In the early days of the Christian movement, Gnosticism became a problem for the church because Gnostics infiltrated local congregations and attempted to stealthily insert false teachings. In particular, John, in his epistles, pointed out these false Gnostic teachings and taught believers the actual truth of the gospel. This false religion taught that human beings have a divine spark inside them that needs to be released, and that the way to achieve this goal (salvation) was gained through special knowledge that only the Gnostic teachers were able to impart.
Of course, Gnosticism is not a prominent belief in our modern world, but there is a belief system that is, in effect, modern America’s Gnosticism. It is a belief system that is so pervasive in American culture that it is even infiltrating the church, and most Christians do not even recognize its presence.
The reason this belief system is so difficult to detect is that it comes in the guise of “non-religious” beliefs. The truth is, these beliefs are not non-religious at all, but they appear to most people to be that way because the majority do not recognize the faith foundation they are built upon. This belief system is called Naturalism. To make this a bit more clear, Naturalism has such outward expressions as Secular Humanism, Postmodernism, Atheism, and others.
The basic foundation (religious doctrine) of Naturalism can be summed up in three statements:
1. The natural universe is all that exists.
2. Man is essentially good.
3. Human beings are able to create utopia on earth.
Out of this doctrinal foundation, comes expressions of naturalistic religion that find their way into business, law, politics, education, economics, entertainment, the news media, and even churches.
In naturalistic thinking, since transcendent reality (anything outside the natural universe) does not exist, all moral beliefs must be made up by human beings. Thus, the decision about what is right and wrong end up being determined by the beliefs of those who are able to get into positions of power and influence in society.
In modern American society, there are many different things that are looked upon as “non-religious.” Thus, in most people’s minds, these things are seen as “secular” and not associated with “faith.” Because of this, the moral implications of these matters are not even taken into consideration. Without creating an exhaustive list, some of the more prominent issues we see in modern society that fit into this category include: acceptance of Socialism, a relativistic interpretation of the rule of law, fluidity of gender identity, acceptance of homosexuality, the benign nature of Islam, and the promotion of abortion. Looking at each of these, most people do not see them as matters of faith or morality. The truth is, however, they are all based on the religious beliefs of a naturalistic worldview. If Christians in modern America are going to be effective in sharing the gospel with people who hold naturalistic beliefs, we have to learn how to see these matters for what they are – religious doctrines – and be able to point out why they are false beliefs which lead people away from Christ.
Socialism
There are those who will be quite shocked that I have included the political philosophy of Socialism in my list, because they consider that I am equating it with sin. The truth is, that is not at all what I am trying to emphasize here. What I am saying is that Socialism, as a philosophy, has its root in Naturalism – a belief system that is atheistic. This does not mean that everyone who believes Socialism is good is an Atheist, or that people cannot be legitimate Christians if they believe Socialism is the way to go. My only point is that Socialism has its roots in Atheism, and anyone who claims to be a Christian Socialist must hybridize their beliefs in order to accept it.
One of the chief goals of a socialistic political philosophy is to even out the economic situation of all people. To do that, a government must take money from those who earn it and give it to others they deem to be in need. Now, certainly, giving money to people who have need is not a bad thing. In fact, every individual ought to be offering a helping hand to those they are able to help. But that is not what Socialism is all about. It does not allow the individual to discern how they want to help people. Rather, a small group of people who have political power get to make that choice, as they tax away the money of those who have it in order to give it to those they deem needy.
Socialism is based on the belief that human beings are the ones who decide what is moral and what is not, as well as who is needy and who is not. It works on the assumption that by leveling out the economic status of individuals, they can create utopia (heaven on earth).
Additionally, they see Socialism as a political philosophy which does not have religious roots. They see it as a totally secular area of life. That is not the case, however. Even an individual’s political philosophy has its roots in some kind of faith system. In the case of Socialism, the root is in atheistic Naturalism.
Rule of Law
The very idea of “the rule of law” is based on the belief that there is some overarching moral standard that ought to be applicable to everyone. That is, a law is established and it becomes the standard by which all people must live. Using this principle, everyone, regardless of their station in life or their place in the political hierarchy, must live by that standard.
In America, the idea of the rule of law is based on a biblical worldview foundation. The founders believed in the existence of God who revealed himself and his ways to mankind. This revelation expresses what is considered to be moral and immoral. From that, the human laws which were created were based on principles which emerged out of that foundation. One of the important principles for establishing this idea is that everyone is equal before God. And one of the ways this idea of equality was placed in the founding principles was as the concept of the rule of law.
This principle is not native to Naturalism. Since God is not even recognized to exist, a different foundation for determining right and wrong is in play. In modern society, when we see politicians in executive positions creating laws and policies based on their own political beliefs, rather than on established law, we are seeing an entirely different understanding of what it means to live by the rule of law. Additionally, when we see people in the political class creating circumstances where they get to live by a different set of rules than regular people, we again see the rule of law being set aside. Finally, as we see members of the judicial class making rulings based on their own political beliefs, rather than on the intent of those lawfully charged with making the laws, we are, once again, watching the rule of law being set aside.
The very idea that the law can be applied to individuals based on the opinions of certain people, or on their social or political status, is a notion that comes out of Naturalism. Since no transcendent authority is acknowledged to be objectively right, morality must be determined by those in power. That is the naturalistic way.
Fluidity of Gender Identity
One of the more popular notions we have seen emerge recently in modern “secular society” is that gender exists on a continuum – with male and female on the extreme ends, and many other possibilities in between. It seems quite strange, in some ways, that Naturalists would be the ones who champion this idea, since they typically demand that all beliefs be able to pass the test of science – and, of course, science only knows male and female as legitimate and natural genders. But there is another element of a naturalistic worldview that is emphasized that allows them to take on this point of view – the notion of relativity. While they demand an absolute foundation for understanding physical reality, they promote relativity when it comes to moral values – and gender identity is an area that they place into the “moral values” category.
The tenet of relativity comes from the belief that since a transcendent God does not exist, all matters related to morality must be created by human beings. The fact that only males and females exist physically, means nothing to them in the area of morality. Thus people become free to deem themselves to be whatever gender they desire. They are permitted to even make up new genders if that suits their fancy.
This kind of belief is, in actual fact, a fantasy. There are only two objectively real genders – male and female. Anything outside of that is either a physical deformity or an illusion. For normal people to assume some other gender identity, they must suspend reality and pretend that something is true that is actually false.
Acceptance of Homosexuality
People who accept a homosexual lifestyle as legitimate must use the same reasoning that we saw in the previous topic – a belief in the absolute truth of moral relativity (itself, based on an internal contradiction). From a physiological point of view, homosexuality does not coincide, in any way, with how the natural order works. As it relates to human beings, nature requires a male and female for the species to continue. Following that naturalistic belief, homosexual behavior must be a deviation from what is normal.
But from a moral point of view, as we saw previously, relativism rules the day. As such, in spite of the fact that homosexuality is a physical abnormality, it can be deemed acceptable as a right moral choice because objective morality is not accepted.
As in every conclusion drawn by those who believe in Naturalism, there is nothing to back it up. Naturalism must exist on a fantasy island, as there is no science to demonstrate that its most foundational presuppositions are true.
The Benign Nature of Islam
It is quite interesting that the most hard core Naturalists are the ones who are the most determined to promote Islam as a “religion of peace.” It is ironic, because Islam, more than almost any other belief system, operates from a set of beliefs that are diametrically opposed to naturalistic beliefs. It is particularly against the moral relativism that Naturalism promotes in areas related to women’s rights and sexuality, and it is diametrically opposed to those who would promote an atheistic position. In fact, the Koran’s teaching about this is so strong that it is even permitted to kill Atheists.
The ideas in Naturalism that allow Naturalists to see Islam as benign relate to the naturalistic belief that human beings are all just natural animals, and there is no class or grouping which is superior to any other. This leads to the notion that there should be no classes in society, and that there should be no separation based on ethnicity, nationality, or any other factor. The entire world ought to be able to be just one big happy family. This belief is so strong that many Naturalists simply close their eyes to the idea that anyone might disagree with them enough to kill them.
In addition to the moral implications, the political ramifications of this serve to promote open borders and ethnic merging. This meshes seamlessly with the economic goals of Socialism that we dealt with earlier.
Promotion of Abortion
Based on Christian Theism, life is sacred because it is a creation of God. Based on naturalistic beliefs, however, life is valued differently. Since Naturalism asserts that God does not exist, life can be nothing more than an accident of nature based on random evolutionary processes. Using this kind of thinking, life is worth saving on a macro scale, but individual life is subservient to the “greater good.” When saving a life promotes the greater good, that becomes good moral policy. By the same token, when taking a life promotes the greater good, then that becomes good moral policy. It is up to those who hold the reigns of power to determine what comprises the greater good.
When it comes to abortion, it has been deemed by many in society that the life of a preborn child is not as important as the personal convenience of the woman who carries the child. With this point of view deemed to be morally right, abortion becomes a morally acceptable practice. This belief comes straight out of a naturalistic worldview.
Modern Political Expressions
As we look at how this is playing out in our current political arena, we can see a very interesting dynamic. In one way, there is a stark contrast between the positions of the two major political parties. In another way, however, there is very little difference at all. The Democrats borrow morality from Christian Theism (especially the notions of equality and justice), but apply these notions based on naturalistic beliefs (the relativistic concept of the “greater good,” as opposed to what is objectively true and right). The Republicans borrow application techniques from Naturalism (the law of the jungle) and try to apply it to policies which emerged out of Christian Theism (rule of law, individual rights, equality under the law, due process, etc.). The result, in both cases, is a dishonest mess and societal disaster. The Democrats end up using “Christian” terminology while redefining the meaning of the words, while the Republicans promote traditional beliefs, but use non-Christian attitudes and methods to promote them. Neither approach results in a biblical outcome.
From a Christian worldview perspective, politics is not an end in itself. It is merely one expression of life that must be manifested based on what is right and true according to God’s revelation. The deceptions and evil results of Naturalism must be thrown aside – both in policy and in practice. Until this can be accomplished, the results of a naturalistic point of view will continue to play havoc with society.
© 2016 Freddy Davis