Spotting Resistance to a Biblical Worldview

In today’s world, there are certain times when we ought to expect resistance when we express our beliefs based on a biblical worldview. On the other hand, there are other times we will find opposition and be surprised to see it. We expect resistance when the people who push back do not even claim to hold Christian values – which is something that we see more and more these days. But typically, we fully expect other Christians to agree with us about Christian values – even when they are members of a different political party. After all, in a Christian’s life, biblical values should trump political policy every time, right?

Here is the problem: Naturalism has become such a prominent part of the fabric of American society, that many people, even some who self-identify as Christians, have completely, or at least partially, bought into naturalistic beliefs and don’t even realize it.

Naturalism is the belief that the natural universe is all that exists. The implications of this belief seep into every part of life. For instance, acceptance of abortion, homosexual marriage, transgender “rights,” immoral sexual relationships, limits on freedom of conscience and religious freedom, the desire to eliminate “religion” from the public square, the redefinition of family, and the acceptance of socialist ideology, are all expressions of a naturalistic worldview.

Many Christians are totally baffled when they observe other self-identified Christians actively promoting these anti-Christian points of view. But the fact is, there are groups of self-identified Christians who do not see these matters as anti-Christian. There are actually approaches to interpreting the Bible based on worldview presuppositions which come out of Naturalism. These theological forms have reinterpreted salvation in a way that de-emphasizes eternal salvation. Rather than sharing Christ to point people to an eternal personal relationship with God, they see salvation through the lens of “social justice” – which is totally focused on making things better for people in this world. People who buy into these forms of theology may actually believe they are following biblical teachings when, in fact, they are not. As such, they will even attempt to justify their positions by quoting the Bible. Those who have bought into this kind of false theology may not even realize they are pushing against biblical principles.

To illustrate how this works, I am going to use a pledge that has been produced by the Florida Faith and Freedom Coalition. The Florida Faith and Freedom Coalition is a “non-profit, non-partisan, faith-based organization dedicated to the advancement of common-sense principles, sound public policy, and the right of Christians to express their faith in the public square.” This pledge was created to encourage politicians to pledge their support for the promotion of biblical principles in the public square. While the “common-sense principles” they support are firmly based on biblical concepts, those who buy into naturalistic beliefs will not see it that way. They evaluate public policy based on an entirely different set of beliefs.

First let’s simply look at the pledge. Following that, I will pull out the parts that might be disputed by people who hold naturalistic beliefs, and explain why they would disagree.

Florida Faith and Freedom Coalition Pledge
WHEREAS, the founding fathers of our country acknowledged that the Divine Hand of Providence had provided us the opportunity to form a new nation; and

WHEREAS, the founding fathers stated it is universally true that all men are created equal, and that our Creator had endowed each human being with the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; and

WHEREAS, the founding fathers believed that morality and self-restraint are necessary partners to liberty; and

WHEREAS, these ideas continue to unite Americans throughout the ages and across international borders; and

WHEREAS, the founding fathers framed this proposition in the notion that Americans have the right to self-governance through their elected representatives; and

WHEREAS, the maintenance of these ideas by our contemporary representatives is necessary to our tranquil existence, now and in the future.

NOW, THEREFORE, we ask each elected official and candidate in the state of Florida to join with us in the following pledge:

I ___________________________ do hereby pledge to steadfastly adhere to the highest code of ethical conduct, and exercise to the utmost my consented authority to defend Life and Liberty, to promote morality and the traditional family unit in which morality is best taught, to preserve religious liberty, and to uphold the principles of limited government, low taxation, and fiscal responsibility.

Analysis and Comments on the Pledge
This pledge begins by expressing a set of assumptions. Every “WHEREAS” statement assumes that the person signing the pledge agrees with these as an accepted starting point. After that, we see the pledge itself; which is the natural expression of the previous assumptions.

For a person with a biblical worldview, every bit of this seems perfectly reasonable. This would include not only active Christians, but even nominal Christians who believe in God and look at the principles of our nation’s founding as good and right.

However, the Christian Theism which was the basis for our founding principles is no longer the dominant worldview in American society. As a result, not only do we see push back against the kinds of public policy that naturally emerges out of Christian Theism, but against the actual principles themselves. Let’s look at how this is playing out in society by using the pledge as our evaluation tool.

“WHEREAS” Statements
1. the founding fathers of our country acknowledged that the Divine Hand of Providence had provided us the opportunity to form a new nation
In modern American society, the very idea of a “Divine Hand of Providence” is not acknowledged by the leaders in most of the main institutions in the culture. In fact, there are active efforts underway in politics, the media, educational institutions, business, and pop culture to scrub any reference to God from the public square. We see it in the banning of prayer in schools, the removal of the Ten Commandments from public buildings, the efforts to ban Christian after school programs from public schools, the attempts to eliminate prayers by sports teams, the banning of the celebration of Christian holidays, and many other things.

The reason this is happening is because so many people, including many politicians and judicial officers, have bought into the idea that there is such a thing as “faith neutral.” They believe that by eliminating anything “Christian” from the public square, they are eliminating religion. Thus, legislators pass laws and judges make rulings that prohibit Christian ideas and symbols from being a part of the public expression. What they don’t seem to realize is that by eliminating the priority of Christian values, they are not creating a “faith neutral” society. Rather, they are, literally, promoting a different faith – one based on relativistic and atheistic values.

There is no such thing as “faith neutral.” The beliefs that are being substituted when Christian values are removed are the beliefs of a different faith – one that simply believes God does not exist. This belief that all values are relative is being inserted in place of the traditional belief in absolute values.

Of course, there are many legislators and judges that are committed Naturalists who are intentionally working to create this kind of change. But there are also many sincere self-identified Christians who have bought into this kind of thinking, and do not realize they are substituting one set of religious values for another. They really believe there is such a thing as “faith neutral.” With that as a starting place, they believe it is only fair that one faith does not dominate the public square. Out of “fairness” they desire to create a level playing field for everyone. What they don’t realize is that their very premise is wrong. That kind of level playing field is impossible. Some faith system will dominate the public square, and the values of the dominant faith will determine the way morality is expressed in society.

2. the founding fathers stated it is universally true that all men are created equal
While our founding fathers, with their Christian worldview beliefs, accepted the premise that all men are created equal, a naturalistic worldview does not. Since Naturalists believe that the natural universe is all that exists, the only way humanity could possibly have come into existence is by naturalistic evolution. Thus, human beings are not understood to be special creations made in the image of God, but are merely animal creatures with highly evolved brains. Thus, the principle of equality among men is a meaningless concept.

Based on a naturalistic worldview, some people are necessarily more equal than others based on more functional DNA – and these people will get special treatment. But the special treatment is not based on anything innate within the individual. Rather, it is based on power. The law of the jungle (the survival of the fittest) rules. Thus, those who are able to maneuver themselves into positions of power get to make the rules.

The outward manifestation of this is reflected in laws and policies which privilege one group of people above others. We see it when tax laws are designed to benefit certain groups, and when various categories of criminal law favor particular classes of people. We see this playing out as judges and politicians side with organizations and movements which are founded upon anti-biblical values, such as Occupy Wall Street, Planned Parenthood, and Black Lives Matter, or when the tax system is used to redistribute the wealth to the poor, the rich, or some special class or interest.

Again, it is important to understand that many people who promote laws and policies which allow this to happen are not only those who are true believers in naturalistic philosophy. Many self-identified Christians also fall into this pattern because they have bought into naturalistic worldview beliefs without even realizing it. The point is, while most people would never outwardly, or even consciously, disagree with this statement, many do work against it by the policies they support.

3. our Creator had endowed each human being with the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
We have already addressed the topic of the existence of God, so we don’t need to repeat that explanation. However, it is important to keep in mind that those who believe in a naturalistic worldview do not acknowledge the existence of God. Because of that, all of the rights of man must be bestowed by other men (typically in the form of government approval), not by God.

The other issue which will be of great dispute in this phrase is the assumption that all human beings have the right to life. Based on the very strong promotion of abortion (and even doctor assisted suicide and euthanasia) by those who hold certain political positions, the obvious conclusion to be drawn can only be that some classes of humans who do not deserve the “right to life.” There are two basic ways committed Naturalists seek to justify this position. The first is by accepting the naturalistic presupposition that human beings are simply one class of natural animal, and that there is nothing special that needs to be protected. The second type of justification is to make the argument that a preborn child is not yet human (though science itself debunks this point of view).

Committed Naturalists, obviously, would be against supporting this statement because philosophically they disagree with the very presupposition. There are those, however, who would not support it, even though they self-identify as Christians. These are people who have somehow bought into the idea that it is okay to kill innocents under certain circumstances. People who take this view will come up with various justifications to get around the biblical point of view by leaving themselves some worldview loopholes. Some of the justifications that have been used in this regard include: 1) preborn children are not yet human, 2) the choice of the woman is as important as the life of the child, or 3) it is not fair to bring a child into a situation where it is not wanted, or might have to live under some kind of disadvantage.

4. the founding fathers believed that morality and self-restraint are necessary partners to liberty
Since Naturalism assumes that God does not exist, Naturalists believe that there can be no such thing as objectively real morality. Their view is that morality must be created by societal consensus or by the force of power. There is nothing in naturalistic philosophy that particularly favors either self-restraint or liberty. These can be seen as good if they further the likelihood of the survival of the collective, and the position can change if the situation changes. On the other hand, depending on the circumstances, both self-restraint and liberty can be viewed as impediments to accomplishing what might be viewed as “the greater good.” Those in modern society who are trying to promote a non-biblical agenda do not necessarily value or promote self-restraint or liberty as understood in our founding documents.

5. these ideas continue to unite Americans throughout the ages and across international borders
The ideas referred to in this phrase are the beliefs which emerge from Christian Theism (specifically the ideas of the equality of all men, life, liberty, the right to pursue happiness, morality and self-restraint). When the founders established the republic the way they did, the underlying principles they used were all based on biblical notions. However, all of the major institutions of modern American society are now dominated by Naturalism, not by Christian Theism. As such, the notions and beliefs of the founders no longer unite Americans. There are many beliefs which are prominent in society and promoted by major political entities which are completely contrary to Christian beliefs. As such, in our current societal situation it cannot be universally stated that “these ideas continue to unite Americans throughout the ages and across international borders.”

6. the maintenance of these ideas by our contemporary representatives is necessary to our tranquil existence, now and in the future
While this statement is objectively true, there is a very prominent contingent among our contemporary representatives who do not believe it, and who are actively working to change the founding Christian theistic ideas. The fact of the truth of this statement does not mitigate the reality of their opposition, or their determination to change the playing field.

Pledge Statements
1. and exercise to the utmost my consented authority to defend Life
We have already addressed the concept of the value of life in the WHEREAS statements, so it is not necessary to do it again here. Suffice it to say that people who adhere to naturalistic philosophy do not see human life as special in the same way Christian Theists do (See #3 above).

2. to promote morality and the traditional family unit in which morality is best taught
We have sufficiently addressed the notion of morality in a general sense above, but we do need to make a comment as it relates to the traditional family. For Naturalists, traditional family is not an important concept. When it comes to ethics and morality, relativity is the key concept, and relativity regarding the construct of the family unit means that virtually any form of family unit can be viable. Politicians who buy into this kind of thinking will not only support non-traditional family structures, but will fight against efforts to promote traditional family.

As has been dealt with regarding other issues above, there are people who self-identify as Christians, but who hold a point of view that corresponds with naturalistic philosophy. They use a lens which views promotion of the traditional family as actual discrimination against people who desire a non-traditional family. In their case, their understanding of anti-discrimination trumps the importance of traditional family as a moral point of view.

3. to preserve religious liberty
Religious liberty has an entirely different meaning to Naturalists than what was meant by our founders. The traditional view of religious liberty was established upon the notion that God created human beings with a free will, and that in matters of faith people should not be forced to violate their conscience under any circumstances.

The naturalistic point of view is now represented by what is called “a progressive vision of religious freedom that respects pluralism and rejects the misuse of religion to discriminate” (taken from the 2016 Democrat Party platform). In practical terms, this means that when religious concerns come into conflict with the moral priorities of those in power (ex. LGBT rights, transgender rights, etc.), the moral priorities of the powerful have precedence. As such, what will often happen is that some of those who hold non-traditional beliefs about religious liberty may be willing to agree with this statement, but what they mean by their agreement is entirely different than what is being expressed in this pledge.

4. and to uphold the principles of limited government, low taxation, and fiscal responsibility
The principles of limited government, low taxation, and fiscal responsibility are all based on biblical moral values. However, as the moral values of Naturalism come from an entirely different place, the principles listed here are only regarded as important to the degree they advance the cause of society (as interpreted by those in power). In modern society, these principles are not valued at all by politicians who hold naturalistic values.

This is another place where some self-identified Christians will accept the naturalistic point of view. These people see the cause of social justice and anti-discrimination as a sufficient reason to use government power to enforce their preferred moral values, and to use tax and fiscal policy as a means to further those values (which very often results in expanded government, higher taxation, and lax fiscal responsibility).

Individual Politicians, Political Parties, and Moral Values
As was mentioned at the beginning, the purpose of this article is to show how biblical values are being resisted in modern culture. The use of this pledge to demonstrate that point has put a particular emphasis on how it plays out in the political arena.

But the principle itself is true in every part of life, not just in the political arena. Regular, everyday Americans will feel the pressure of this resistance in the same way as politicians.

• The power of this resistance is multiplied because there are major institutions beyond politics invested in seeing change in society. Recent examples of this can be seen in many places. Here are just a few.
• Major retail stores, sports associations, and public schools are working to force the general public to accept transgender people’s use of the bathroom and changing rooms of their choice.
  States are punishing businesses that try to operate based on moral principles which the government does not agree with.
• Courts are forcing the public to accept immoral activities that they object to.
• Major news media outlets report in ways designed to specifically silence voices of dissent as they seek to promote a naturalistic agenda.

Here is the bottom line: The resistance to a biblical worldview is, in its essence, not a political effort. It is, of course, manifested in politics, just as it is in business, entertainment, media, education, and everywhere else in society. But its essence is spiritual. Naturalism is a religious point of view, and the resistance Christians feel based on the efforts of Naturalists is a spiritual assault.

While some of the efforts of Christians to promote our faith and values in the culture will be expended in the political arena, no real change will happen until there is a change in people’s hearts and minds. The motivation for every effort we make must be toward that end.

The opposition we see to the values of Christian Theism is a religious point of view. It can only be opposed and defeated as Christians faithfully do the work of Christ in the world by sharing with non-believers how they can know a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

© 2016 Freddy Davis