Right or Wrong

Authored by Gary Jones

 

Broadly speaking, Religion is supposed to help us with the persistent questions about right and wrong.  Much of today’s religious study or theology is based upon some variation of a body of philosophical assumptions termed “Neo-Orthodoxy,” which is neither new nor orthodox.  The nuances that separate this liberal theology and fundamentalism are vague and mostly ignored.  The existential roots that are embraced in most Christian churches, and the neo-orthodox philosophy, cause us so much confusion.  We are told that there is an immutable knowledge buried within us that tells us the difference between right and wrong.  This theological thought is the underpinning of all existential advocacies.  For example, we hear pieces of this philosophy, like “think positive and it will become positive,” we think this thought sounds reasonable, but this assertion in existentialism is scripturally untrue.  We want to believe we can know the difference between right and wrong, but our experience demonstrates we are confused.  The Apostle Paul puts is all so eloquently,

 

15I do not understand what I do.  For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.  16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.  17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.  18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.  For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.  19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.  20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.  [Romans 7:15-20]

 

Paul’s experience and understanding caused him to realize that there was no power in positive thinking.  So, why is there such a widespread movement of this existential influence in today’s churches?

 

The basics of existentialism goes back to Pelagius in the 5th century and can be the fundamentally attributed to such players as Demetrius [Acts 19:23-41] and the Judaizers in the 1st century.  This existential philosophy maintains that every individual has an inherent intuitive capability to decide what is right.  We do not have to understand because this inherent intuition transcends human understanding.  This intuition is our primary source of the truth, which is carried to the point that even discounts the Scriptures as being dependent and open to individual interpretation.  Truth becomes relevant to the individual’s circumstantial interpretation.  In other words, the individual is in control of the truth through the power of the mind.  While this theology is pervasive, it is not recognized by most Christians as something that is anti-Gospel or a heresy.  Most Christians assume that a “leap of faith” and a personal experience is the standard method in “accepting Christ as their Lord and Savior.”  The suggestion that they did not become a Christian because of a personal decision will draw anger and even contempt.

 

The concept of “accepting Christ” began to become popular, termed as a “leap of faith,” around the 19th century, encouraged by the writings of the philosopher Søren Kierdegaard.  This philosophy was later adopted and modified by Karl Barth during the 1st part of the 20th century.  Barth’s comprehensive Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans in 1919 is credited with the beginning of neo-orthodoxy.  This work was more of a published commentary that forcefully expressed the belief in a religion by experience.  This type of belief quickly spread to the Seminaries then to the pulpits.  By the mid-1900, this philosophy was essentially assumed as the “gospel” truth.  The liberal wing of this philosophy points back to Immanuel Kant in the late 16th century who promoted the old idea (Gnosticism) that God could be known through reason, powered by the a priori capability of inherent intuition.  This was the engine behind Kierdegaard and Barth.  The significant difference between Kant and his emulators was that he was an atheist.  The reason these Christian philosophy leans on this atheist is unknown, but it seems this is not the first time elitist theories have taken precedence over the Scriptures, in the search for answers to life’s questions.  The Judaizers in the 1st century did this by misinterpreting the Scriptures in the background noise of Gnosticism.  They advocated a philosophy that was neither Scriptural nor logical.

 

The doctrine of the a priori assumption concerning the power to acquire a personal faith is at the heart of this so-called neo-orthodoxy.  The belief that humans have a self-generating discriminating faith somewhere in the depth of their nature is simply non-Scriptural.  This assumption creates two interesting and controversial thought products.

 

First, we are all responsible for our decisions and are in control of our eternal destiny.  The ultimate consequence of properly “accepting” Christ is dependent upon our “right” and timely decision.  According to the evangelicals, this decision must be made according to a certain ritual and in public view.  The ritual is usually a simple prayer stating some acknowledgement of past sins, the belief that Jesus is Lord, and a specific request for Jesus to “come into our heart.”  It does not seem to matter that such a ritual is not commanded, exemplified, or implied in God’s word.  Any questioning about this procedure typically brings the response, “This is a logical thing to do.”  We want Jesus to know we intuitively believe He is God’s Son and we believe He is Lord.  The implication of this response is that Jesus does not know our heart and has no control in our lives.

 

The second affect of this existential experience is it brings about an allegiance to the person or institution that initiated the performance of the ritual, join the church.  A certain amount of control is generated by the initiator over the new convert.  This is the way to build churches, to grow power, and to increase income.

 

The advocates of Christian existentialism usually disavow any connection to neo-orthodoxy or the suggestion that their “saving” prayer is in any way a form of “works.”  These teachers of a false doctrine are much like the 1st century Judaizers.  Instead of advocating some portion of the Mosaic Law, they are teaching the necessity of their simple pre-salvation prayer.  Instead of requiring the following of some legal precedent as a means of securing God’s promises they strongly suggest that the refusal to say the prayer their listeners are in danger of God’s condemnation.  Eternal consequences are offered as inducement, or hell fire and damnation are threatened.  In light of such horrendous consequences, it is no wonder existentialism is so popular, and applied to such a wide variation of church doctrines.

 

From liberalism to fundamentalism, we can find traces of this existentialism.  Usually the pragmatic false teachers care little about what Kierdegaad, Kant, or Barth meant in their philosophies, if it manages to motivate people to say the little prayer and become “converts” then, well, the end justifies the means.  It is up to the false teachers to create the proper paradoxical mood, the right existential anxiety, and a favorable environment to make the illogical leap of faith --- just say the prayer.

 

Building emotional group contagion has become an art form that works.  The environment is changed to capture the target audience.  Those who desire noise to them noise is given, and to those who feel comfortable in peaceful settings to them the right decorum is provided.  The absence of The Spirit and God’s word are generally noticeable, and yet claimed as attending.  The simulation of The Spirit and careful selection of scriptures are used to give credibility to the proceedings.

 

There is an obvious theological tension arising in anyone’s mind that is vaguely familiar with the Scriptures and begins to think about what is happening.  The Sovereignty of God and the existence of “free will” are argued as a paradox, and this argument is useful in transferring responsibility from God to human control.  There are consequences to our actions, we are told.  This thought is supposing to conger up human morality in a spiritually dead soul, as defined in the Scriptures [Ephesians 2:1].  We feely say the little prayer and miraculously we are transformed into a person who has peace with God.  In the emotional heat of the paradoxical moment, it feels like a drug induced high.

 

Like all artificial stimulants, there is a subsequent fall from the emotional high.  Questions, confusion, and fear are common acquaintances during the aftermath grip with reality.  In this dilemma, the “convert” is told to read the Bible for answers.  Two results emerge if this recommendation is taken seriously; it is often ignored.

 

The most common result is more confusion and a developing fear that the prayer did not work.  The other result is that The Spirit starts to work on the “convert” and guides into a path of righteousness.  The obvious conclusion coming out of the consideration of these two results is, “Why not start with the reading and teaching instead of all this drama and false teachings?”  Numbers is the answer.  Without the drama, there would be fewer people coming to hear the message, but the number of converts would be the same!

 

The simple difference between the complicated and confusing existentialism and the real Gospel is the definition of faith.  The “leap of faith” advocate maintains that faith is the result of a revelation that God gives to the individual, which can be accepted or rejected.  The gap between God and man can be bridged by making a leap of faith, a cooperative effort between God and man; this is the contention.

 

On the other hand, the Gospel is clear about the source of faith.  It is totally a work and action of God’s Spirit [John 3:6, 6:29, Ephesians 2:5-10].  There is no human participation in any of the Bible’s salvation verses; it is always about The Spirit moving before any human reaction.  Consequently, there is no paradox in God’s Sovereignty.  There is no reason for any dialectic or abstraction to explain what God is doing.  There is no need for special knowledge or planned dramatic experiences.  God works His will in His time according to His good pleasure [Ephesians 1:4-10].

 

The Spirit teaches us the difference between right and wrong according to His plan [Romans 8:29], which includes all that we need is “in Christ.”

3His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.  4Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.  [2 Peter 1:3, 4]