Religion & Spirituality >
Christian Beliefs & Culture
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWhat is the greater challenge in accepting Christianity: Intellectual or moral?
Results so far:
| Intellect | 58% | 293 votes | Total: 509 votes | |
| Moral | 42% | 216 votes |
Intellect
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesAlthough many more challenges face Christianity than these two, pitting them against each other creates a stimulating contrast. To me, the more difficult, at least for the modern church, is the intellectual. And on this point, the church has clearly failed its members. Overall, it has all but conceded the issue.
Churches have traditionally given good moral guidance. Granted, some have gone overboard with rules and regulations. Nevertheless, the church has always recognized its responsibility in this area. But, beginning some 400 or so years ago, the challenge emerged from a different direction. Now it was the intellect, and the church, although as well-educated as any secular institution, suddenly seemed lost. As the onslaught increased, the church failed to respond adequately. What's worse, it even compromised, leaving members neither rudder nor anchor. Unfortunately, too little has changed since.
Today's youth, for example, go off to college and, within two years, many have turned their backs on their Christian faith. If you wonder why, read some of these articles and it will answer your questions. Christians are often ridiculed publicly on college campuses. Complaints to universities yield no results. Students are forced - or believe they are - to take courses that attack their religious beliefs, and when this happens, they are totally unprepared. No wonder they begin to question their beliefs when they hear only one side, and their churches, when queried, respond with some weak-kneed retort such as, "Well, you just have to have faith." Hogwash.
What they, and all other Christians, need from the church is practical training in answering non-Christian truth claims, poor philosophy, bad logic, and incorrect definitions when those arise in daily life. Here are a couple of examples.
If you read the other articles on the intellect side of this debate, you might recall one writer who gave Galatians 6:2 and 6:5 as contradictory. In the first, Paul wrote "bear one another's burdens," and in the other "bear your own burdens." A contradiction? Not at all.
Those two verses used two different Greek words, both translated "burden." The first refers to sympathy for the plight of another, while the other addresses personal accountability. Compassion for one's brother in no way conflicts with personal responsibility. Yet, many churches probably couldn't answer that.
The same writer faulted the Gospel of John in a similar fashion. John 3:22 says that Jesus baptized, but John 4:2 says that only the disciples baptized, not Jesus. An obvious contradiction, right? Wrong.
In first-century Palestine, action taken by someone as agent of another was considered as performed by the one who authorized it. Thus, when the disciples baptized on the authority of Jesus, John was correct in saying Jesus baptized. That's how the community saw it. Knowing this, John went out of his way to note that Jesus did not personally baptize, but the disciples only. That's a clarification, not a contradiction.
Finall y, another writer defined faith as belief that is not based on truth. That definition doesn't even come close. The writer actually describes baseless presumption, and Jesus tackled it headon. In Matthew 4:5-7, Satan takes Jesus to the top of a pinnacle at the temple and challenges Him to jump off if He is the Son of God. Satan even quotes scripture to Him, only to be rebuked by Jesus for trying to tempt God.
Faith is actually best defined as "Trust, based on a track record." If there is no evidence, it isn't faith. Faith isn't blind, as some claim. It isn't God who leads men to act on presumption, but Satan. The book of Hebrews defines faith as both evidence and substance. Jesus knew God had no track record saving those who jump from temple pinnacles. Scripture or no scripture, to do so would obviously not be faith.
Churches need to educate members about such matters. Many have no idea that these charges, levelled by all manner of unbelievers, have been repeatedly made, and repeatedly rebutted. "Bible contradictions" simply don't stand up to close scrutiny. Churches must begin teaching members Christian apologetics (defense of the Faith) and reclaim the intellectual high ground. Otherwise, unbelievers and believers both will find the intellectual hurdle too great - the former to accept, and the latter to defend.
Learn more about this author, F.J. Foster.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Moral
The intellectual case for Christianity is very strong: so strong that St. Paul would say that the unbelievers are without excuse. God has given us external and internal proofs of his existence and will. The creation is an external proof of God's existence and the law written on our hearts gives us an indication of his will. However ever since the fall, we have an imperfect conscience written on our hearts. Our knowledge of God is marred by our sinful nature. God has clearly spelled himself out to us in his revealed word, the Bible. Granted, the Bible does not tell us everything there is to know, but everything we need to know.
Christian speaker and apologist, Josh McDowell, in one of his speeches, remarked that 90 percent of the people who object to his message do so from a moral basis. Becoming a Christian means giving up a certain lifestyle. Granted some of these unbelievers may have a mistaken notion as to what one has to give up. These unbelievers may mistakenly think being a Christian means giving up having fun. But what is having fun? Eating or drinking to excess is not fun. Getting drunk and having a hangover does not strike this writer as fun. Granted some Christian denominations did impose restrictions which they considered Biblical separation. But it is possible that they went too far and added extra boundaries to God's word, just as the some of the later Jewish practices were added to prevent transgressing God's word. The motives may have been good, but that probably created other problems. God not only said not to subtract from his word, he also said not to add to his word. Later practices and traditions may have had good intentions, but one has to be careful not equate tradition with scripture.
Martin Luther once remarked that reason was the devil's whore. Luther did not mean that reason in and of itself was bad. But that reason used in the service of denying God was the devil's whore. Science used in the service of denying God's existence is one such example. Some may try to argue that science has disproved God's existence, but that is their interpretation. Most comical is Dawkins' claim that what one sees in nature is not design, but apparent design. Dawkins is halfway conceding God's existence by having to resort to a vain argument of apparent design. Perhaps Dawkins' books are not the product of intelligence, but apparent intelligence. That being the case Dawkins should not be eligible for royalties, since those are supposedly a reward for intelligent thought.
Not only are there external proofs for God's existence, there is also God's law written in our hearts. In the debate between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins, Lennox made a very good point in saying Dawkins could not really account for morality. Dawkins had a lame plea that we can do better. He could not formulate a justification for morality based on atheism in his debate. Probably one of the best arguments for morality and the moral law is found in C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity. Lewis points out that people who deny morality will cry out that's not fair if they feel they are wronged. In other words they point to a moral standard.
C.S. Lewis does a wonderful job of first starting with the Law and then expounding from there. We Lutherans say that one must start with the Law. The Law is what shows people there inadequacies. Sin means missing the mark. Think of an archer shooting and missing his target. God has given us a target and we sinners always miss the mark.
That is why we need a savior.
Christianity is not anti-intellectual. C.S. Lewis in a letter mentioned in the book A Severe Mercy pointed out that the atheist is not the brave one. The atheist is the one running away from God. The atheist does not want to be held accountable.
Christianity raises the question of accountability. Is there a God to whom we are accountable? If we cannot meet that standard of accountability, what can we do? The answer is we can do nothing to please God. God himself is the one who lived a perfect life for us and paid the price for our sins (i.e. missing the mark). The only thing one can do is believe on Christ (Acts. Chapter 16 verse 31). We cannot earn our way to heaven.
Since we are fallen creatures our sin nature naturally refuses to follow God's commandments. Or our sin nature refuses to accept God's remedy for our inability to follow his commandments, preferring to save ourselves by keeping the law. It is not intellect so much as it is will which keeps people from accepting God's offer of forgiveness.
Learn more about this author, Guy Takamatsu.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Christian Beliefs & Culture
- Priests should be permitted to marry
- Judas Iscariot: Good guy vs. bad guy?
- Is a conversion experience necessary for Christians?
- Is there hidden symbolism in the Christian cross?
- Have Christians as a whole left behind the teachings of Christ?
- Does God love some more than others?
