Ponderings Part II - Conflicting Worldviews

I am on this "kick" to extract from my journals some insights on some things that have gotten my attention, and recently I found a replacement copy of a book by Charles Colson I had many years ago entitled A Dance With Deception (Dallas:  Word Publishing, 1993).  To give you a little of Chuck Colson's story, he was a former Nixon aide who was caught up in the Watergate scandals of the early 1970's, and as a result he had to do some time in prison.  While in prison, he became a born-again Christian and began what would later evolve into a very effective ministry organization called Prison Fellowship International.  Prison Fellowship has impacted a number of inmates, and one of my old school friends from years ago works with a ministry in Orlando affilliated with them today.  Up until his passing a few years back, Colson wrote a lot of good material, and this book I have at hand that I will be basing a lot of my own insights on is for me one of his best - it is not an extensive reference work, as it consists of transcripts of his commentaries on the radio over a period of several years, but it is packed with rich information.  Colson also represents a strain of Evangelicalism you rarely see anymore - he was one of a great company of committed, conservative Evangelical leaders who stood for traditional values and truth, people like Jerry Falwell, the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, Bill Bright, Francis Schaeffer, and others.  Almost all of these great men of principle have now passed on into their eternal rewards, and their successors often don't have the same fire and passion these great leaders had, and the past 15 or so years of what has happened in America is evidence of that issue.  At any rate, there is a section beginning on page 203 of A Dance with Deception that got my attention years ago, and it is one of the main reasons I got this book again to begin with.  Let us just launch into it and see where it goes.

The section I am talking about is entitled "The Difference It Makes," and it is a transcript of a radio commentary broadcast by Colson on December 22, 1991.  The commentary recounts the story of the Humaita Penitentiary in Brazil, which is privately administered by Christian volunteers who worked with Prison Fellowship at that time.  As a prison, it was a little different in that there were no guards, and once an inmate was brought in, the shackles came off and a rather radical system of actual rehabilitation that works with the inmates in stages to recover their freedom - at its center though is a Christocentric focus that integrates faith into the rehabilitation process, something the yapping mutts at the ACLU would never let happen here.  I am also sort of struck by how much this program resembles St. John Bosco's educational philosophy in that it emphasizes that the purpose of correction is not necessarily punishment, but rather rehabilitation, aiding the offenders to regain their place in civilized society by educating and disciplining them.  There is a huge contrast in the system at the Humaita Penitentiary in Brazil and the penal system we see in the states - I have also been reading over another book entitled The Kennel by Kent Hovind (under the pseudonym "Elijah Green"), and the fictional account of Hovind's own unfortunate incarceration exposes a corrupt, corporate-run prison system that markets incarceration as a commodity.  In the marketing of incarceration, prisons in the US these days don't necessarily have as their objective rehabilitation, but rather they encourage bad behavior to boost business - this usually is marked by ungodly sentences for fairly minor offenses that don't even give a corresponding punishment to the offense.  Anyone who keeps up with what has been happening, in particular the past 20 or so years, understands that something is not working well in the American justice system, and essentially what that is has to do with corruption in government as well as the sharklike behavior of "Big Business," as Soros, Trump, and all the other movers and shakers are pressing an agenda with a bunch of pansy-keistered politicians aiding and abetting them.   Contrasting the model of Humaita with the current penal system in the US has made me come to the conclusion that maybe the "under-developed" Third World may have more common sense on things than our supposedly "sophisticated and enlightened" Western culture does.  Take a look at even the churches over there - they are fairly traditional (with the exception of some pockets of "Liberation Theology" sectarians, who are often egged on by apostate Theology professors in the West anyway), vibrant, and once many of them do embrace Christianity, they do so with a conviction and devotion that should shame us here; a lot of times, that decision could even cost them their lives!  So, why is it then that the "Third World" is poor but vibrant, while the "First World" is rich and in moral decay?  Good question, isn't it?  It begs another question as well - are we really as "enlightened" as we think we are in the US and elsewhere?   That is where the question of "worldview" now comes into the focus of this discussion.

If you seriously take the time to sit down and ponder about how worldviews change, and how these views impact even those professing Christianity, it immediately raises some concerns.  One thing Colson points elsewhere in his book is something that has become more evident in the 25 or so years since he originally authored this stuff, and what it addresses is how we as Christians have allowed blatantly  non-Christian influences to impact theology and philosophy.  For instance, let me go back to my alma mater, where I had originally planned on doing my graduate work.  After only a few weeks there, I came to realize that something very odd was happening in the Religious Studies Department at this particular university, and as I noted this odd "something," I also began to feel very disturbed in my spirit about some issues.  Many of the professors in that particular Religion department were quite fond of quoting people such as Martin Heidegger, which in itself is disturbing, and to explain why let's first talk about Heidegger a little, shall we?  In the early part of the 20th century, Heidegger was a German philosopher who openly supported and endorsed Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, and it is something he had never relented of even at the day of his death.  Heidegger unfortunately had a seriously negative impact on theologians too, in particular Jurgen Moltmann,  a theologian who exerts an unhealthy influence himself over this recent and odd new generation of Pentecostal and Evangelical academics out there.  Even much of the exegetical/hermeneutical technique these younger academics use and are teaching on Christian college campuses has at its root Heidegger's influence, as well as that of the theistic evolutionist/transhumanist and apostate priest Teilhard de Chardin.  Both of these figures have wreaked havoc on Christendom to such a degree that it has radically redefined what Christianity is on many Christian college campuses.  Of course, we all know that Satan has no originality - the same crap he fed Eve in the Garden of Eden is the lie he feeds people today, and humanity is too blinded to even see it.  Satan is shrewd enough to know not to tamper with an effective system, so he just repackages the same old deceptions in more "relevant" language of the day and it still deceives a lot of people, including the "smart ones" among us.  Many so-called "Christian" academics have fallen prey to what G.K. Chesterton called "the cult of scientism," and what he means by that is that often scientism, with all its picking apart, over-analytical prattling, and its worship of facts and figures has robbed the world of its wonder, and has dulled the natural sense of wonder God endowed us with (Thomas Peters, The Christian Imagination - G.K. Chesterton on the Arts.  San Francisco:  Ignatius, 2000. p. 56).  In other words, many Religion Departments at professing Christian colleges actually do more to destroy the faith of a student rather than helping them grow in faith, and as such I would not be adverse to doing away with Religion Departments in some universities - there are, however, bright exceptions to that and I am proud to say that Franciscan University of Steubenville, where I am working on my Masters currently, is one of those shining examples.  There is a reason why this is the case - at Franciscan (unlike some other - ahem! - schools I could name!) the faculty are faithful to the Fidei Depositum of the Church, and they know it is their job to help their students spiritually grow as well as intellectually develop.   So, in doing that, many of my professors at Franciscan have actually rekindled a sense of wonder that Chesterton extolled so much in his writings within me.   However, the lies of Heidegger, Moltmann, and others who have apostatized and are leading other academic elites to do so are being repackaged today in what sociologist Christian Smith calls "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism," or its more simplified name, "Christian humanitarianism."  I am about to make some enemies with what I am going to say next, but so be it - it wouldn't be the first time honestly!

I am about to give some background on some disturbing things I saw on a certain Evangelical university campus, as it will show that my concerns are not merely speculative or alarmist, but they can be proven by just walking on that campus and sitting in the classroom of one of the Religion faculty there.  One professor in particular there taught a graduate-level Hermeneutics course I took at the time, and he is a prime culprit for what I am about to share.  For some years, I had been keeping up with some of the faddish ridiculousness going on in Evangelicalism, as I was no longer part of it but still wanted to keep up with things.  With the rise of people like Rick Warren (who, ironically, is now considered "conservative" compared to what came after!) and the later "Emergent Church" movement, there came a general postmodernist shift away from what used to be fairly sound doctrine from an Evangelical perspective.  Therefore, when I first came back to the campus of this particular university almost four years ago, I sort of expected some change, but I was really not prepared for what I actually did witness.  Now, this particular professor I am discussing now is, as a person, a genuinely nice guy - he has a decent personality, a quiet demeanor, and he's approachable and easy to engage in conversation with.  But, as with anything, looks can be deceiving. It didn't  take long at all to see what really made this guy tick, and almost from cracking the very first textbook in that class a well-informed and seriously-discerning observer could know that something was not right in Dodge.   This particular professor relied heavily in his hermeneutical lectures on a couple of books that frankly had very little to do with the subject of Biblical interpretation.  One of these books was by a post-modernist "Christian" philosopher by the name of Merrold Westphal, and was entitled Which Community, Whose Interpretation?  The second was a book by an "Emergent Church" proponent by the name of Scot McKnight entitled The Blue Parakeet, which essentially raises doubts about the Bible's authority in the reader's mind rather than affirming it, as Aquinas taught, as a book of divine authorship that in its dictates is to be taken as true (for a more in-depth analysis of the errors of McKnight's book, I would recommend Baptist apologist James White's review of it found here - http://www.equip.org/article/the-hidden-agenda-of-the-blue-parakeet/).  Now, some of the other texts utilized in this class, including Kevin VanHooser's mammoth reference book published by Baker Academic, are good material; I still use VanHooser's reference book today for projects.  And, even in this professor's own books - one of which was a textbook used in the class - there are some good nuggets of things I utilize today.  It is important to understand that good scholarship does attempt to find something useful in the most disagreeable of texts, and this professor's own text was analoguous to a fatty piece of bacon - there were some good bits of lean meat in it, but also a lot of pungent, disagreeable fat as well.  In contrast, there are books by my profs at Franciscan - notably those of Drs. Regis Martin, Mark Miravalle, and Scott Hahn - which are like feasting on a good porterhouse steak; there may be minimal fat around the edges, but you walk away from the plate satisfied and well-nourished.  Still others - McKnight's book, as well as Westphal's come to mind - are like cheap salt pork - there may be a tiny morsel worth salvaging here and there, but you have to render a lot of disagreeable, unhealthy fat to find them.  So, let's talk a little about this Westphal guy now, shall we?

Merrold Westphal is by all intentions a philosopher - he is a committed postmodernist, and why his material is even considered for a Bible course is beyond me, because it really is not suited for it.  Looking at his CV (accessed at http://faculty.fordham.edu/westphal/vitamw.pdf) he is an alumni of Wheaton (1962) and got his Ph.D. from Yale in 1966.   He looks to have been influenced a lot by people like Heidegger as well as Kierkegaard (enough said there!) and he attempts to even "Christianize" atheism in many of his writings and speeches.   He also tends to idealize people like Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud, none of whom can be said to be friends of traditional Christian doctrine.  Even as a philosopher though, Westphal is actually quite sloppy - while it is definitely possible for philosophy and theology to be compatible (as demonstrated by Aquinas, St. Lawrence of Brindisi, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Romano Guardini, and so many others) Westphal doesn't complement either well.  In a similarly-themed text by Lutheran theologian Jaroslav Pelikan entitled Fools for Christ's Sake,  although I would disagree with a lot of that too at least Pelikan has the discernment to distinguish between a fundamental Thomistic principle of being vs. nature, which Westphal neglects in order to press his own agenda.  His heavy reliance on Jurgen Moltmann's "Theology of Hope" also warrants concern too, as Moltmann was essentially a panentheist who failed to distinguish between Creator and creation, and all the while claiming to promote "gospel values."  Although Moltmann claimed a "conversion" as a German POW in an American camp in WWII, his theology doesn't reflect a sound conversion experience, unlike that of his supposed mentor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, whom I believe was a true martyr for Christ.  Moltmann is essentially inclusionist, panentheistic, and well, just liberal!  When one reads good theology, such as that of de Lubac, Guardini, von Balthasar, or orthodox Reformed Protestants like Francis Schaeffer, you see a abysmic difference between the faithful theology they wrote about in contrast to the bereft theologically-themed philosophical babble of Westphal.  A true theologian doesn't seek to alter doctrine, but to affirm it, and a true philosopher doesn't try to redefine morality and natural law, but affirms it as well.  Westphal fails miserably in both areas.  That leads to one final note before we wrap up about Westphal's idea of "prophetic revelation."

Westphal tends to assume God can use anything or anyone to be a "prophetic voice," and for Westphal his idols Marx and Nietzsche are "prophetic voices," which he says very clearly in his own book.  On the outset, Westphal appears Thomistic - after all, Aquinas taught that all of us by virtue of being (being qua being) are essentially good, right?  If Westphal would have affirmed just that, he may have been on the right track.  However, it is evident that Westphal would fail to see what Aquinas really meant by that affirmation - Aquinas taught that man in his being was created good by God, but in nature man was corrupted by the Fall, which is orthodox theology.  Westphal avoids that altogether and basically just baptizes these guys as "God's prophets" and that is where he went horribly wrong.  A true prophetic voice is one that is yielded to God - Nietzsche and Marx rejected God, and therefore would have forfeited being willfully used by someone they hate.  When I made a point of this in a reading reflection in that particular class, the professor commented "Well, God used a jackass in Numbers 6, so why couldn't he use an atheist too?"  First, to answer that we rely on Aquinas - God could use a jackass because of the Law of Non-Contradiction;  God authored the "Book of Nature," and therefore Creation was subject to Him and could be used.  God used a talking jackass to actually perfect Nature.  In the case of people, we have a little thing called "free will" which - and, I will discuss the theological aspects of this elsewhere later - in which God allows us to make the choice; this is why we pray "Thy Will Be Done" in the Lord's Prayer, for heaven's sake!  Nature is not subject to the same responsibility or privelege of free will as humanity is, which is why God used the jackass in Numbers 6 instead of Balaam - think about it, guys!   That therefore is a moot argument by virtue of the evidence alone.  Summarily, Westphal's reasoning is based more on his own subjectivism rather than being grounded in the Fidei Depositum, and his reasoning is sloppy, faulty, and anemic.  This was not a discussion per se of Westphal, but he is an example of the postmodernist nonsense floating around out there, often in the name of "Christianity," and it presents a conflict in worldview for the true Christian as well.  More to say on something else next time.