The Real Danger to the Faith November 18, 2009

Last weekend the Wall Street Journal had a weekend feature on “Man vs. God” in which neither side defended the Biblical Christian faith.

Back in the ‘70s there was a book called the Peter Principle that declared that people rose in the system till they got to a position whose duties they were incompetent to fulfill, and there they stayed. Richard Dawkins, a competent scientist whose concept of the “meme” is very useful (Andy Crouch uses it without the name in his latest book!), eminently reaches his level of incompetence as a theologian and philosopher. But Karen Armstrong declares,

“The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry. Religion is not an exact science but a kind of art form that, like music or painting, introduces us to a mode of knowledge that is different from the purely rational and that cannot easily be put into words.”

I cannot say what I really think of this argument without violating the terms of the Kennel Kode! Better men both intellectually and spiritually, such as Dallas Willard, J. P. Moreland, and Alvin Plantinga, could chop this woman’s argument to pieces in a moment. Ours is precisely the faith of the Word, and then the Word become Flesh at a certain time, in a very exact body.

The mentality that Karen Armstrong represents, not the rantings of Dawkins and the New Atheists, is the real threat to the Christian Faith, the thing we have to be prepared to deal with. Atheists have always been few. And, furthermore, today they have the disadvantage of standing against the postmodern spirit, because they make hegemonic truth claims! I almost welcome a manly fight with Sam Harris’s Fight Club, especially if we have the opportunity to trample on the postmodernists in the process.

And, anyone wonder why I was never for “prayer in public schools”? There is no doubt in my mind that if we had organized prayer in our public schools, it would be under the god of Karen Armstrong that these prayers would be made.

Wall Street Journal Feature: Man vs. God

One Comments
SonnyC 02/07/2010

You are correct that reductionism is the true threat to the Christian faith, but I think we can find someone closer to home to blame than theologians like Armstrong.

Why not turn to those who carry the torch, profess the Creeds, claim the mantle of Apologist?

Our conservative theologians and Christian philosophers, while having laid great foundations (Moreland, G.E. Ladd, Schaeffer, Van Til, etc.), have not solved for modern Christians the greatest problem facing Christian faith today, intellectually speaking….a lack of good models to solve the first TWO questions that leap off the pages of the BIble, in Genesis 1-3:

1) the necessity for a coherent doctrine of Creation (an explanation that is internally consistent)

2) a model of Free Will that leaves human dignity and Divine sovereignty intact without contradiction and consistent with revelation.

This has not been done to date by mainstream thinkers.

Intelligent Design Theory is ultimately incoherent. God did not create the destructive black holes, the planet-killing comets, the galaxies colliding together, the quantum duality and uncertainty, the inevitable Heat Death, the cruel irony of Life as a process of Natural Selection that uses Death, Extinction, Suffering, and Chance as it’s mechanism. The deeper one peers into the creation, the worse the problem becomes for ID and natural theology.

Our other two forms of traditional Creationist apologetics (YEC, Prog. Creationism) are completely useless, defunct for aiding Christians to answer the problem. The YEC model destroyed themselves by adopting the methodology of evidentialism, and failing to produce any evidence whatsoever and in the process setting the Christian community back 40 years with their mishandling of this discipline. Progressive Creationism utilized only half a theory, again a mistake of relying on evidentialism – reconciling cosmological evolution and Genesis sounds good until you mindlessly reject biological evolutionary theory (based on the same methodological principles as the other), revealing that the Cosmos never really did get reconciled, it was all verbal sleight of hand.

Thus, how are Christians to defend themselves against theological and philosophical Reductionists (TE, Critical Realism, etc) and Metaphysical Naturalists (Darwinists, atheism, pantheism)?

They have been given no good alternatives, from my view.

I developed Presuppositional Creationism to solve this. I’ve been working on the model since 1996, and have the basic form knocked out into a coherent theological framework. Rushdoony and others have tried to hijack the concept and title (I sent a note reminding him of my copyrights), they love the idea of Presuppositionalism as a foundation for Creationism, but they can’t, because their theological prejudices (errors, I call them) won’t let them.

I also developed The Hypothetical Question, a separate theodicy which provides a methodology for theory and application in Presuppositional Creationism, and solves the free will/sovereignty problem.

You have the intellect to understand the potential of my model, where others of your association couldn’t, because of stunted thinking. It can solve our apologetics crisis and open up theology to new traditional horizons, give back to Christianity that spark of creative momentum we seem to have lost in the past two decades or so ( Lewis and Schaeffer, et al)

Sonny Craig


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.