“The Fool Hath Said in his Heart there is No God.”

Kevin Cauley

Atheism, as the name implies, is primarily a negative philosophy; it is first and foremost a denial of the existence of God and of all things supernatural.  Strict atheists claim to know that God does not exist.  Many atheists have now seen the folly in making such a claim and no longer so argue.  Nevertheless, they can be classified as practical atheists in the sense that while they claim technical ignorance of God’s existence, they live their lives consistently with their disavowal of God.  These are the most common atheists today and fall under the definition of atheist as offered by Baron d’Holbach:

An atheist is someone who destroys human chimeras in order to call people back to nature, experience and reason.  He is a thinker who, having meditated on matter, its properties and ways of behaving, has no reason to imagine ideal forces, imaginary intelligences or rational beings in order to explain the phenomena of the universe or the operations of nature – which, far from making us know nature better, merely make it capricious, inexplicable and unknowable, useless for human happiness.[1]

So while they plead technical ignorance regarding the question of the existence of God, they see the concept of the existence of God itself as useless so far as making any real contributions to the betterment of society.

In large part, most atheists hold that belief in God has brought more harm upon the world than good.  Atheists may distinguish between the major religions, but beyond that, they do not draw distinctions between religious groups.  They react largely against Calvinism as the predominant Christian belief and paint most religious beliefs with this broad brush.  Such arguments can be truly classified as straw men since the majority of those who profess to be Christians do not adhere to Calvinistic theology.  Nevertheless, atheism presses forward and continues to press for freedom from religion in all aspects of society.

D’Holbach’s statement truly fits the statement of the “fool” in Psalm 14:1.  Perhaps the best thing that can be done in regard to atheism is to point out its true implications.  What does it mean to say, “There is no God?”  What does this imply?  In this article we will look at three basic implications of atheism as pointed out by atheists themselves and in so doing will see how Psalm 14:1 is truly vindicated.

It is foolish to say there is no God because that implies no purpose of life.

To say God does not exist implies that there is no ultimate purpose of life.  The name of this philosophy of purposelessness is called “Nihilism” and it was championed specifically by the 19th century atheistic philosopher Frederick Nietzsche who rightly realized that if God did not exist, then one could not claim any objective absolute purpose of life.  “The end of the moral interpretation of the world, which no longer has any sanction after it hast tried to escape into some beyond, leads to nihilism.  ‘All lacks meaning.’” [2]

Some atheists have tried to get around this by claiming that there are purposes in life.  This is simply a rouse.  To say that there are purposes in life reduces the purpose of life to one’s creating his own purposes in life, a self-contradiction.  Jean Paul Sartre wrote:

If man as existentialists conceive of him cannot be defined, it is because to begin with he is nothing.  He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself.  Thus, there is no human nature since there is no God to conceive of it.  Man is not only that which he conceives himself to be, but that which he wills himself to be, and since he conceives of himself only after he exists, just as he wills himself to be after being thrown into existence, man is nothing other than what he makes of himself. [3]

Richard Dawkins has weighed in on this matter in his book River Out of Eden.  He writes,

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice.  The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good.  Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. [4]

One cannot consistently uphold the notion that there is no purpose in life without adopting a self-destructive nihilistic attitude.  Such was the attitude of the atheist Ernest Hemingway who after realizing that he could not escape his purposelessness decided to end his life with his favorite hunting rifle.  Such is the utter folly of those who, along with Sartre, say “even if God were to exist, it would make no difference.” [5]

It is foolish to say there is no God because that implies no absolute values in life.

To say that there are no absolute values means that each person may create his own values as he sees fit.  This was the situation in the period of the Judges when “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).  If there are no absolute values, then all actions become morally equal and everything is permitted.  The atheist Sartre accepted this when he wrote: “Dostoyevsky once wrote ‘If God does not exist, everything is permissible.’ This is the starting point of existentialism.  Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and man is consequently abandoned.” [6] He then wrote: “If, however, God does not exist, we will encounter no values or orders that can legitimize our conduct.” [7] In another one of Sartre’s works he wrote: “… nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies me in adopting this or that particular value, this or that particular scale of values.  As a being by whom values exist, I am unjustifiable.” [8] Nothing justifies the atheist in adopting any value or any particular scale of values.  The wholesale abandonment of absolute values is utter foolishness.  It implies that there is no absolute obligation to do what is right in any given circumstance.

Such was the position taken by atheist Dan Barker when he said “If we choose, and you don’t have to, I don’t think there is a moral imperative, but if we do choose to be moral, then those of us who intend to act in ways that minimize harm are the ones that can be called moral or ethical people.” [9] Morality is just a choice we make like deciding whether to have Combo #1 or Combo #2 at McDonalds.  Lack of moral imperative means that anyone may decide to act in any way he or she chooses at any given moment.  Now, is that foolishness or what?

Nietzsche agrees.  “Finally, at the highest stage of morality until now, he acts according to his standard of things and men; he himself determines for himself and others what is honorable, what is profitable.” [10] Sartre also agrees.  “….we remind man that there is no legislator but himself; that he himself, thus abandoned, must decide for himself….” [11] What utter foolishness, yet this is atheism.

It is foolish to say there is no God because one cuts oneself off from faith, hope, and love.

There can be no doubt that atheism seeks to undermine and destroy religion, the basis of faith, hope, and love.  As Karl Marx wrote: “Atheism is humanism mediated with itself through the supersession of religion….” [12] For the atheist, there is no God in whom to believe, there is no ultimate destiny for which to hope, and there is no objective basis upon which to love one’s fellow man.  Atheism produces nothing but doubt, despair, and selfishness.  Sartre opines: “There is no other universe except the human universe, the universe of human subjectivity.” [13] When faith, hope, and love are removed, one cannot help but agree with Sartre’s conclusion in his play “No Exit,” “Hell is other people.”  What a pessimistic view of life and horrendous attitude to have toward one’s fellow.  Such a view is borne out of one’s doubts, despairs, fears, and contempt of one’s fellow man.  What a foolish attitude!  How much greater is the Apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13:12-13 “And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”  Atheism cannot admit of any pure altruism because the doctrine of organic evolution implies personal and selfish adaptative advantage in every individual behavior.  What a truly foolish world that would be.

Atheism is a foolish philosophy because it implies that there is no purpose of life, that there are no values above our own creation, and that there is no reason to have faith, hope, or love in one’s life.  Madeline Bunting summed up what atheism has offered over the past century when she said:

There’s an underlying anxiety that atheist humanism has failed.  Over the 20th century, atheist political regimes racked up an appalling (and unmatched) record for violence.  Atheist humanism hasn’t generated a compelling popular narrative and ethic of what it is to be human and our place in the cosmos; where religion has retreated, the gap has been filled with consumerism, football, Strictly Come Dancing and a mindless absorption in passing desires. [14]

“A mindless absorption in passing desires” – utter foolishness!

[1] Paul Heinrich Dietrich d’Holbach as quoted in Alister McGrath. The Twilight of Atheism. Double Day: New York, 2004. p.30.

[2] Frederick Nietzsche as quoted in Walter Kaufmann. Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. Meridian: New York, 1975.  p.131.

[3] Jean Paul Sartre. Existentialism Is a Humanism. Yale: New Haven, 2007. p.22.

[4] Richard Dawkins. River Out of Eden. Basic Books: New York, 1995. p.133.

[5] Ibid.n.3. p.53.

[6] Ibid. n.3. p.29.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Jean Paul Sartre. Being and Nothingness. Washington Square Press: New York, 1956. p.76.

[9] Dan Barker. Oral Speech. University of Minnesota, October 19th, 2006.

[10] Friedrich Nietzsche. Human, All Too Human: a Book for Free Spirits trans. by Marion Faber, Stephen Lehmann. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996. p.65.

[11] Jean Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism trans. Philip Mairet (Brooklyn: Haskell House Publishers Ltd., 1977), 23-56.

[12] Karl Marx, The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, trans. Gregor Benton (Paris, 1844).  Accessed online at <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/epm/3rd.htm> 29 May 2009.

[13] Jean Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism trans. Philip Mairet (Brooklyn: Haskell House Publishers Ltd., 1977), pp. 23-56.

[14] Madeleine Bunting. “No Wonder Atheists Are Angry: They Seem Ready to Believe Anything,” Guardian, January 7, 2006, a review of The Root of All Evil? (UK TV Channel 4).  Accessed 9 June 2009. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jan/07/raceandreligion.comment>

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on “The Fool Hath Said in his Heart there is No God.”

The City of Nazareth Makes Headlines Yet Again

“And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth” (Luke 2:39)

According to the Bible, the town of Nazareth was situated in Galilee (Matthew 21:11).  Located in the dimpled center of a hilly area North of the Esdraelon Valley (the Old Testament Jezreel Valley), it was the place where Joseph and Mary made their home (Luke 2:39).  It was the town where Joseph was known as the carpenter (Mark 6:3).  Here, the angel Gabriel announced to Mary the coming of Jesus (Luke 1:26).  It was where He grew up as a child and a young adult (Luke 2:51).  It was where the family participated in Synagogue worship (Luke 4:16).  The town was unrecognized amongst the Jewish aristocracy as there is scant information in Jewish literature of its import, but when the people started talking about the prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, that got their attention (Matthew 21:11).  After Jesus, Nazareth was no longer unknown.

On December 22nd, 2009, while most of us were doing last minute Christmas shopping or making travel plans for the holidays, the Israel Antiquities Authorities issued a press release regarding the discovery of an ancient house in Nazareth near the edifice known as the Church of the Annunciation.  While excavating the foundation for a new structure, archaeologists uncovered several walls and some pottery fragments.  These discoveries were dated to the early Roman period and contained several chalk type vessels.  Due to Jewish purity restrictions, only certain types of vessels could be reused after they became ritually unclean (Leviticus 11:33, 36).  Chalk vessels were among the approved.  This discovery archaeologically confirms that Jewish settlers lived in Nazareth at the time of Jesus.

Archaeology had found evidence for the existence of the city of Nazareth prior to its destruction under Assyria around 720 B.C.  There have also been archaeological confirmations of the city’s existence during the third and fourth centuries A.D. when it was settled by post Constantinian Christians.  However, there was no archaeological evidence of its existence during the early Roman period and the time of Jesus.  Moreover, since Jewish literature, including Josephus, made no references to the city, this led some religious skeptics to doubt the existence of the city altogether.

Of course, this news comes as no surprise to Christians who have long known of the existence of the city of Nazareth by means of New Testament revelation.  Some atheists, however, will now be redacting their writings to accommodate the new archaeological finds.  This discovery provides one more piece in the archaeological puzzle that corroborates the New Testament as being what Christians knew it was all along: God’s truth.  The historical claims of Christianity are once again vindicated.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The City of Nazareth Makes Headlines Yet Again

Science and Evolution

Kevin Cauley

There may be no two words loaded with more assumptions than “science” and “evolution.”  What do these concepts entail?  Are they compatible?  Two aspects of science relate to how we understand “evolution.”

First, science concerns itself with things that are observable, repeatable, and demonstrable.  A scientist may observe a rainbow.  He may artificially create a rainbow.  He may demonstrate how a rainbow is made through the refraction and diffusion of light.  A rainbow is an observable, repeatable, and demonstrable phenomenon.

Second, science is concerned with extending such observations to draw general conclusions about the world through the inductive method.  The inductive method entails formulating hypotheses and devising experiments to test these hypotheses.  In an open system, hypotheses can only be falsified.  In a closed system, hypotheses can be both falsified and verified.

The word “evolution” simply means change, but it entails two concepts that lineup with the two aspects of science discussed above.  First, there are those processes of evolution (change) that are observable, repeatable, and demonstrable.  Microevolution is a genetic change that does not result in the emergence of an organism genetically incompatible with its state prior to the change.  Creationists do not doubt these processes.

Second, there is the hypothesis of evolution (known as macroevolution), which refers to extending observable processes of evolution inductively to historical biology.  This hypothesis entails a series of genetic mutations that randomly and chaotically occurs over very long periods of time, resulting in the eventual emergence of all genetically incompatible organisms (i.e., life on earth).  Evolutionists want us to think that observable evolution (microevolution) and the hypothesis of evolution (macroevolution) are both the same process; but this is the assumption that evolutionists must demonstrate!

Consider the potential logical fallacy of extending something that is observable, repeatable, and demonstrable beyond the immediate conclusion.  The ancient astronomer Ptolemy did exactly this.  The phenomenon of the Moon going around the Earth was an observable, repeatable, and demonstrable phenomenon.  This phenomenon in the ancient world was confirmed through observation of lunar and solar eclipses.  However, the same concept was then extended to the Sun, the planets, and all of the stars as well.  Ptolemy then drew the unwarranted conclusion of geocentrism (i.e., the idea that the Earth is the center of the solar system).

This is the same fallacy evolutionists make.  They observe, repeat, and demonstrate small changes in the genetic code, and then conclude that these small changes are responsible for the “creation” of all life from a single organism.  Such may be a hypothesis, but it does not fall within our first category of science.  Such changes are not observable, repeatable, and demonstrable precisely because such changes are said to be historical. Unless scientists have invented a time machine, they still cannot observe, repeat, and demonstrate history.

Moreover, the evolutionary hypothesis rests upon an invalid logical premise as well.  As noted, science concerns itself with the inductive method.  In an open system, conclusions using the inductive method can be falsified, but they cannot be verified.  Historical genetic changes are part of an open system.  The best scientists can do in such a system is to conclude that nothing has falsified the hypothesis.  The bottom line, though, is that the hypothesis is still a hypothesis, and a hypothesis is not the same thing as an inductively verified fact.  It is an invalid conclusion to state that the evolutionary hypothesis is a verified fact from an open inductive system.

What is disturbing about macroevolution, however, is that evolutionists permit no historical information to falsify their theory.  But if no falsification is allowed, that places the conclusion of the evolutionary hypothesis outside of the inductive method.  And if those conclusions are outside of the inductive method, they are outside of the realm of science.

Any way you look at it, the evolutionary hypothesis is not scientific.  It is not observable, repeatable, or demonstrable.  Nor is it a verified conclusion from the inductive method.  Moreover, historical evidence can be brought forth that falsifies the hypothesis of evolution, but such is beyond the scope of this article.  Other historical evidence that claims to prove evolution to be true has also been falsified.  If you would like to see some of that evidence, please visit http://www.apologeticspress.org.

Kevin Cauley is a graduate and instructor at the Southwest School of Bible Studies.  He is also a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin (B.A.) and a Master’s candidate at St. Edward’s University.  You may contact him at k.cauley@swsbs.edu.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Science and Evolution

“He That Sweareth To His Own Hurt”

Kevin Cauley

“LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? . . .  He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.”  (Psalm 15:1, 4)

In the year 2000 I lost my job at EDS and began searching for employment.  I picked up some part time work in the interim.  While I was committed to a project, I got a call from the Compaq Corporation.  I scheduled the interview and met with a manager.

The job they wanted me to do was a “dream job” in the computer industry.  I would be technical support for the outside sales department.  I would get a company car, have access to a large computer lab facility, be able to take clients out for lunches on a regular basis at the company’s expense, and all the perks.

At the end of the interview, the manager looked at me and said, “I would like to hire you.  When can you start?”

I replied, “I have a previous commitment with another company to do a temporary project and in two weeks after that project is done, I can start.”  He said that he appreciated my honesty and character; we parted company and he never called back.

We live in a society that by and large values compromise above principle, subjectivity over objectivity, and relatives over absolutes.  It would be an understatement to say that it is easy to get away with not keeping one’s promises in our society.

“Things happen.”

The weather changes.  We don’t feel good.  Other people don’t follow through.  There are any number of reasons that we could enumerate and by and large most would accept our excuse.

In contrast to our society, God’s people, God’s society, are called to a higher standard.  It is a standard that transcends the bounds of society, time, and culture.  It is a standard based upon the eternal character of God.  It is a standard upon which God expects us to live (Romans 12:1-2).

Our God is a God who always keeps his promises (Hebrews 6:17-18, Titus 1:2).  If we desire to dwell in His holy hill, His tabernacle, His church today, we must practice His standard of righteousness.  When we are willing to suffer to keep our promises, God says that is when we are most like Him.

May we, as God’s people, resolve to keep our word and dwell in unity with our God.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on “He That Sweareth To His Own Hurt”

Philosophical Underpinnings of the Emerging Church

In the Spring of 1994, I took a philosophy class entitled, “Interpretation and Translation” in which I was exposed to a theory known as “Reader-Response Criticism.”  This theory suggests that the meaning of any particular text is not so much what the author originally intended as much as what the reader personally experiences when reading.  This theory suggests that there is no one peculiar meaning outside of the context of the reader.  The text could potentially have as many meanings as those capable of reading.  As a result, there are no right or wrong meanings; there are only subjectively understood meanings.

Such a method of reading applied to the Bible would produce any number of “legitimate” teachings.  According to this theory, the important thing is not the intentionality of the author, but rather, the understanding of the reader.  Consequently, the reader’s understanding becomes the ultimate legitimate “truth” and it ceases to be of interest to talk about “right” or “wrong” interpretations.   The only thing that would matter would be to discuss the various interpretations.

This approach to understanding literature is but one facet in a larger cultural movement which re-centers the search for truth upon the truth-seeker as opposed to the truth-Teacher.  It reflects a fundamental choice as to whether we are going to think anthropocentrically (man-centered) or theocentrically (God-centered).  Anthropocentric thinking has been (and is) presented to our culture in the postmodern philosophy of existentialism.

The fundamental tenet of existentialism has been expressed in the formula “existence precedes essence.”[1] Basically, this means that the personal experiences of the subject (i.e. one’s existence) define reality (and all of reality’s accoutrements such as purpose, meaning, truth, etc.).  The concept that reality can or should be defined in terms of absolutes (essences) is shelved.  Postmodern philosophies tend to reject any epistemology that does not based solely on the individual subject.

Consequently, postmodern thinking is not concerned with the absolute truth or falsity of propositions; truth becomes a relative term which makes sense only in the context of one’s personal experiences.  Paramount, rather, is the individual’s expression of those experiences.  This expression takes the form of a narrative or conversation as an individual allows his personal experience to refine his sense of truth.[2] Hence, truth is anthropocentric.

Christologically, postmodernism prefers to focus on how the resurrection narrative affects one’s personal experience.  This emphasis is also anthropocentric because it seeks to explore how one reacts subjectively to the resurrection narrative without presumption of any truth claims posited in the gospel accounts.  Such thinking reflects the “existence precedes essence” doctrine of existentialism.

As “Reader-Response Criticism” was being touted secularly, a parallel postmodern theological movement emerged as well.  Today, this movement is known as the Emerging Church.[3]

The Emerging Church’s self-proclaimed effort is to engage the postmodern culture with the gospel.  This is laudable.  However, it proposes to do this through postmodern methods and presumptions.  The movement is nebulous.  It includes both individuals who have embraced the core tenets of postmodern thought and individuals who are simply seeking to engage a postmodern culture with the gospel in a postmodern way.

The method the Emerging Church uses to do this involves 1) a surface acceptance of pluralism, 2) engaging the postmodern individual in an open-ended conversational manner, 3) an avoidance of dogmatic assertions which are seen as a consequent of failed rationalistic methods (philosophical modernism), and 4) an effort to affect the postmodern individual through authentic personal behavior or example.  Some consequences of practicing this method are 1) more open forms of worship, 2) communalism, and 3) ecumenism, and 4) concern for social justice.[4]

The approach the Emerging Church uses is appealing, especially to a postmodern culture.  For the Christian, however, it is dishonest.  How so?  Eventually one’s commitment to absolute truth is going to surface into the “conversation” and the appearance of a pluralistic acceptance of all opinions is going to be exposed as a deception.  At this point, one will be unable to avoid dogmatic assertions and one’s behavior will be judged as inconsistent at best and hypocritical at worst.  The individual employing the Emerging Church’s methods will then be forced to evaluate himself.  Since, he will come to the conclusion that he has been dishonest or inauthentic, he will ultimately decide to accept the methods of the Emerging Church as fundamentally true in order to be more consistent in his approach.   Having accepting these methods, he embraces a wholesale abandonment of absolute truth and the adoption of postmodern philosophy.  This becomes painfully obvious when we contrast the basic tenets of Christianity with the Emerging Church’s methods.

The fundamental claims of Christianity are that Jesus of Nazareth died, was buried, and rose again to a new life.[5] To suggest, as postmodern philosophy does, that there are no absolute truths (or in a softer form, systems of truths), reduces the New Testament’s claim to nothing more than how one personally feels about the subject and makes out the witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection to be sophisticated liars.

This is a problem for the Emerging Church movement as Scot McKnight, a self proclaimed member of that movement, says in Christianity Today Magazine.  “Unless you proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ, there is no good news at all—and if there is no Good News, then there is no Christianity, emerging or evangelical.”[6] Put another way, postmodernity’s rejection of absolute truth systems entails the rejection of the Gospel as an absolute truth system.  This is the fundamental failure of the Emerging Church.

This highlights the choice the Emerging Church must make between anthropocentric and theocentric thinking.  To reject the Gospel as an absolute truth system causes one’s fundamental focus to be upon man instead of God.  Emerging Church theology reflects this shift in thinking by focusing upon the gospel accounts as solutions to social problems (man vs. man) instead of theological problems (man vs. God).  This focus upon the man vs. man conflict is fundamentally anthropocentric and existentialist in flavor.

Some of the specific terminology used in the movement also reflects its acceptance of existentialist thought.  For example, the term “authentic” is employed to describe personal worship practices.  Practices that are inclusive of individual participation such as personal testimonies, liturgical reading responses, sharing meals, lighting candles and prayer are termed authentic inasmuch as they are perceived as involving the subject in the worship experience.  Being “authentic” is defined, in fact, in a way that is consistent not with objective truth, but with one’s own personal feelings.  Dogmatic propositional presentations of the gospel message are considered inauthentic because they deny the personal feelings of the individual.[7]

The application of these terms, authentic and inauthentic, were employed in existentialist thinking by Martin Heidegger.  He suggested that authentic existence consisted in one’s individual and personal acceptance of his unique, subjective, and independent existence from societal norms and standards blithely accepted by the masses.[8]

The Emergent Church seeks to use that same concept but in a theological way, namely, to suggest that one’s religious experience must be personal and subjective in order to reflect something meaningful.  One’s personal involvement in spirituality is not encouraged because it is fundamentally necessary as a tenet of truth, but personal involvement infuses the subject with his own truth.  In this way, then, the movement would have individuals disengage from the formal and dogmatic religion of the masses that currently presents itself in the form of evangelical Christianity.[9]

The Emergent Church easily attracts individuals disenchanted with religious formalism.  The problem is that it throws out the proverbial baby with the bath water.  Instead of seeking to personally involve them based upon absolute standards of truth (the gospel), the movement replaces absolute standards of truth with a subjectivist standard where truth only has meaning in relationship to the individual’s personal experience.

In contrast, while true faith approaches God based upon God’s absolute truth, it also must be done with a sincerity of spirit that is truly authentic (John 4:24).  In such a model, however, authenticity comes not from one’s personal involvement independent of any normative teaching, but rather, in conjunction with it.  One is truly authentic when one sincerely believes the truths that are taught in the gospel and behaves accordingly.  A mere personal subjective acceptance of the gospel is neither sincere nor authentic because it denies or at best ignores the very claim the gospel makes regarding the historical truthfulness of Jesus’ resurrection.

More questions need to be answered regarding the Emerging Church.  Why is it critical of formal religion?  What aspects reflect sound theological practices in contrast to denominational Christianity?  How does the Emerging Church’s ecclesiology differ from the New Testament teaching of the church?  This brief overview really has only served to introduce the concept of the movement, its self professed relationship to postmodern philosophy, its ties with existentialism, and its anthropocentric nature.

The Emerging Church movement presents spiritual danger because of its de-historicizing of the gospel, making spirituality a wholly subjective matter, and relegating truth to each individual’s discretion.  Its effect upon these foundational matters will reverberate with harmful consequences in other areas of Christian doctrine as well.  We ought to reject any system (and this movement is a system regardless of its proposed rejection of theological systems) which rejects the concept of absolute truth.

[1] Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism trans. Carol Macomber, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007) p.22.  An online English translation is available at <http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm>.

[2] See for example, Eckhard Tolle, A New Earth (London: Penguin, 2005) p.71, “There is only one absolute Truth, and all other truths emanate from it….  The Truth is inseparable from who you are.  Yes, you are the Truth.”

[3] Carson, D. A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2005.

[4] Scot McKnight, “Five Streams of the Emerging Church” Christianity Today Magazine, 11 February 2007. Available online at <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html>. Accessed on July 8th, 2008.

[5] 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

[6]Scot McKnight, “Five Streams,” 2005.

[7] McLaren, Brian, A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004) p. 107, 151.

[8] Heidegger, Martin, Being and Time, trans. Stambaugh (Albany: State University of New York Press: 1996) pp. 169-170.

[9] This is typical Kierkegaardian existentialist theology, his primary thesis being “Truth is subjectivity.”  Kierkegaard, Soren, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, trans. Hong, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1992.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , | Comments Off on Philosophical Underpinnings of the Emerging Church