Dealing with Secular Philosophies

Other articles

I do not consider myself a theologian. If I had to describe myself, it would be as a 'biblical philosopher'; 'philosopher' in the Greek sense (a lover of wisdom), but 'wisdom' in the Hebrew sense ('an awareness of the created order enabling you to live life beautifully and skilfully'- Bruce Waltke).

For this reason, before I make some suggestions on approaches to dealing with secular philosophies, I'd like to outline some ideas on biblical philosophy. The obvious place to go for these is Proverbs; but I'll also be looking at 1 Co 1:17-2:16, which at first glance is the part of Scripture most hostile to ideas of 'wisdom'.

The very first mention of wisdom in the Scriptures is in such a context that it seems we should abandon the idea immediately. 'When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.' (Gen 3:6). But the next, in Exodus 28:3, refers to it as a gift of God; and the third, Deuteronomy 4:6, introduces an important theme for our purposes. Here, Israel is instructed to observe God's commandments 'carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." ' And indeed, in the reign of Solomon this prophecy was partially fulfilled: 'God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore. Solomon's wisdom was greater than the wisdom of all the men of the East, and greater than all the wisdom of Egypt. . . . Men of all nations came to listen to Solomon's wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom.' (1Ki 4:29-30, 34).

The Psalms and Proverbs, which are in a genre known as 'wisdom literature,' definitely approve of wisdom, paralleling it with righteousness and justice (Ps 37:30), referring to its role in God's creation of the world (Ps 104:24; Pr 3:19, 8:22 ff), and declaring, 'The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding' (Ps 111:10), 'The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline' (Pr 1:7), 'The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding' (Pr 9:10). The NIV notes on Pr 1:7 that 'The Hebrew words rendered "fool" in Proverbs, and often elsewhere in the Old Testament, denote one who is morally deficient.' Indeed, the entire book of Proverbs is declared to be written for the purpose of instructing the reader in 'attaining wisdom and discipline' (1:2). It states straightforwardly that 'the LORD gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding' (2:6), and that 'Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding' (3:13); and it exhorts the reader, 'Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding' (Pr 4:7); 'How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather than silver!' (Pr 16:16). In fact, 'Of what use is money in the hand of a fool, since he has no desire to get wisdom?' (Pr 17:16).

Proverbs also has quite a lot to say about prosperity (which is wider than material prosperity, as we have just seen, but does not exclude it), and again wisdom is involved: 'He who gets wisdom loves his own soul; he who cherishes understanding prospers' (Pr 19:8). Indeed, 'Know also that wisdom is sweet to your soul; if you find it, there is a future hope for you, and your hope will not be cut off.' (Pr 24:14.) This is prosperity beyond the merely material.

There is another thread, though, running through Scripture's discussions of wisdom: the futility of wisdom which is not centred on God. 'There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the LORD' declares Proverbs (Pr 21:30). Likewise, 'He who trusts in himself is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom is kept safe' (Pr 28:26); after all, 'There is a way which seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death' (Pr 16:25).

The author of Ecclesiastes is familiar with this shortcoming of human wisdom: 'Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.' (Ecc 1:17-18). Yet he comes to the conclusion that 'Wisdom, like an inheritance, is a good thing and benefits those who see the sun.' (Ecc 7:11). Still, to the man unassisted by God, 'Whatever wisdom may be, it is far off and most profound - who can discover it?' (Ecc 7:24).

The Prophets continue this idea of the inadequacy of wisdom which does not rely on God. Isaiah 10:13 pronounces God's judgement against the blasphemous pride of the King of Assyria: 'For he says: "'By the strength of my hand I have done this, and by my wisdom, because I have understanding. I removed the boundaries of nations, I plundered their treasures; like a mighty one I subdued their kings.'"' This is why God says (and Paul quotes this in 1 Corinthians, which we will look at shortly) 'Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish' (Isa 29:14). Jeremiah says much the same: 'The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?' (Jer 8:9), and 'This is what the LORD says: "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD' (Jer 9:23-24). In the passage in Ezekiel which is often taken as a type of the fall of Satan, a loss of true wisdom - the acknowlegement of God's sovereign glory - is one consequence of the fall which comes through pride: 'Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor' (Eze 28:17).

Messiah, by contrast, will have true wisdom. 'The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him - the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding' (Isa 11:2), and 'He will be the sure foundation for your times, a rich store of salvation and wisdom and knowledge; the fear of the LORD is the key to this treasure.' (Isa 33:6). (Note that again the fear of the Lord is linked to gaining wisdom.) Sure enough, it is reported of the incarnate Word: 'And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.' (Lk 2:52). And Paul describes him as the one 'in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge' (Col 2:3).

Wisdom was one of the two qualifications for the first church officers; the apostles gave the instruction 'Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom' (Ac 6:3). This is in accordance with the continuation of the OT idea that God's wisdom would be displayed through his chosen people, as Paul sets out in Ephesians 3:10; 'His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms'. Unfortunately, sometimes in the modern church officers are appointed who are 'spiritual' but not wise (or, in the USA, wise - in the ways of making money - but not spiritual). They must be able to relate properly both to God, whom they are ultimately serving, and to the people whom they are immediately serving.

With this background, we can now safely look at 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:16.

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel - not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." {Isaiah 9:14}

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God - that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord." {Jer. 9:24}

2:1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" {Isaiah 64:4} - 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 16"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" {Isaiah 40:13} But we have the mind of Christ.

In the light of our examination of the rest of Scripture, we can see that Paul's contrast is not wisdom-bad, foolishness-good (as some have implied), but human-wisdom-inadequate, God's-wisdom-adequate. Remember the definition of wisdom given above: an awareness of the created order enabling you to live life beautifully and skilfully. Perhaps it would be best to expand Dr Waltke's definition to 'an awareness of the way things are and how they fit together enabling you to live life beautifully and skilfully', since, as the wisdom literature teaches us, it is not so much the created order but the Creator of that order who is the key to understanding. 'In him' says Paul, speaking of Christ as Creator, 'all things hold together' (Col 1:17). If we are in search of an organising principle for understanding the world, the Scriptures say it is impossible to understand adequately apart from God - indeed, apart from God revealed in Jesus Christ.

This is the error Paul is addressing. In God's wisdom, the world was unable to know him through its (inadequate, fallen, self-centred, God-excluding) 'wisdom', the 'wisdom' which the fruit the woman ate was 'desirable for gaining' - the 'wisdom' which disobeys God's commands. This is why, though not many of the Corinthians were 'wise' by the standards of the world that is, by the standards of the philosophical teachers who were the gurus of the day - they were still able to enter into relationship with God. (Much of the point of Paul's argument, in context, is that the philosophical-guru system should not be imported into the Church, since it brings divisiveness and is inadequate for gaining truth.) This is because the main problem of humanity, beginning at the Fall, is a denial of reliance on God in favour of a reliance on our 'own' abilities (which are, in fact, gifts of God; as Paul says later in 4:7, 'What do you have that you did not receive? And since you did receive it, why do you boast as if you did not?'). This is the situation Ezekiel refers to in Chapter 28 (quoted from above): Forgetting that everything good about him came from God, the 'guardian seraph' corrupts his wisdom with pride.

The answer is not to reject wisdom but to exchange our inadequate wisdom (that is, our inadequate way of perceiving how the world works) for God's adequate wisdom. This requires more humility from someone whose identity is strongly bound up with being a 'philosopher of this age,' which is presumably why there were few of these people among the believers (as there were few Pharisees among the followers of Jesus, who had to confront the inadequacy of their own righteousness). It's easy to see you don't have enough of something if you have always known you don't have much. Someone on an unemployment benefit would never think of trying to buy, say, another man's wife (as in the film Indecent Proposal); a billionaire might think he had enough money even for this, since he's used to having enough money for whatever he wants.

'Whatever wisdom may be, it is far off and most profound - who can discover it?' asks Qoheleth, the Leader of the Assembly (Ecc 7:24). Paul's reply is that one who is in Christ possesses the true wisdom from God (as well as righteousness, holiness and redemption); he does speak a message of wisdom for those mature enough to receive it, but it is not the wisdom of this age. It is a wisdom which can only be accepted and known (the word means 'known personally', not 'understood intellectually') by one who has the Spirit who reveals it within him and who is relying upon this same Spirit. Amazingly, we are able to receive the 'deep things of God' because of our union with him. Since we are still hindered in our perception by our earthly state, we do not have perfect understanding, but we have adequate understanding to discern all things - to make appropriate judgements on them. Once again, this does not remove the necessity for study or gaining information about a situation; a mature Christian is not necessarily right about everything, even things he or she knows little or nothing about, simply by virtue of being a Christian. But, given adequate resources, we are able to make right judgements simply inasmuch as we understand how things fit together under God.

This is probably the point at which to insert another Bible study, this one on the mind and foolishness. It was originally prepared for the course 'Introduction to Christian Thought' run through the Auckland University chaplaincy by Jonathan Beazer.

There are three main words for 'mind' used in the New Testament. Dianoia is the part of the intellect which engages in abstract reasoning and moral reflection, in understanding, feeling and desiring. It is this word which is used in Mt 22:37, Mark 12:30, and Luke 10:27 when Jesus commands us to worship God with our whole mind, among other parts of our being. Peter in 1 Pe 1:13 commands us to prepare our minds for action (using this word) in the context of being morally prepared for the return of Christ and living holy lives, and in 2 Pe 3:1 refers to his purpose in writing his letters as being to stimulate pure 'thinking'. Hebrews 8:10, quoting from Jeremiah about the coming of the new covenant, gives the words of God: 'I will put my laws in their minds', and Paul prays in Eph 1:18 that the eyes of the Ephesians' 'understanding' might be enlightened, as the 'understanding' of those in rebellion against God is darkened (Eph 4:18). The Son of God, says John in 1 Jn 5:20, has given us 'understanding' so that we may know God.

The word is also used negatively, of the 'thoughts' of the sinful nature (Eph 2:3), of those who are proud in their inmost 'thoughts' (Luke 1:51), and of being enemies to God in our 'minds' because of our evil behaviour (Col 1:21). But this simply tells us what we already knew: all our faculties can be used either for good or for evil.

The second word, nous, refers to philosophical reasoning and logic, the mind being used to make moral judgements, understand and know the things of God, and reflect on the universe. It is nous which makes dianoia possible. The nous of the apostles was opened by Jesus so that they might understand the Scriptures concerning him (Luke 24:45), and Paul twice refers to the nous of the Lord, quoting Isaiah 40:13 (Ro 11:34; 1 Co 2:16). On the second occasion, he also says that 'we' (in context, apparently the apostles) have the nous of Christ. The nous is to be renewed; the famous passage of Ro 12:2 uses the word, and so does Eph 4:23.

Paul makes much of the point in 1 Co 14 that the use of the nous is superior to the use of the spirit in a church setting, because it edifies more (vv 14, 15, 19), and he pleads with the Corinthians to be united in nous (1 Co 1:10). There are things, notably the peace of God, which are beyond the nous (Php 4:7), but the Thessalonians are warned against becoming unsettled in their minds (the NIV just says 'unsettled', but the word should be in there) by prophecies, reports or letters claiming, contrary to the facts, that the Lord has already returned- in other words, they are to keep their thoughts from being confused by such things. 'Let him who has nous' says John 'know the number of the Beast' (Rev 13:18), and he also refers to the mystery of the woman on the seven hills as calling for a nous with wisdom.

Paul contrasts his nous directly with his sinful nature: the law in the members of his body is in conflict with the law of his nous (Ro 7:23), and in his nous he is a slave to God's law, but in the flesh or sinful nature a slave to the law of sin (Ro 7:25). It is in one's nous that one must be fully persuaded on disputable matters, otherwise one sins (Ro 14:5).

There is a contrast, however, between the nous of the Christian and the nous of the non-Christian. Those who do not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God are given over to a depraved nous, to do what ought not to be done (Ro 1:28). The Gentiles live in futility of nous, and Paul insists that Christians not do so (Eph 4:17). A person given to false humility, the worship of angels, and, significantly, much talking about the visions he has seen is described as being puffed up with idle notions by his unspiritual nous (Col 2:18). Both 1 and 2 Timothy refer to men of corrupt nous, who think godliness leads to financial gain (1 Tim 6:5) and who oppose the truth (2 Tim 3:8), and in Titus Paul writes of unbelievers that their nous is defiled (Tit 1:15). The distinction is very clear, though: these are always, and very specifically, non-Christians who are referred to (whether pagans or heretics), and they are all denying God and denying the truth because they do not want to obey God.

The third word translated 'mind', phronema, refers to what a person has in his or her mind, the moral preference and world view, the reflection of priorities, convictions and beliefs arising from dianoia. A related word is used for being sensible, prudent, practically wise, having one's priorities right. It is usually used as a verb, phroneo, to think, have an opinion, be thinking about, be intent about, but in four cases it is a noun, all in Romans 8. Verse 6 declares that the phronema set on the flesh or the sinful nature is death, but the phronema set on the Spirit is life and peace; v 7 continues, saying that the phronema set on the flesh is hostile to God. This follows naturally from the definition. The third reference is to the phronema of the Spirit, v 27, which he who searches our hearts as we pray knows.

Looking at the verb form: Jesus rebukes Peter as 'Satan' because he does not phroneo the things of God (Mt 16.23, Mark 8:33), in other words does not have the things of God as priorities or things at the forefront of his mind from which he can choose his actions. We are not to phroneo of ourselves more highly than we ought (Ro 12:3), but are to phroneo the same towards each other (NIV 'live in harmony with one another'), not phroneo high things (NIV 'do not be proud', Ro 12:16), and to be 'likeminded' towards one another (Ro 15:5, 2 Co 13:11, Php 2:2). We are not to phroneo of men above what is written (1 Co 4:6). Some people phroneo of earthly things (Php 3:19), but we are to phroneo things above (Col 3:2). Paul further commands us to phroneo as Christ did in humbling himself (Php 2:5). In all of these references, the basic idea is of attitudes or priorities held as a result of thought, reflection and moral judgement.

Writing in the context of the mind being unreliable for correctly understanding the Scriptures, Bill Subritzky states: 'When I attended Law School at University, I was told that one of the main objectives of the course was to make me think for myself and to be independent of mind. While this is commendable as a natural objective, it can lead to problems when we move in the spiritual realm because our natural mind is against God. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can it be." (Romans 8:7)' (Demons Defeated, p 104).

A moment's checking reveals that of the three New Testament words for mind the one in Romans 8:7 is not that referring to the intellectual capacity, reasoning, or logic but to the focal point of one's moral preference and world view, what one thinks of, the reflection of one's priorities, convictions and beliefs (phroneo). Subritzky, like many users of the English Bible and especially the King James Version, is guilty of a 'versionism'; taking the implications of the word used in the English translation to be the implications of the Scripture.

It is also not a very good translation of the verse; 'the mind set on the flesh' (NASB, NIV margin) or 'the sinful mind' (NIV) are preferable to 'the carnal mind' (KJV), and certainly to Subritzky's paraphrase 'the natural mind'. Finally, there is a distinct difference between understanding the Scriptures and being subject to the Scriptures, if indeed the Scriptures are what Paul means in context when he refers to the 'law of God'. There are certainly things in Scripture which cannot be truly 'understood' by a mere intellectual approach, since the Scriptural concept of understanding includes action on one's knowledge. But this does not mean that they must be grasped in the absence of thought.

I am in receipt of a letter from another Christian whose writing is well-known in New Zealand, who suggests that when Paul says that 'not many wise' are chosen, that means that God prefers 'twits' to the intelligent and that, by implication, when Jesus 'intruded' into his life he moved from being a wise person into the class of 'chosen twits'. Let's look at 'foolishness' as we looked at 'mind'.

Again, there are three different words. Anoetos, connected to nous, means lacking normal intelligence, mindless, dense; a lack of reasoning ability. This is used very negatively both by Jesus, in rebuking the men on the road to Emmaus for their slowness to understand about the crucifixion and resurrection (Lk 24:25), and by Paul in rebuking the Galatians for similar lack of spiritual understanding (Gal 3:1, 3). He refers in 1 Tim 6:9 to 'foolish and harmful desires' which bring about ruin and destruction for those who want to get rich, and in Titus 3:3 describes the condition of the non-Christians which we all once were: foolish, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to lusts and pleasures. A related word is used in Lk 6:11 and 2 Tim 3:9 for dangerous folly or madness, of the Pharisees who objected to Jesus healing in the one case and of heretics in the other. Clearly not a commendatory word.

Aphreios means showing poor judgement, irresponsibly stupid; failing to use reasoning ability. Again, it is always used negatively, and in fact Eph 5:17 commands us directly not to be like this (the given alternative being 'know what the Lord's will is'). Paul in 2 Co 11 and 12 refers to himself as a 'fool' for boasting, but it is in a sarcastic context and is used to rebuke the Corinthians. Jesus again uses it of the Pharisees, and also of the rich man who wanted to build bigger barns, not bearing in mind the possibility that God might require his life of him that night (Lk 11:40, 12:20).

The only potentially positive references to foolishness are again in Paul to the Corinthians. The word is moros, lacking the maturity to be discriminating, infantile, mentally or psychologically immature, easily deceived; with low development or deficient use of reasoning abilities. He tells them in 3:18 that if they are wise, they should become fools, which seems to be what my correspondent was alluding to. But that is not all of the text. The full Scripture says 'Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish, that he may become wise.' The contrast is between the apparent wisdom of the present age and the real wisdom of God; if a person is 'worldly-wise' he or she needs to abandon this wisdom and start again at the bottom of the ladder, with the aim of gaining true wisdom from God - not with the aim of remaining a fool.

Paul has said in 1:25 that (literally) the foolishness of God is wiser than man, and in 1:27 that God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. But it is clear that God is not lacking in discrimination, immature or deficient in his use of reason, any more than he is weak because Paul says that his weakness is stronger than man. He is using a reductio ad absurdam, showing that if God's wisdom appears 'foolish' it only demonstrates that those who think this are not truly wise, but fools. The least of God's wisdom is greater than the best we can do.

I've several times heard Christians quote the phrase 'fools for Christ' as if it approved of doing stupid things in Christ's name. But look at the context in 1 Co 4:10. Paul is being sarcastic again, meaning exactly the opposite of what he says. He is not saying that he is immature and the Corinthians are mature, but the other way around. He is certainly not licensing doing stupid things. If we are in any doubt, we can look at the Pastoral Epistles, which warn against foolish questions (2 Tim 2:23, Titus 3:9), and at the teaching of Jesus in Mt 25, where he warns against being unprepared like the 'foolish' virgins; in Mt 23:17, 19, where he condemns the Pharisees as 'blind fools'; and finally in 7:26, where he compares someone who hears his teaching and doesn't obey to a foolish man who built his house on sand.

In conclusion, then, there is a great deal more to the biblical concept of 'mind' than simply the intellect; it also involves, to some extent, what we call emotions and commitments of the will. There is a moral as well as an intellectual dimension to it, judging right from wrong. But the Scripture throughout commands us to use this faculty under its various names and aspects, warns that it is possible to misuse it as unbelievers do by turning it away from God and his truth, but assumes that a mature Christian will make correct use of it and honour God thereby. 'Foolishness' is a charge leveled at immature Christians or those who have faults in their faith, and unbelievers such as the Pharisees; it is never a positive quality. A mind in submission to Christ no more ceases to think than a will in submission to Christ ceases to decide.

So, what has all of this to do with confronting secular philosophies? (you have probably been asking for some time). Several things.

Firstly, on the defensive side of confronting secular philosophies, we need to have a cohesive view of how the universe fits together ourselves, or we will take on someone else's to fill the vacuum (which is why I was an atheist for years; nobody had ever given me any other coherent religious system). This is one danger of the idea which most NZ Christians hold, that religion is one small compartment of life rather than God being intimately involved in all of life (the Subritzky quotation above demonstrates the compartmentalised approach by contrasting 'commendable as a natural objective' with 'causing problems when we move into the spiritual realm').

Franky Shaeffer, in his brilliant (but unfortunately hard-to-obtain) book Sham Pearls for Real Swine, has some characteristically hard words for this viewpoint, which he calls 'pietism' and contrasts with the 'truth' viewpoint which 'declares Christian teaching to be truth, the explanation of existence itself' and which 'has produced, in various forms, the positive fruits of Western culture':

The tradition of Truth affirms life as a whole; it sees reality as a whole. There is no sacred and no secular - all of creation is God's. . . . Reality is one and it is all God's.

(Schaeffer's emphasis.) By contrast, 'those whose Christian opinions are informed by Pietism regard life as a moralistic quest for spiritual experience. For Pietists, the results are unimportant if only the motivation is correct. It is the emotional experience that concerns them, not the mind or the soul.'

He lists the result of pietism under the heading 'Garbage of the Soul':

The little Bible verses stuck on refrigerators, the bad Sunday school illustrations, the feeble and bland feminised Sunday school texts of the "be nice to everybody" variety that evangelical "Christian" publishers specialise in. . . the lack of interest in the arts or their propagandistic misuse, the many little rules that have been added to God's sensible instructions [in Scripture], the "niceness" of so many Christians when toughness of mind is called for, the lack of courage, the laws of God that have been abandoned, the strange tangents churches go off on, the obnoxious bad taste, the predominance of hair-sprayed charlatans who lead churches, the cultic overtones of the evangelical-fundamentalist movement, the lesbian-feminist inroads into the liberal denominations, the feminised wimps who pass for men in the evangelical world, the insular closed minds, the easily shocked sensibilities of the middle class and their taboos, the harsh rules of the fundamentalist churches, the increased New Age emphasis on inner healing and so-called counselling, the "Liberation" theology. . . . We do not need to "Christianise" breakfast by memorising a daily Bible verse. Breakfast is already God's. We do not need to "Christianise" our refrigerator by putting a small piece of plastic on it with a magnetic backing, stamped with the words "Jesus Loves You". . . . If all Christians can do is help people feel better, so can secular psychologists. If all Christians can do is add pious interpretations to life and a spiritual dimension, so can Hindu gurus and New Age prophets. . . . If all Christians can do is come up with pious platitudes, so can the makers of fortune cookies. . . . Pietism invents far more rules for itself than God ever mandated. Because freedom is sometimes frightening, the pietists make their circle of life smaller, not bigger. . . . Thus life becomes narrow, ugly, strange and cultic. . . .' (Chapter 8).

Leaving aside his apparent anti-feminism, he has a point.

As John Piper remarks in another of my favourite books, Desiring God: 'The first thing we learn [in Jn 4] is that worship has to do with real life. It is not a mythical interlude in a week of reality. Worship has to do with adultery and hunger and racial conflict.' (p 61).

If we take what Schaeffer calls the 'Truth' approach to reality - that it is one, and is all God's - there are several immediate consequences. Firstly, as I said, we are in less danger of being taken 'captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ' (Col 2:8).

Secondly, we are able to use those ideas of non-Christians which fit into a framework centred on God. The Bible doesn't outline the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator; it was developed by a follower of Jung. To a pietist, this makes it instantly suspect. However, I can ask some basic questions of it: Does it contradict the creation of man in God's image? No. Does it allow for the fact that we are each unique and have dignity and freedom under God? Yes. Does it, correctly applied, provide excuses for wrong behaviour on the basis of 'my personality made me do it'? Not if we make a distinction between personality and character, which fits readily into the system; and not if we remember that the system is describing tendencies and not mechanistic laws. After a few such tests, the remaining question is 'Is it useful as a tool for understanding myself and others, so that I can better serve God?' It is, and so I use it. It's important to remember that human wisdom, though inadequate for salvation and ultimately inadequate for living life as a whole, must still fit God's reality at a great many points if it is ever to gain acceptance; and if we find one of these points it is perfectly legitimate to make use of it.

Thirdly, when we have a coherent alternative system to present to those who currently hold secular philosophies, they may be able to cross over more readily than if we simply give them a series of unconnected ideas which to them are 'obviously' false, since they don't fit the only 'wisdom' they have. It is necessary that non-Christians abandon their sin and adopt righteousness; it is not necessary, and we should not present it as necessary, that they should abandon their brains and adopt jargon. (More on this in the forthcoming issue on Discussion and Change.)

Two excellent books on confronting specific non-Christian philosophies are Peter C. Moore's Disarming the Secular Gods: how to talk so skeptics will listen (IVP, 1989) and Douglas Groothuis's Confronting the New Age: how to resist a growing religious movement (IVP, 1988).

Moore takes an eclectic approach to dialogue with secularists, attempting to build bridges by going as far as he can with reasonable criticisms of Christianity (pointing out, however, that "You may be right in what you say is wrong, but are you right in what you say is right?"); by encouraging people to question their own frameworks and be open to the alternative possibility of God; and by unfolding the claims of Christ in an evidential fashion, because he believes that faith makes sense. He has found this sane and balanced approach communicates well with a wide range of non-Christians. (His book has chapters on the New Age, humanism, relativism, narcissism, agnosticism, pragmatism and hedonism.)

Groothuis also has three main thrusts: building stronger foundations for Christians to understand their own beliefs and the sound basis for them, pointing out the flaws in New Age beliefs, and practical suggestions for the processes by which these two things can be communicated. These suggestions have much wider application than witnessing to New Agers.

A sample from p 47 may show you why I like Groothuis:

Paul views intellectual renewal as a spiritual process. Our sanctification demands cognitive reformation. . . . Although God may sometimes grant supernatural information, wisdom or insight, the ordinary way for us to know God's will is through the sanctification of our critical faculties, not through the "RPM method" (revelations per minute).

In conclusion, let me present the deepest challenge of all to secular philosophy, not only in its specifics but in its very essence. Western philosophy falls into two main 'schools': the Empiricists, such as Kant with his Critique of Pure Reason, who hold that truth is only accessible through the senses (and thus that anything not accessible through the senses- for instance, God - is not real); and the Rationalists, who claim to depend on reason alone (so that anything which does not make 'sense' in terms of logic - for instance, God - is not real). In our exchanges earlier, Ian Burn was taking a form of empiricist position, while I tend to side with the rationalists (and our personalities, I suspect, have much to do with these preferences). However, there are several faults in both these systems.

Firstly, each contains some truth but neither contains all the truth; or, put another way, each is part of a process which is not complete without the other. They are like the Observation and Interpretation steps in sound Bible study (more on this in the next article). In fact, all human philosophy uses both approaches, but the stronger adherents of the two schools deny that they are using the one they oppose. This means that the supposedly 'unused' one is actually used in an unexamined and unexaminable manner, and so becomes a ready source of error.

What I mean is that one of the major faults of pure empiricism is that it takes the input of the senses to be clear and self-interpreting, which it rarely if ever is. By contrast, pure rationalism assumes that the data it is working on is pure fact without prior interpretative bias; and this is also untrue. As Moore puts it, 'Movements that are all heart usually founder on the rocks of skepticism. Those that are all head will tend to get buried in the sands of experience' (Disarming the Secular Gods, p 27).

I am grateful to Geoff Smith for pointing out how 1 Co 2:9-10 bears on this problem. There are things, says the apostle, which eye has not seen and ear has not heard (which the empiricists have no access to), and which no mind has conceived (which the rationalists have no access to), but which have been revealed to 'us' (in context, the apostles) by the Holy Spirit.

The secular philosophy of chaos theory has a useful input at this point. Part of what chaos theory says is that if, as is becoming increasingly clear, everything is directly or indirectly connected to everything else, it must be impossible to understand anything completely without understanding everything completely. Since nobody understands everything completely, nobody understands anything completely; there will always be a factor you haven't considered, simply because there are so many factors.

God, however, does not have this limitation. It seems reasonable, therefore, that he should understand things better than us; that his wisdom will be adequate where ours will always be inadequate, by the nature of the case. We then have to establish that his wisdom is what we have in the Scripture, but I will leave this to the next article.

A couple of quotations, though, to keep you thinking in the meantime. First, without Scripture, what more would we be able to say than, as Dorothy L. Sayers puts it in her novel The Documents in the Case: 'Praise God (or whatever it is) from (if direction exists) whom (if personality exists) all blessings (if that word corresponds to any percept of objective reality) flow (if Heraclitus and Bergson and Einstein are correct in stating that everything is more or less flowing about).'?

Secondly, let us be warned:

'The freedom to think for ourselves, to weigh all of the evidence carefully, to make up our own minds without being pressured, is essential to genuine faith. One of the primary marks of a cult is the denial of this freedom by various tricks of persuasion so that eventually the cult member has surrendered his autonomy to the point that the "guru" or "prophet" does his thinking for him. Unfortunately, almost any church can, either wittingly or unwittingly, exert the same kind of pressure so that members conform to group thinking rather than coming to a deep and carefully-thought-out conclusion themselves. "Is it faith," John Calvin asks, "to understand nothing, and merely submit your convictions implicitly to the Church?"

- Dave Hunt, Beyond Seduction, Harvest House, 1987, p 84.

Unfortunately, what passes for faith among religious people, including many who call themselves Christians, is frequently exactly what the skeptic considers it to be: mere credulity born of selfish desire and defended by pride. Blind fanatical commitment to religious dogmas and a stubborn refusal to face the clear teaching of Scripture is all too often passed off as faithfulness to God. This is one of the most seductive and deadly forms of unbelief. Atheism and agnosticism are only two of many ways not to believe in God. All of the others are false forms of "faith." Gullibility is one of these many faces of unbelief.

A professed "faith" is very often a devious excuse for clinging to one's prejudices and often serves as the ideal rationale for rejecting the truth in a religious attempt to fulfill one's own desires instead of bowing to God's will.

- Dave Hunt, Beyond Seduction, p 101.