First of all, if you want to see what an excellent blog looks like, check out Walloworld. This blog won a recent "King of the Blogs" tournament. I was thinking about entering the tournament till I saw this blog. Its what I want my blog to be when it grows up. I still may enter the tournament - you get more hits on your blog and they give you feedback, which is useful for learning purposes. Humiliation has always been an effective pedagogical device for me.
Secondly, while there, read his April 1 post called "Hitchin' a Ride on the Passion Express." It begins with an excerpt on "post-Passion Hollywood" from the American Spectator, which talks about Hollywood's God Squad. There are numerous stars who have some type of faith who have been a bit underground for all these years, but now the Passion is making it possible for these folks to bring their faiths to the forefront.
Bill at Walloworld sees this as a positive thing. He mentions that we Christians have more in common with Pagans than we do with devoted secularists. We start with some common assumptions which makes dialogue more possible (is "more possible" terrible grammar or what? Help me out here, English teachers and grammarians!).
I think he has some excellent points, but there are some finer points that I think need to be developed further.
Bill points out that our greatest struggle is with unbelief (which I believe he would define as "devoted secularism" per C. S. Lewis), so at least in dealing with a devoted pagan we are further down the road.
This would dovetail nicely with the Engel's scale (Wow! Look what I just found - here's an internet link to the full-length book What's Gone Wrong with the Harvest, that gave us the Engel's scale). The Engel's scale shows stages in the decision making process as an unbeliever begins to consider and embrace Christ. It begins at -8 with those who have some awareness of a divine being, and then moves to -7 (some knowledge of the gospel) and so on and so forth until one repents and places their faith in Christ. Engel's point is that conversion is a process, not so much an event. In light of that, the observation that C. S. Lewis made about Christians commonalities with pagans would fit. The pagan has some awareness or knowledge of a divine being, whereas the devoted secularist would have none. I suppose the devoted secularist would be a -9 or -10 on the Engel's scale - he's off the charts. Of course, if we consider this in light of Romans 1 we would have to argue that the devoted secularist has knowledge of The Divine Being, but he has suppressed it. Still, in Engel's terminology, the pagan would be closer to Christianity than the devoted secularist.
As I mentioned in a prior post I am now reading Peter Jones book Pagans in the Pews. Jones presents a case which makes me wonder about Lewis's quote and about the validity of the Engel's scale in this regard. He posits that, whereas American's were formerly friendly to a Christian worldview, now they are more hostile than ever. However, the hostility has not arisen within the context of ever-increasing secularization, it has risen in the context of the growth of paganism.
As I mentioned in my prior post, only about 4% of boomers consider themselves atheists or agnostics, whereas 96% would claim some type of faith. He says the 60's marked the beginning of the pagan takeover of America which came to fruition in the 90's. During that time, it is not that Americans abandoned religion, they switched religions. He uses the term "pagan monism" to describe what is happening - monism meaning "one." The pagan worldview sees all as one, therefore we need to quit separating and making distinctions between good and evil, male and female, homosexual and heterosexual, right and wrong, God and Satan, etc.. Because Christianity is an exclusive religion, it is public enemy number one. It emphasizes ethical distinctions which are taboo in a pagan worldview. It emphasizes epistemological (how we come to know things) distinctions in saying that all true knowledge of the Divine (God) comes via revelation (Scripture). At its heart, Christianity is founded on a theological distinction - there is one God (eternally existent in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and all other gods are "no-gods." Finally, there is no other name given under heaven by which we might be saved than that of Jesus (Acts 4:12). This kind of Christianity is anathema to a pagan worldview. It must be redefined to accomodate a "pagan-monist" worldview, or it must simply be eradicated.
So, I am in a bit of a quandry. Although I don't know where the reference to Lewis came from I have heard similar things about him from time to time. I have heard comments attributed to Lewis that pagans are more in touch with reality than secularists, because at least they embrace a supernatural worldview. I agree with that completely. In such a case, we have common ground and that is always the first step in communicating the gospel.
On the other hand, given the increasing hostility toward Christianity as the pagan worldview spreads, I wonder what good such common ground does us. I agree with Bill at Walloworld that the divide between naturalists and supernaturalists is of greater concern than the alleged divide between science and religion. But the ultimate divide is between Chrstianity and non-Christianity (anti-Christianity?) I think this leads us back to the great historical antithesis - the most fundamental divide is between Christ and the world. The world is all that is hostile to Christ. What "devoted secularism" and paganism have in common is their hostility toward Christianity. Therefore though "devoted secularism" and paganism may be divided on one level, they are united at the most fundamental level, in their hostility toward Christ and Christianity.
That's my take for now - any feedback or criticisms would be appreciated.
Recent Comments