DEFINING REALITY: PART 2

Worldviews are what humans use to define reality, words are the vehicles used to describe worldviews, and coming to terms with what one says and means about their worldview is the key to understanding each other.

WORLDVIEWS— THEIR IMPORTANCE and THEIR ESSENCE

There’s a wife of a man who thought he was dead and she was trying to convince her husband that he was actually alive.  Regardless of her many persuasions, the man would not be convinced otherwise.  She eventually took him to the doctor who assured him that he was alive.  Nothing worked.  It occurred to the doctor to get the man to agree that dead men don’t bleed, so he pricked his finger with a needle and there was the “evidence.”  The man was certain that he was dead, but the fact was that his finger was bleeding, it was obvious.  For many days after this doctor’s visit, the man was saddened because his “certainty” of the “fact he was dead” was not in touch with reality. He returns to the doctor and exclaims, “Good Lord, dead men do bleed after all!”  At the end of the day, this man’s view of life was so dear to him that the facts did not matter. [1]

The Importance of Worldviews Matter

When our outlook on life—worldview is immune to being revised—as is the case with the, “dead man bleeding” we fail to live a life of integrity, a life where the truth matters even if it hurts.  And as disciples of Christ, this must not be the case.  For if we are honest with ourselves, at times we also don’t want our view to be shown lacking when confronted with the facts.  Herein the “dead man’s” challenge is ours.  Receiving counsel that requires us to adjust our positions in life and the resulting changes that are demanded of us are frankly difficult to hear. 

Still worse, when we hear counsel that we’ve heard before and find it annoying, hostile, dull, silly or something even worse.  Too often, familiarity does breed contempt. 

The Essence of a Worldview 

For centuries mankind has considered the meaning of life and how we came to be.  There’s really nothing new under the sun as Solomon writes.[2]  All people derive meaning from life based on their worldview.  Whether someone is aware of it, or not, they have a worldview.  Now a worldview is[3] a set of beliefs about the most important issues in life, it’s a conceptual scheme by which we either, consciously or unconsciously interpret and judge all of reality.

A worldview is “forged out of beliefs that have the most consequence for a comprehensive vision of reality.  It is an overall conception of reality that touches on the key areas that philosophy and religion have always addressed”[4] The correct worldview is like eyeglasses, which helps us focus more clearly on reality.

That is why putting on the right conceptual scheme can have important repercussions in understanding significant events and ideas.

Worldview and Disagreements

When disagreementsexist between people and societies it’s because there’s a clash between competing worldviews.  These clashes occur between individual people but can also be between nations. 

There are similarities that certain worldviews share on most issues (e.g., Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are monotheistic i.e., the belief in one supreme God)

By contrast other worldviews obtain more dissimilarities than commonalities (e.g., Christians believe in resurrection, Hindus believe in re-incarnation). 

There are still other worldviews where no agreement at all is shared. That is, there’s no overlap in their respective worldview (e.g., Christians believe God exists and has revealed himself to mankind in the person of Christ Jesus, but classic Atheists deny God’s existence). 

Aspects of a Worldview

All worldviews have aspects or characteristics that are foundational to the structure of their existence.  All worldviews minimally have; a theological, metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and anthropological basis for making sense out of life.    

            First there’s the theological aspect or the view of who or what God is. This is the “ultimate reference point” from where everything else flows.  Thus, the most important aspect of a worldview is to determine if God is actually personal (e.g. Christian position) or impersonal (e.g., Hindu view).  While there are conflicting views about God, it’s interesting to note that even the staunches professing atheist under moments of distress will exclaim “Oh my God! Help!”   

Second, there’s the metaphysical aspect where the issue of ultimate reality comes to play.  Here we consider what the “nature/essence” of a thing is.  This where our beliefs[5] about the nature of a thing is considered and distinctions are made.  For example, we may ask “what is it that categorizes Joe as a human being and Tango as a dog?” 

Third, there’s the epistemological aspect of a worldview (i.e., how we know what we know). Here’s where we consider, for example, the difference between knowing that I love my wife, as opposed to knowing that 2+2=4? Again, here’s where we consider how can we know that this life is an illusion, as opposed to it actually being real.

Fourth, there’s the ethical aspect where moral deliberation takes place.  Here is where the ought-ness of our conduct (morals) is emphasized. This is very practical and considers questions of how we deal with other human beings often in their most vulnerable moments (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc.)

Lastly, there’s the anthropological aspect of how we come to view other human beings.  These issues concern peoples, civilizations, cultures, classifications, etc.  Today, the unrest in our nation is intrinsically tied to our view of people and how as a result is the best way to deal with the plights before them.

Thus, everyone has a view of who or what God is, what the nature of reality is, how we can or cannot know anything, how we ought or ought not treat people and what it actually means to be human.

Everyone has a worldview, it’s the big ideas that we hold to both judge and make sense out of reality, and if our worldview is not in touch with reality (like the man who believed that “Dead men do bleed!”), then we need to revise it if we care about living authentic lives where the truth matters.   


[1] This section is borrowed from pages 9-10 of, THE GOD QUESTION: An Invitation to a Life of Meaning, ©2009 by J.P. Moreland, (Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, Oregon).

[2] Ecclesiastes 1:9 

[3] The following discussion on worldviews is taken from chapter 1 of Ronald H. Nash, Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas, Zondervan Publishing House, © 1992 by Ronald H. Nash

[4] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, pg.74

[5] A belief is the conviction that something is real and true, and thus we should give intellectual and practical assent to that idea.

Selected Book Summaries From the REFORMATION & MODERN PERIOD:  Anselm, Cur Deus Homo[1]

 

download

In Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo, he divides the work into two short books.  The first book contains objections raised by unbelievers because of their view that the faith is unreasonable, and responses by Anselm to their objections.  The second book contains the purpose for which man was created and accentuates that its realization can only be obtained in the God/Man.

Responding To the Contemporary Critics: “It’s Dishonoring to God”

Book One: Responding to the Objections Raised by Infidels.  This work begins with Boso (the one asking the questions) raising the objection that “we do injustice and bring dishonor to God…” when we claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, needed the nourishment of men to grow, grew tired and fatigued, and last of which was crucified among thieves.

Anselm’s response: we neither dishonor nor bring upon God any injustice by those things we claim, but instead we do praise and proclaim the inexpressible height of his mercy.  Through the incarnation, God does more deeply demonstrate his mercy and love toward us, for, as by one man’s disobedience death reigns, so also by one man’s obedience life should be restored.  Moreover, as sin had its cause in woman, so also it was fitting that through woman the author of righteousness be born from her, and in the same way the devil conquered the first Adam by the eating of the tree, so also the last Adam vanquished Satan by his suffering on the tree.  Again, Anselm explains that redemption could not have been realized through any other being other than God (whether angelic or human) because if any other being should rescue man from eternal death, man would rightly have to be that redeemers servant.  The problem however is that both angels and man were designed to serve only God through eternity.

“The Incarnation Seems Inconsistent with Reason”

Another objection raised against the incarnation by Boso is that it seems inconsistent with reason for the Almighty to “stoop to things so lowly, that the Almighty should do a thing with such toil”.

Anselm responds by accentuating that God’s will ought to be sufficient reason for whatever he does because his will is never irrational, regardless of our inability to understand.  Furthermore, to think that it is unreasonable for the Almighty to stoop so low and embrace so much toil is to misunderstand our faith.  For we assert that the Divine nature is indubitably impassible, He cannot be un-exalted, nor does he toil in anything He desires to effect.  Moreover, the Lord Jesus Christ is very God and very man, one person who has two natures.  Hence, when we speak of God enduring humiliation or suffering, it only refers to the feeble human constitution, which Jesus assumed.  In the incarnation, there is no debasing of the Deity, but rather there is the exaltation of man’s nature.

 “Why Should the Most Just Man be Punished for the Guilty?”

Something that also seems unjust and lacking wisdom for Boso is that the most just man should be punished for the guilty.  Not only does God deserve condemnation for such an act, but this also argues against his omnipotence and justice.

Anselm responds by asserting that God neither put the innocent to death for the guilty, nor impelled Jesus to die and suffer against his own will for man’s salvation.  Instead, Jesus willingly laid down his life.

Boso objects by citing many texts that demonstrate Jesus’ submission to the will of the Father, and as such, that this act was one of obedience to the Father’s will, not Jesus own free will.  Anselm clarifies the misunderstanding between doing something at the demand of obedience as opposed to what he suffered because of his perfect obedience.  For every rational being owes the demanded obedience to God and the Father claimed it from Jesus (in his humanity).

It would be unjust for God to demand death of a sinless man for whom God created to be happy in Him.  Furthermore, it would not be right for God to make miserable by death a creature who is without fault, for that is not the goal of his creation.  Rather than being compelled by God to die, Christ suffered death of his own accord, and by yielding up his life, Jesus is not offering an act of obedience, but rather on account of obedience in maintaining his holiness, he met death.

And when a scripture like “God did not spare his own son, but gave him up for us all”, it simply means that God did not rescue him, not that he sent him to die.

“Sin’s Meaning & It’s Relatedness to Satisfaction”

Now concerning the meaning of sin and how satisfaction for sin is realized, Anselm first explains that sin is not rendering to God his due.  The debt man owes to God is to be subject to His will.   By neglecting the aforesaid, man robs God and dishonors Him, thus sinning.  To make satisfaction for the offence and be cleared of fault, a repayment of honor to God must be made in return.  This is a debt every sinner must settle, yet is unable to repay on his own.  Anselm continues the theme by pointing out that God would be unjust not to punish the unjust for their sin.  For by not executing his justice, God would then not differentiate between the guilty and the innocent, and this is unbecoming of Him.

Anselm also deals with how God’s honor exists in the punishment of the wicked, how man cannot be redeemed without satisfaction for his sins being made, and how Jesus the God/Man necessarily realized the rescue for mankind.  Moreover, how it’s impossible for the devil to be saved and how great God’s compassion really is.

[1] St. Anselm, “Cur Deus Homo,” Basic Writings, (Translated by S. N. Deane, Pp.191-302, © 1962 by Open Court Publishing Company, 2001 Printing).

Selected Book Summaries from the PATRISTIC & MEDIEVAL PERIOD: Athanasius “Defense of the Nicene Definition”[1]

 

Ikone_Athanasius_von_Alexandria

 

Athanasius Defense of the Nicene Definition[1]

In his letter defending the Nicene Definition, Athanasius concerns himself with several charges laid against the Nicene Council.

Defining Begotten

The term begotten is the springboard from which the Arians viewed Christ not as the Creator, but rather as a creature of the Father.  The first begotten Son, after being created, became the means by which the Father created all other things.  Hence, this creature cannot be the same essence as the Father, and as such is not True God.  Athanasius responds with several arguments.  Two considerations follow.

Man’s Contingency & God’s Necessity

First, he considers man’s contingency and God’s necessity and relates it to our natures.  He points out that in order for man to create there must already exist material, whereas for God to create, he only has to speak the word ex-nihilo.  He continues and points out that man’s generation is in one way, and the Son’s from the Father is another.  Man’s offspring by nature is compounded in begetting children, but God who by nature is uncompounded, is Father of the One Only Son.  That is to say, that the Son is eternally generated from the Father, for in that God ever is, He is ever the Father of the Son.  Athanasius follows this argument and supports it with Scriptures (Mt.9: 27; Heb.1: 3; Ps.36: 9; Jn.14: 9).

Confronting the Arian’s Misinterpretation of Scripture

Second, Athanasius is aware of how the Arians misinterpret Scripture.  They argue for the creation of Christ from Proverbs 8:22 “The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works” and his response is that it does refer to the Son in his humanity, for creation belongs to man.  Moreover, just as we do not lose our proper substance when we receive the Spirit, so Christ did not lose his substance of deity when he became man, but rather he deified and rendered it immortal.  Athansius then continues explaining the Catholic sense of the word Son, and asserts that his name implies eternal.

 The Phrases “From the Essence” and “One in Essence.” 

The Arian’s complain that the terms, “Of the essence” and “One in essence” is not Scriptural.  Athanasius quickly exposes their hypocrisy by asking “why do they [Arians] use phrases like ‘He was not before His generation,’ and ‘once he was not,’ and ‘out of nothing,’ and ‘pre-existence,’ which are clearly not Scriptural.”  He then indicts them of making up fables and mocking the Lord.  He then explains the reason for the usage of these phrases and their meaning.

 “From God”

The phrase ‘from God’ was understood by the Arians to mean that Christ, like men, is the offspring of God.  To combat the heterodoxy, they chose the phrase ‘from the essence of God’ so that the Son would not be seen as a creature, but rather as the Word, which is from the Father, who is the originator of all things, truly from God.  This phrase was installed to prevent any deception from the Arians.

 “One in Essence”

The phrase ‘one in essence’ describes the indivisibility of the Father and the Son, and it was written by the Council to defeat the twisted heretics, and to show that the Word is not a mutable creature, but rather the Creator of all creatures, of all things.  Moreover, the Council anathematized the Arian doctrine, and Athanasius then challenges the Arians to refute the Council’s position.  If they can, then “anathematize” the anathema of the Council.  If there are those who think the phrase is strange, Athanasius affirms that this is so because they are not understood with the intended meaning of the Council.  Hence, Athanasius is essentially telling the Arians to “put up or shut up.”

Athanasius continues and sites several authorities that agree with the Council on the phraseology, and finishes the letter by grappling with the unscriptural term unoriginate that the Arian’s borrowed from the Greeks.

[1] Athanasius,  “Defense of the Nicene Definition,” The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series,

Volume IV, Pp.150-172, (T & T Clark Edinburgh, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted in 1996)

 

Christian Ethics: Part One__TRUTH AND IT’S INDISPENSABILITY FOR MORAL DISCOURSE by Sergio Tangari

definition-of-morality

I contend that logic is absolutely necessary for discovering truth and that includes our moral deliberation.  Christian writer, lecturer and social scientist, Dr. Os Guinness on a talk he gave at Cambridge University, considers whether there is any truth and if so, how we can come to know it, and says:

“…the most common motto in all the universities of the world is ‘the truth shall set you free’. But while that adorns the walls, it no longer animates the minds of many people in the West. Truth is highly controversial.”[1]

“The fact is the higher the education, the more brilliant the mind, often the slipperyer [sic] the rationalisations [sic]. In other words, humans are not only truth seekers we’re also, let’s be honest, truth twisters. And there’s two ways you can always handle truth. We can try and make the truth conform to our desires of reality or make our desires conform to the truth of reality.”[2]

When it comes to ethics, the issue of truth is core, for when truth is apprehended and lived out, it frees us to live and flourish according to our Creator’s design.  Consider what Jesus said in John 8:31-36:

“If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” 33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?” 34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

The context has Jesus’ explaining to the Pharisees and those in the temple who he is, from where he comes, and where he is returning.  After hearing him, many believed but many also doubted being blinded by their own sin.  The key to freedom from bondage is the road of discipleship where Christ’s word (The Truth) is the foundation from which we make sense out of reality.  Because this world is designed it bears God’s imprint, and thus in principle knowing the truth about anything has a liberating effect, including ethics and moral deliberation.   For notes click A2TQ 2_CHRISTIAN ETHICS_Part One

[1] Os Guinness lecture “Truth—How Can We be Sure about Anything”  http://www.bethinking.org/truth-tolerance/intermediate/truth-how-can-we-be-sure-about-anything.htm (accessed 2/19/2014)

[2] Ibid. (accessed 2/19/2014)

 

“MORAL CHOICES: An Introductory Course in Ethics” By Sergio Tangari

definition-of-morality

 It seems that today we’re bombarded with declarations of how we “should” or “should not live”.  The voices are loud and often belligerent.  Consider the latest headlines and moral pronouncements forcefully come through the page, screen, or I-phone.   These assertions come from a variety of sectors (e.g., universities, the media, politics, and friends and family) that operate under a particular worldview which guides how people think and live.

Moral demands and judgments are placed on us all, but how do we determine whether or not they are true and thus ought to be obeyed?   Populace opinions often lack substance yet the views of those that are loudest and strongest, too often mute the voices of those who are not.

As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are called to be salt and light in the world, not retreat from it.  We have a rich tradition of knowledge in in ethics and moral reasoning, so cowering need not be our legacy.  Instead through a little bit of instruction and effort, we can confidently, courageously, compassionately and courteously engage the issues of our day.

Thus, this course is structured to equip believers: to understand worldviews and how they inform moral deliberation, to understand the systems of ethics that people practice, and to engage current issues that are dear to so many.  The goal here is to enrich our personal lives, inform our disciple making and embolden our evangelism so that we can more wisely and confidently navigate the shoals of the cultural landscape.  Click for the notes A2TQ 1_MORAL CHOICES_Considering the Alternatives

Now Available in Summary Form: “A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF SPIRITUALITY” by Francis Schaeffer

IMG_20170911_104919

In volume three A Christian View of Spirituality, Schaeffer dovetails the thought of the “God who is There”, and considers what spirituality consists of.   He starts off by accentuating the fact that no people are “little” or insignificant because they are image bearers and it’s often the little matters that have monumental consequences in life.  Moreover, true spirituality is always grounded in the thought life where ideas ultimately govern people’s destiny.  Because the life of the mind is downplayed in many Evangelical circles, too many of its’ youth who grow up in church leave the faith never to return.  a major contributing factor is the egregious way God’s word is ignored and handles by leadership.  Sermons are constructed in shallow and glib manners.  This has terrible effects on the witness and vitality of the church.   The remedy is getting back to sound doctrine and living out its implications so that Christ is honored among the nations as the church community is true to the Lord. Follow the link Volume 3_A Christian View of Spirituality  and enjoy friend.

Now Available in Summary: “A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE BIBLE AS TRUTH” by Francis Schaeffer

IMG_20170827_083008

In this second Volume 2_A Christian View of The Bible As Truth

Schaeffer continues to argue for absolute truth that’s based on the God Who is There.  He acknowledges that God has revealed himself not only in nature (i.e., general revelation), but also through scripture (special revelation).  He then argues for the historicity of the origins account in Genesis where God created out of nothing all that exists apart from himself.   He then hones in on the primacy of scripture as God’s final word to his creatures.

This word is both trans-cultural and trans-time.  He further touches on the flow of history in space and time through the book of Joshua and points out the idolatry of Israel and God’s dealings with them.  Lastly Schaeffer considers how one can view the Bible and art.

So click here Volume 2_A Christian View of The Bible As Truth    and read my friends.

 

 

Summaries Now Available! “Volume 1_A Christian View of Philosophy and Culture” by FRANCIS SCHAEFFER

IMG_20170722_102913

In this volume Schaeffer argues for absolute truth that’s based on the God Who is There.  When a culture denies this reality despair results because under opposing varied worldviews, (e.g., monism, pantheism, naturalism, etc.) man becomes the measure of all things.  The despair is a result of our “mannishness” (a Schaefferism) that reveals humans actually are created in God’s image and can’t escape that fact.

To suppress the aforementioned humanity ends up madness, escaping from reason and plunging into the hopelessness that naturalism in particular provides with no objective meaning in life.  He considers how worldviews truly play out in this enterprise called life.  It is Schaeffer’s first book in this volume that sets the stage for the rest of his writings.   So take up and read click here FRANCIS SCHAFFER Volume 1_A Christian View of Philosophy and Culture

 

 

Now

Summary of “A CHRISTIAN MANIFESTO” by Francis Schaeffer

IMG_20170911_105041

In chapter one, The Abolition of Truth and Morality, Schaeffer accentuates the fact that the Biblical worldview and the Humanistic worldview can never produce the same results, but necessarily their opposite effects.  This is because the base from which each operates is antithetical to one another.  The former grounds all of reality on the infinite God of creation, who is absolute and from whom all things are measured, whereas the latter, bases reality on finite human beings, which are the measure of all things.  The result of God being passé is that humanity loses its humanness and society and the state become ultimate.  Here “Might Makes Right”.  The humanistic worldview tells me, “You’re no different than a bug.”  Hence, law (i.e., the state and society) arbitrarily become ultimate because their base is false.

In chapter two Foundations for Faith and Freedom, many key figures are presented as stalwarts in the founding of the USA.  John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian minister, president of what is now known as Princeton University and the only clergy to sign the Declaration of Independence.  Clearly the Judeo-Christian worldview based the signing and forming of this country understanding that there’s a law above the law, and that the lawgiver is God.  After the revolutionary war Witherspoon is quoted, “A republic once equally poised must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty.” This virtue was grounded on a Protestant Reformation view of reality.  Many others helped shape the founding of this country, but of interest to me is the First amendment and its dual purpose.

First, its purpose was to assure that there was no nationally established church (i.e., there’d be no Church of the United States).  Second, its purpose was also to assure that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion, but its interpretation is reversed today.  Separation of Church and State today is used to silence the church.  The view is that religion is not to have a voice in influencing civil government in any way.  So much for original intent!

In chapter three The Destruction of Faith and Freedom, we see that when the majority rules, “Might Makes Right,” absolutes don’t exist, society’s fabric is coming undone, and now sociological law is king.  Now, the law and the courts are the vehicle for coercion which is based on a humanistic concept of reality.  This worldview inescapably necessarily produces a final picture of reality diametrically opposed to the Christian worldview.  We’re in tough times some thirty years later from this writing.

 In chapter four The Humanist Religion reveals that through the Media the humanistic worldview is propagated with its naturalistic base and the dissenting voices are shut up being labeled as “un-enlightened, unreasonable, or even unscientific.”  The Media not only distort reality but often make it up for a story.  They are the unelected federal bureaucracy.  Bias here blindly blinds.

In chapter five Revival, Revolution, and Reform affirms the gospel call’s impact in pre-revolutionary America to personal salvation and social action which its preachers thundered.  We will never know how deeply their message afforded the founding of said country and unfortunately their contributions are conveniently set-aside.  Sadly, our present day evangelical leadership doesn’t have the clarity and resultant back-bone in areas of social action that the preachers of the Great Awakening displayed.  To forget their example only aides our voice and lives from not being salt and light.

Chapter six An Open Window stresses that windows seemingly open are superfluous when the laws waiting to be enacted are so anti-Christian/Jewish.  Our passivity as seeing Christ as Lord over all creation has deeply hurt our voice in the public square of ideas which those in power will not without a vicious struggle go to all lengths to silence.  I’m increasingly perturbed and beside myself.

In chapter seven The Limits of Civil Obedience reminds us that if Lex Rex is under Gods Law which is ultimate, then not to resist tyranny is evil.  To not resist tyranny which is Satanic; is to oppose God who is holy.  Wow!  This is much to consider.  Moreover, when our restrictions on education are the same as Russia’s who do not allow any view contrary to that which the state deems worthy (this is humanism), how then are we any different than they?

In chapter nine The Use of Force many Christians will find difficult because of their lack of understanding of living in a fallen world, not a utopian one.  That is, civil disobedience has a place not only in the OT and NT but also in this country’s history.  Engaging said acts must be done thoughtfully, courageously, tactfully, and lovingly.  For it is one means in which the Gospel was ordained by God to flourish. At times it will be very costly—death to some, but then again for the Christian, our lives belong to God.

Summary of “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” by Francis Schaeffer

IMG_20170911_105041

This book of Schaefer is very well done, difficult to consider in light of the subject matter, immensely applicable in our day, confronts our passivity as salt and light, and flat out well written.

The first chapter The Abortion of the Human Race” is a powerful expose of our dilemma as humans.  Every culture in history will be eventually judged by how it treated people.  Our choices do make us who we are, and who we are aids our choosing.  When we reject God as the ultimate (I Am), inevitably we bite and devour one another through incest, child abuse, de-humanizing the fetus, its procedures, its cruelty and its viciousness is absorbed by the child and mother.  This is a human issue, not a religious one.  How the “mighty humans” have fallen!

Chapter two The Slaughter of the Innocents continues considering the results of the aforesaid accentuating that the abandonment of the biblical world-view of human beings not only leads to abortion on demand, but naturally leads to infanticide and euthanasia.  The verdict is in: the unwanted fetus, the crippled and the old are absolutely dispensable according to the minority elite in (e.g., Law, Ethics, Biology, Medicine, and Philosophy).

These champion a relativistic view of man.  If we continue in this, and it’s only a matter of time the Nazi Third Reich will rule in the “Land of the free and the home of the brave”.  The absolute monstrosity of people toward the weak and helpless is none other than a return to the Abyss!

When we devalue our own flesh and our neighbor, we unwittingly kill ourselves.  For the constant slicing open of the soul with cruelty will eventually cause our own doom.  I’m exceedingly perturbed!

Chapter three Death by Someone’s Choice is a heinous reality check here!  If those set apart to protect and to heal the weak and the aged, become their killers, then what hope have we?  When language is euphemistically employed to destroy the helpless, then we’re no different than the Nazis.  We’re there! And we must not only point out the problems, but we must also become part of the solution!  Apathy is killing.  But through love, money, and our time, we can yet be hope for those utterly vulnerable.

Chapter four The Basis for Human Dignity argues that the book of Genesis grounds our dignity, for unlike every other worldview, Genesis unfolds the origins of everything, the source of all, and explains the reason for the abnormality that now obtains.  The basis for all knowledge moreover is grounded in Gods freely choosing to reveal the world to us in both special revelation and general revelation.

Chapter five Truth and History” deals with the interrelatedness between the aforesaid, and can’t be separated from the Biblical accounts.  If the narratives between Genesis and Revelation are false, the gig is up.  If especially the resurrection of Christ is false and did not occur in space-time-history, then there’s no Christianity!  There’s no veridical voice to heed.  End of the story!

The last chapter Our Personal Response and Social Action has two major issues:  First, there’s the need for us to be clear on the God who is there.  Which then means that there’s absolute truth, that we are all accountable to our Creator for how we live, that Christ alone is the remedy for the abnormality—sin—that plagues society.

Second, there’s the need to live in light of the above mentioned…really.  He encourages activism which among other things will dearly cost us, but the alternative apathy is not love.   The rewards are worth it—God being glorified by creatures recognizing Christ as Savior and the dignity and freedom of people simultaneously being maintained.

Where are we thirty years after Schaeffer’s writing?  It seems our culture is utterly lost.  Oh God!  May I and your church be what you’ve made us to be: salt and light!