witness to quickly move the direction of the conversation to the crux of the issue, the misplaced faith and faulty ground-motive of the non-Christian, who needs to experience a Copernican revolution, so to speak, of the heart—repentance and trusting obedience to the gospel of Christ. 

All this has led to a related disposition, that is, a more critical view of so-called scientific truth, whether in the context of either worldview, be it creationism or humanism-evolution.  Science—all science—is a human endeavor.  Science is one expression of the human response to God’s revelation in nature.  It is the attempt at producing a systematic ordering and description of the created order.  As such, true science is always provisional and contingent; at best, we may ascribe to its conclusions ‘scientific knowledge,’ but never ‘scientific truth.’  Because of its inherent nature, scientific reasoning can never achieve epistemic certainty; it can never result in “truth.”  Truth is immutable, that is, unchanging.  However, the natural order, which is the lawful field of scientific investigation, is always changing.  Truth is eternal or timeless; science deals only with the temporal structures of reality.  Truth is abstract, whereas science deals only with concrete particulars.  Truth is universal, but scientific studies are, again, bound to particulars. Therefore, anytime the conclusion is reach, which claims to have been demonstrated as “scientific truth,” one can rest assured that the argument for the so-called “truth” is a non-sequitur—that is, it does not follow. 

Similar to the first, this observation has a two-fold effect.  First, when confronting evolutionary “truth,” in so far as the proponent claims to be conducting science, it is demonstrable that his reasoning is fallacious and will always be so.  Every claim to scientific “truth” is false, ironically.  This, I believe, would be immensely helpful for young Christians especially and their interpretations and explanations of the popular science on TV and in other media, which naively presents the findings or those of others as “scientific truth.”  Secondly, it teaches us that despite our commitment to creationism, we must be cautious with respect to a number of statements in Scripture.  The creation account of Scripture was not written by scientists for scientists, neither was it meant to serve as a scientific textbook.  The biblical account of creation is pre-scientific, as are all origin accounts, including evolution, pantheism, and the rest.  It is pre-scientific in both the historical and the logical sense.  Historically, the creation account is centuries anterior to the rise of modern science.  Logically, in light of the above observations, it is anterior to scientific investigation.  However, this is the case with all accounts of the origin and destination of humanity and the cosmos.  So, this must be borne in mind, while considering the manifold aspects of the debate.  To say that the creation account is pre-scientific in either sense is not to suggest that it is un- or anti-scientific at all.  However, as they put it is my neck of the woods, “It is what it is.”  Therefore, we must take it on its own terms and resist at all costs the temptation of imposing a modernistic, scientific mode of thought upon the text.

For me, then, all of this is compelling me to look beyond the typical battleground passages of the debate toward other deep, related, and profound statements, as I continue to nurture my creational outlook.  Consider passages like St. Paul’s doxological outburst in Romans 11:36, “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen;” or, the Christ creed of Colossians 1, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence” (vv. 16—18).  How should these texts shape one’s creational outlook?  It is typical among creationist literature to point out that one will have an anemic view of Christ if he doubts Genesis 1, but what if we inverted the reasoning; we will have a warped view of creation apart from a full, rich knowledge and grace as it is in the incomprehensible Christ.  Let us therefore keep the Center, Christ.