The Medieval period in Europe, for all its faults, was a system of low taxes, local self-government, and a period of economic expansion.

This is in contrast to the Roman Empire which it replaced. it is also in stark contrast to those non-European nations that had not embraced Christianity.

We, however, no longer live in the medieval world. Instead, we live at the end of a period that has seen the rise of the nation-state that has effectively replaced localized self-government.

This change to the medieval world could only take place when three steps were completed:

1. The kings/rulers got control of the courts.
2. The kings/rulers got control of taxes (and money)
3. People were willing to abandon loyalty to family and church in favor of the state.

These were the steps necessary to create the modern nation-state. These were the essential steps for people to lose their freedom, their independence, and become a part of the nation. According to Joseph Strayer, in his book, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State, this process started in the fourteenth century and, in principle, was in place within a century or two.

Thus, it is right to use the term sovereignty when discussing the position of the nations in which we live. They see themselves under no higher authority than themselves. They believe that they alone determine the limits of their jurisdiction, even though they might set up a framework of multiple houses of congress or parliament and a supreme law court to maintain some semblance of limitation on what they do.

If these are the steps that created the modern nation state which sees itself as a law unto itself, then it is easy to see what must be done to abolish the statism of the various nations of the world.

1. Take control of justice away from the nation-state.
2. Remove taxation and monetary control from the political order.
3. Reinstate loyalty to family and church over and above loyalty to the state.

There are some signs that this battle is the one that has been emerging for the past quarter century or more. The Christian school and home school movement is an attempt to limit the political order and reassert priority of the family and the church.

That leaves justice and finance. Still a long way to go.

Have a great week.

Click Here For Part 1.

There is a tendency by many to think of Christian culture in terms of things: movies, art, music, business, money, economy, property rights, and so forth.

In the past, however, when Christianity did influence the culture, it had an advantage. The key elements of Christianity were constantly a reminder to the people, not just through the implementation of music, art, literature, and law, but through a series of events that spread throughout the calendar year.

I’m referring to the Christian calendar. This created what Robert Webber calls “Christian-year spirituality”. According to Webber,

Through Christian-year spirituality we are enabled to experience the biblical mandate of conforming to Christ. The Christian year orders our formation with Christ incarnate in his ministry, death, burial, resurrection, and coming again through Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Holy Week, Easter and Pentecost. In Christian-year spirituality we are spiritually formed by recalling and entering into his great saving events (Ancient-Future Time, p. 22).

I know many of you personally on this e-zine list. I know your religious background, and the journey we share to understand our faith.

So when was the last time you had a Christian-year calendar that recalled the major events of God’s saving work through Christ, and participation in that and his future as King of kings, and Lord of lords?

Many of you were raised, like me, in traditions that had long forgotten the practices of the early and ancient church. As a consequence, we struggle to understand culture in general, and how the early church formed Christendom. They certainly didn’t do it with books like The Purpose-Driven Life. But they did do it with a liturgy, among other things, that we need to comprehend and practice.

Webber asks this question:

“How can the Christian year order our entire lives–our values, worldview, and personal relationships; our struggles with lying, cheating, lust, jealousy, anger, and such; our ambitions and drive for success, material wealth, power, and recognition; our complicity with the hunger, injustice, and pain of the world? (pp. 23-24).

Then provides the answer to his own question.

The Christian year represents the historical unfolding of the life of Christ and his sure return. One may observe that Advent deals with the coming of Christ; Christmas, his birth; Epiphany, his manifestation to the Gentiles; Lent, his journey toward death; the Great Triduum, the last days of Jesus’ earthly life; Easter, the time to celebrate his resurrection; and Pentecost, the time to experience life in the power of the Holy Spirit” (p. 31).

The Christianity community that gave us our Christian culture was one that was disciplined by the Christian year. For many people today, such a liturgy seems too stilted and informal; insufficiently spontaneous to provide evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit.

And therein lies our problem. We cannot fathom our past, and so we fail to influence the present and the future.

Our forefathers did not have this problem, which is why they succeeded where later generations have failed. Their liturgy brought past, present and future to the one place: in front of the heavenly throne, the seat of all power and authority, where all people bow to the King of king, King Jesus.

It appears that if we are really serious about establishing Christian culture we don’t need to wait for the conversion of the heathen. We simply need to to conform our lives to Christ and remind ourselves of him through the symbolic rituals that have allowed the historic church to influence the world in a way that we just dream about.

Meanwhile, we fail to see our neighbor converted, let alone the town or city, county, state and nation. What we are doing is failing to obtain the results we desire and think are possible. Now this is our weakness, unless we dare to blame God for our failure.

Maybe its time we changed some things. The Christian-year spirituality and worship of God in Christ seems like a good start.

God bless you.

I keep thinking of my time with Buddy and Sandy in Alabama earlier this year. Both attorneys at law, helping people in bankruptcy.

But Alabama is also famous for another lawman, Judge Roy Moore. Now there are not too many people who like getting fired from their job. But Judge Roy Moore of Alabama seems to have accepted his firing with some enthusiasm. And a challenge.

Now the challenge, he says, goes something like this. In his attempts to honor both his Christian convictions and the laws of the state of Alabama, he had placed in the State courthouse the Ten Commandments. Some say he did it sneakily under the cover of darkness, but Judge Moore says the timing was determined by the installers — who were running late. Anyway, that is not a real issue.

One of the real issues is the ability of federal judges to intervene in state affairs. According to some, the whole purpose of a Constitution is to limit the federal government. One only needs to read the wording of the U.S. Constitution and look at the Constitutional debates to see there is strong evidence for this approach to the Constitution and the powers of the federal government.

That the federal government has gone — and is going — beyond its Constitutional powers is the challenge Judge Moore has thrown the American people. How long, he asks, are people willing to accept what is occurring? The difference between a Constitutional government and totalitarianism is exactly the ability of the federal government to contain itself to keep within the provisions of the Constitution.

That such a government does not seem to exist anywhere in the world today is only evidence of a deep-seated problem exposed by Judge Moore. He saw the issue and battled it through to the first climax. He was unceremoniously dumped by his state colleagues from his position as senior state judge because he would not give away states’ rights to the federals.

This leaves only one court of appeal: the people. But the people, it seems are divided on the issue. They are not sure if the Ten Commandments should be the foundation of laws. They are not sure if the federal government should be limited by a Constitution. And until the people answer these questions in the affirmative, there is unlikely to be any change in what is occurring.

What is occurring is not a pretty sight to those of us who believe in Christianity as the founding moral system for all laws and the Constitution as a limit on the powers of the federal government.

In true democratic style the people have spoken, hence the lack of popular support for Judge Moore. But if these occurrences with his Honor indicate the state of the people of America, the people appear to prefer any laws other than God’s laws, and they don’t care too much about limiting the federal government.

Now this is a real pity, because it means the American people seem to prefer any religion so long as it is not Christianity and totalitarianism over limited, constitutional government.

In short, the American people have abandoned freedom under Almighty God for the iron-clad rule of the almighty state. Which is why we should all pray, “God help America.” It seems incapable of helping itself.

God bless you this week.

But what does that word “worldview” mean to you?

And what does it mean to your neighbor, especially if that neighbor is not a Christian?

More importantly, how do you even begin to put a worldview together?

What are the key principles? How do you even begin to assemble a worldview? What is the starting point of a worldview?

For more than two decades now, it is common to hear the phrase “Christian worldview”. This implies a worldview is governed by its religious foundations. Thus, a Christian worldview would be different from an Islamic worldview. Or is it?

This question needs to be asked: Is a worldview defined by its detail or by its starting points? Thus, a Christian worldview and an Islamic worldview could conceivably agree on many points, yet they are not the same thing. For example, both worldviews might think stealing is wrong. But does this make them ultimately the same — or very close to the same — thing?

In putting together a worldview, the most critical step is to define the starting point. Descartes understood this when he attempted the idea of a worldview, and came up with cogito ergo sum – I think, therefore I am. Now Descartes was grappling with answering the big question: How do I know God exists? Two corollary questions followed: How do I know I exist? And, How do I know other things exist?

Here is the jungle in which contemporary philosophy and theology finds itself ensnared. It is the epistemological attempt to see everything clearly when the horizon is studded with trees, short and tall, thick and thin, and undergrowth that obstructs or blurs the vision. Here and there are droplets of sunlight drifting through the dense undergrowth, but there is not enough light for those in the forest to be able to find their way out.

This was Descartes problem: trying to find a way out of the thick epistemological undergrowth. Instead, he got himself further into the thicket.

Thinking he had found the exit path, Descartes instead found another trail that led nowhere. Just because he was thinking was an insufficient reason for the conclusion: I think, therefore I must exist. How did he know that his thinking was even rational? Come to think of it, is there any such thing as rational? Are thoughts coherent, or are they just a sequence of unrelated . . . . I was going to say “thoughts” but I hope you see the problem. How do you know your thoughts are even thoughts?

So when you attempt a worldview, now you are faced with a similar problem. How do you know there is even a worldview to comprehend?

And if there are worldviews to comprehend, how will the worldview called “Christian” be different from one that might be labeled Islamic or Humanistic, Western or Eastern, Greek or Hebrew.

To have you read thus far in the e-zine I’ve assumed a worldview about myself and you. I’ve written on the assumption that my method of communication really communicates, even though it may not communicate perfectly. I’ve assumed that my thoughts are rational, and that you are sufficiently rational to understand them.

In order to communicate with another human being it’s necessary to assume — or presuppose — something about a worldview that incorporates Man and the way he thinks and acts. In so doing, you also assume that the mind receiving the communication thinks in similar categories. I’ve assumed that you might agree or disagree with these comments. I’m assuming you also have the ability to understand the communication and figure out if the ideas and images portrayed are true or false.

These are some of the key presuppositions that allow debate about a worldview to even begin. They are the prerequisite conditions that are accepted, even though they may not be thought about very much. My old piano teacher use to say, “There is no such thing as truth.” One day, I figured it out, and next time I heard the statement, I asked, “Is that true?” He smiled. He was willing to concede one contradiction to his generalization in order to make his point, but in so doing he admitted his view was a failure to explain anything meaningful.

That there are no truths is the mantra of the modern world. Similarly, there are no moral standards that all should adhere to. There are, it appears, only opinions. Opinions stated as if the person making the statement is like God on Mt. Sinai, insisting that his view of the world be carved in stone and accepted by all as divine revelation.

This is the worldview that the Bible — Old and New Testaments — challenges. In the beginning . . . . So there was beginning, was there? And who started this beginning?

The simple answer is God . . . and Man made in God’s image comes shortly thereafter.

There is no worldview, therefore, that does not begin with the Old Testament’s declaration found in the first three chapters of Genesis. Any other beginning leaves Man buried in the forest of dense trees, thick undergrowth, and pale streams of light casting shadows on imaginary exits. It leaves him buried deep within the Kantian jungle with its inability to establish a pathway or connection between the phenomenal world (objects of the senses), and the noumenal world (objects known to the imagination only, independent of the senses).

To the extent that any worldview adopts the Old Testament’s view of “the beginning” is the extent that worldview can begin to answer questions and make categories for discussion. It is the basis to be able to disagree with ideas that are not our own.

Thus in the very first instance, it is not a choice of worldviews. It is the acceptance that the Genesis account is the only framework for rational discussion so that there is a “rational” framework to disagree about worldviews.

Since only the biblical worldview allows the discussion to take place, it really is not proper to speak of alternative world views. There are none. Those that pretend to be worldviews are ideas borrowed from the Judaic/Christian scriptures without giving recognition to the origin.

It is in the clash of worldviews, then, that we see the real dilemma of contemporary Christian thought. It tries to play intellectual games predicated on its opponent’s view of the world. This is, that ideas are just a matter of intellectual debate. That mankind, unaided by divine revelation can determine the meaning about anything.

You and I, on the other hand, must insist that everything hinges on the presuppositions that make rational and meaningful discussion. Cogito ergo sum? Only if you are willing to put the Triune God of Scripture at the back of all things.

There can only be one debate in the construction of a worldview. How do you have a discussion without assuming the implied truths of the Biblical worldview?

Imagine, for a moment – if you can – the idea of evolution. How did language begin? Perhaps it was something like this. The first form of life with vocal chords made a gesture towards an object and grunted something. And his or her mate replied, “Uh?” So the first grunter responded to that by repeating his first grunt, and again received another “Uh?” Oops! Sorry, in order to grunt a reply, there must have been two forms of life with vocal chords. Guess they evolved in pairs. Or, maybe they didn’t evolve. (But that’s another story.)

Now the important question is this one: Was the responding mate’s “Uh” a question (“Uh?”) or a statement (“Uh!”). Maybe it was a “Aha!” And were the different categories even known? If so, how? The world of thought and ideas? But we think with words! So how could you even think if there were no words to allow you to identify your thoughts?

We can be a little Kantian ourselves here and have some fun with our non-believing friends. Was the first “Uh?/!” (or was it really “Duh!”?) referring to a phenomenal or noumenal object? Since words (language) are merely sounds, how was the very first word explained when someone else didn’t understand it?

Here’s the difficulty of evolutionary ideas: to explain the beginning of language and thought.

If you are going to build a worldview that is unassailable, then you must begin with the presuppositions that form the foundation of thought and communication. You cannot begin with so-called empirical evidence, because you are already making an assumption that everyone, even non-believers in the Bible, view and interpret evidence the same way.

Nothing could be further from the truth. So, when one Christian writer states, “Objective empirical evidence for Jesus Christ and his message is the only truly valid Christian apologetic possible, for it alone is subject to the canons of evidence employed in other fields of endeavor,” he is surely begging the question. Canons of evidence?

St. Paul had something to say about this in the beginning of his letter to the Romans. Everything, all the empirical evidence you can muster, points to the God of the Old Testament. (Paul didn’t have the New Testament, so he must have been referring to the God of the Law and the Prophets that Jesus talked about.)

There are, then, some people who “hold down” or “suppress” the truth about creation. In other words, they do not interpret the empirical evidence the same way that other people do.

A worldview, then, is defined by its presuppositions, not by its empirical evidence. And this is why, in the formation of a worldview — and in defense of the biblical worldview — the establishment of that worldview must begin and end here.

This does not mean there is not a place for empirical evidence. By all means, use empirical evidence to get the discussion going about how the evidence will be interpreted. What are the principles of thought that even allow a disagreement over interpretation of the empirical evidence to take place?

When that question is insisted upon, then you will find there are no worldviews other than the one that originates with the Old Testament, is carried over to the New Testament, and forms the basis for a worldview that has taken mankind from paganism, poverty, and short life span to a world where jet airplanes, HD television, ski mobiles, guns and butter, and cheaper life insurance premiums are a regular part of the economy.

There are no other worldviews. There are only people who rebel against the truths of the Bible and suppress what they know in their heart to be true. Man is created. There was a beginning. And man is in the image of God. This is the basis of a worldview — a worldview that allows meaningful communication to take place.

These are the presuppositions that allow human thought and action to occur Anything else is just pretend.

The biblical account of the Fall identifies man’s desire to be his own god, knowing (i.e. determining, making the categories of) good and evil as the essence of sin. In his rebellion, man would like to think he can determine a coherent worldview without the Triune God of Scripture.

It is our task to show him this is man’s ultimate “impossible dream.”

“Everything is just a matter of opinion. You have your opinion. I have my opinion. Truth is whatever you perceive it to be.”

So said a young lady in my home recently. A Christian young lady educated in the best public schools and the best state universities.

And she attends a church that cannot tell her how to tell the difference between truth and error, right and wrong, good and evil.

This young lady cannot think clearly. If she possessed any analytical capacity she would see that her comment does not make sense. You can tell when people don’t understand. They say things that don’t make sense and actually believe what they say.

The background to her comment was my own disagreement with something she had said. I said she was wrong. Her response was an attempt to tell me that her opinion was right for her, if no one else, and I should not say she was wrong.

Well, I asked, “Isn’t that what you are doing to me now? I tell you you’re wrong, that’s my opinion. Why can’t I express it. Under your own logic, I am certainly entitled to hold this view.”

Silence.

Me: “So if someone says it is OK for them to beat up young ladies in the park, rape and steal, is it OK for them to do that, since they believe it is right?”

More silence.

And silence is an indication of an incoherent worldview. This is why there is only one worldview. Only one worldview allows you to hold a conversation. Only one worldview allows you to believe that when you speak, you are not just speaking your own thoughts, but you are speaking thoughts that can be understood by other people.

Unfortunately, a similar idea flows throughout the Christian community in another form. “Your interpretation of the Bible is valid for you. My interpretation of the Bible is valid for me.”

Now as soon as you begin telling these folk that their ideas are wrong, you begin to see their dilemma. It’s a knowledge problem. How do you know that you know things? How do you know what is right or what is wrong? How do you know what is true and what is false?

These are easy questions — unless you were educated in humanistic schools and colleges. And here’s the answer.

You don’t know you know anything at all unless someone who does know everything tells you something. That piece of information alone can be counted on, for it comes from the mind of the person for whom there can be no surprises.

You see, some of the philosophies that exist are true — given their basic premises. The mind of man alone cannot figure out the truth of anything, for tomorrow he might learn something new that changes today’s opinions. Skepicism is one of the results of this view.

But as soon as you ask the question, “Is that statement true” and they answer you affirmatively, you know they don’t really believe it.

Under their belief system, they cannot say anything is true — or false. Their worldview doesn’t allow it. They have a worldview with no categories but one: there are no categories.

But these denials are willing to adopt the biblical worldview about knowledge in order to be able to make their statements this is wrong or that is right.

And that is why there are no worldviews but one. And that view is dependent upon the fact that God has spoken and communicated truth to His creatures, and that truth is knowable, not just as a matter of opinion, but as a universal truth for all people of all times.

You cannot begin to comprehend the Fall until you realize that sin is the attempt by man to determine right and wrong, good and evil, truth and error, unaided by divine revelation. That’s they key: divine revelation.

There is no God, screams the atheist, all the time attesting to the truths of Scripture that make his statement meaningful. There is no truth, screams the atheist, except the truths he will allow. And the existence of God is not one of them.

As St. Paul said, “professing to be wise, they become fools.”

A worldview, by definition, is the idea that all areas of life can be viewed from the mountain top of certain principles. In this series, I’ve concentrated on just one of those principles, But I have assumed — or presupposed — another two principles at all times. The reason they are presupposed? They are inescapable concepts; you can not do anything without including them in your assumptions.

Behind our theory of knowledge (epistemology – how do we know things, and how do we know that we know) is an underlying assumption about ourselves, other people, and the world that we comprehend around us.

This is our theory of being – metaphysics, it is often called. Now while we are using a word that appears to have originated with Aristotle, the concept itself is much older. It literally means “beyond physics” and its a useful concept if we think of metaphysics the study of things outside of science.

Science depends upon some assumptions that are not scientific. It assumes there is a physical world outside of ourselves that can be investigated and explored. It assumes that mankind is capable of discovering things, and identifying those things when they are are discovered. It also assumes that the investigators themselves can make distinctions between useful and not-so-useful information, and chose the “right” information to advance their investigations.

Now where do those assumptions come from? Get out your Bible and read the first three chapters of Genesis. Yes, you are capable of reading Genesis and understanding what it says. You may, if you are not careful, make some wrong judgments as you read. But you are capable of recognizing those wrong judgments and correcting yourself to make the correct judgments.

“In the beginning, God created. . . .” There it is. Everything except the Creator had a beginning. He really did make trees. They exist. They are not a figment of your imagination. And yes, your senses of sight, sound and smell can be trusted to give you reliable information. They cannot give you exhaustive information. But you get information that’s reliable enough for you to work with.

Man. . . made in the image of God. Not identical to God, but in His image. This is why there is such a thing as a worldview.

And when you get this part of the worldview concept straight, you will begin to understand why natives in Papua-New Guinea used to eat one another, kill one another, hate one another, yet they still liked to cover “that” part of the male anatomy with a penis gourd. Why?

The aboriginals in Australia never built a permanent home, never developed crop rotation. And in a land inhabited by millions of flies, they never invented the fly screen. Why not?

What allowed one part of mankind to go out and “take dominion” over the earth and move from two-field rotation to three-field rotation? This idea alone reduced the amount of plowing each year, while giving more land under crops and a wider variety of food.

Why did one part of mankind develop the crank – the ability to combine rotary with reciprocal motion at the same time — without which, we would not have our modern motor cars?

Get the idea? A worldview allowed the development of our civilization so that you’re reading this e-zine delivered electronically.

The idea of a uni-versity — as opposed to a multi-veristy — is an indication that a worldview provided the challenge of unifying knowledge. Things are not just abstractions (things in themselves) but actually exist in relationship to other things

So when you pick up a book — or receive an e-zine — you really can receive and give meaningful communication. And so it is with the Bible. You don’t have to become the ultimate skeptic or agnostic never finding truth because your worldview does not allow communication horizontally man to man, or vertically God to man. Rather, the biblical worldview provides a basis for real and meaningful communication person to person.

It is the metaphysics of our worldview that provides the epistemological answer. Without both of these mankind is sunk. Communication is impossible. It is the equivalent of locking every person on the planet in his or her own sealed room, with no doors, no windows, no communication with anyone outside the room.

Which is why there is no other worldview. Believe it.

Have I made it clear enough? There is only ONE worldview. That is the worldview based on the . . .

I was about to write “Bible” but I stopped myself. Here’s why.

This is the fifth (final?) article in this series “The Making of a Worldview.” And I’ve only quoted one verse of Scripture, and referred to one section of the Bible. Almost everything you need for a worldview is wrapped up in the first three chapters of Genesis. Now there are some important things that come later, but they are not the foundation.

So it is a worldview based on the Old Testament — the Hebrew Bible — that is the only worldview. It is the principles in the Old Testament that allow us to make comments about worldviews, even if we pretend that we have somehow decided our worldview without the Old Testament.

Thus the Old Testament is not true because you or I or someone else says it is. The Old Testament is true because without it we cannot even begin the process. Without it our minds and mouths are locked tight.

Without this worldview in place, you cannot even get to the New Testament and what it teaches. Therefore, the necessity in everything is to insist that the Old Testament is the first — the mountain peak — from which all things must be viewed. And that includes the New Testament.

“In the beginning, God created . . .” demands that we accept our limited nature. We are not “infinite, eternal and unchangeable”, to use the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. We are created. We are “finite, temporal, and changeable” — the latter, very much so.

The Catechism states that “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in his being wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth” (Q. 4). These last four words — holiness, justice, goodness, and truth — declare there is a framework of opposites: Unholiness, injustice, badness, and lies. In other words, there are categories. Without this juxtaposition, the words themselves lose meaning.

Herein lies the foundation of morality — right and wrong. If nothing else is obvious, it is the way in which everyone insists their ideas are right — and most other people are wrong. I’ve made reference to some of these ideas through this series. “There’s no such thing as truth.?” Oh, yeah? Is that true? Because if it is true, then the statement itself is a nonsense. A stupid attempt to prove that someone has figured out the governing principle of the universe — there is no truth. And in so doing, he establishes the very thing he is trying to deny.

Herein lies the dilemma of all worldviews that are not based on the Old Testament. They have no foundation for determining the categories of truth and error, right and wrong. If someone decides it’s OK to shoot people on a Sunday afternoon with an AK47, leaving 33 people dead, why shouldn’t he — and thousands like him — do this. After all, this is his idea of rightness.

It is obvious to those who want to see, then, that the ability to answer three founding questions is critical to the development of a worldview.

1. How can I know things? How do I know that there is some connection between my senses and the external world, so that what I see, smell, touch and hear, is a reality and not just a figment of my imagination?

2. The answer to this question forces you to also make some choices about who you are and your place in the universe — metaphysics. Your knowledge is real and possible because of who you are — made in God’s image. Yet you are not God.

3. The ability to make judgments and use categories such as right and wrong, true and false, is only possible because of the answers we give to the first two issues. Deny either one and we have no basis for making statements about anything.

Now this Old Testament worldview is the one that gets people mad. This is the one they really hate. Why? Because of what those first three chapters of Genesis tell us. They tell us that man’s desire is to be his own god, making up the categories of good and evil, truth and error, right and wrong, for himself.

When we get that message through our thick skulls, maybe we’ll be willing to listen to what follows. What follows is a list of rules and regulations handed down from above.

You see, neither you nor I is capable of determining the categories. Only Someone who knows everything can do that, because He has the exhaustive knowledge with which to do it. There are no surprises for Him. There is nothing new to learn that causes Him to change His mind.

So when He speaks and commands and says, “Do this,” it is a prudent man or woman who will listen.

The battle of the universe is the battle of who will make the rules. Who will make the choice between what is right and what is wrong. This is a battle that involves all of mankind, from Adam forward.

When you grasp these things, you begin to understand the “logic” of the Bible. The law (or Torah) follows the story of man’s creation and fall because it is God telling the piddling little human gods, “You guys have it wrong. THESE are the rules. Obey them!” The Psalms of the Old Testament are songs of delight about God and His laws. The Proverbs are practical applications of the principles. The prophets and the writings are men of God calling Israel back to obedience.

Get to the New Testament, and the “Pharisee of the Pharisees” — Saul, renamed Paul — can remind us how the one true system of belief based on God and God’s dealings with Israel, provides him with enough evidence so that he and his friends “are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God” (II Cor. 10:5). How is this being done? By bringing “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.”

The obedience of whom? Come on now, no cheating. Think about St. Paul’s answer here. He didn’t say the obedience to some new addition to the Hebrew Bible called the New Testament. That didn’t exist when St. Paul wrote his words to the Corinthians.

He didn’t say obedience to Jesus of Nazareth. St. Paul deliberately selected the name that links Jesus of Nazareth with the Old Testament Messiah. This is the same person who said “I did not come to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill.”

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never met so many people who have trouble with communications and understanding words. Christ did not come to abolish . . . but we are told we no longer have to keep the law of God. This is nuts. It’s the most ludicrous explanation of what is plain. “I did not come to abolish, to do away with.” What other words could be used to make this meaning clearer? None.

It’s not the words that are the problem, however. It’s our psychology. Mankind is so hell-bent on being his own god — that is making up his own rules — he will stop at nothing to eliminate any competition to that claim — even from Christ Himself.

Unless you understand Jesus’s commitment to the whole of the Old Testament, and Paul’s continuation of Judaism along with his acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah, you will never understand how Paul can construct his argument.

It quite simple. I mean that. It really is simple. You cannot destroy the stupidity of this world unless you hang on the the Old Testament. It’s the foundation, the cornerstone of our ability to follow Paul and do likewise to the vain philosophies of this world. Instead of hanging on to the OT, however, we prefer to “hold down” or “suppress” the truth and knowledge about God (see Romans chapter 1).

Epistemology — Metaphysics — and ethics. The moment you abandon the Old Testament — the Hebrew Bible — as providing the answer to these questions, you’ve cut yourself loose from the Scriptures as providing a worldview.

And without a worldview, you cannot destroy the silly ideas that are passed around as “competing” worldviews.

When we get that in our heads and turn back to the Old Testament as the real Bible, and hold an older view that the New Testament is commentary — albeit an inspired commentary — on the Old, then we might do like Paul — the Pharisee of the Pharisees — and destroy every “speculation[s] and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God bringing “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.”

The obedience of Whom? That’s Christ, the Messiah. The Second Person of the Trinity. The One who caused these words to be written . . . “In the beginning, God created. . . .” This is the same Person who “was behind” the Torah, the Psalms, and the prophets. The same Person who said, “I did not come to abolish the law. . .” You get the idea.

I guess now you need to figure out what you’re going to do with this?

Limitations. This is how you can tell a fake worldview.

A worldview has answers to questions. Not vague answers, but very specific answers. Those answers are intimately tied into and connected to the questions and answers that establish the worldview. By that, I mean that the answers flow straight out of your idea about who you are, how you know things, and the moral standards you inherently aspire to. And the answers to these things are directly related to your idea about God. Not just god in general, but specifically the Triune God of the Bible.

Consider this question: How much of its citizens’ money is the government morally entitled to? There are possible answers:

a. As much as it likes
b. No more than 50% (or it might be even no more than 10%)
c. Nothing

Whatever the answer, you need to ask these questions:

1. What is the standard?
2. How do you know what the standard is?
3. Has that standard been communicated to you in some form?

You can read the Old Testament many times over and get some of the answers that are provided today as part of the biblical worldview. Why do I insist the Old Testament is the measuring rod? Because it was there first. And whatever was there first defines what comes thereafter.

Contemporary Christianity has reversed things because of it’s belief about the New Testament. Somewhere along the way, the Old Testament was dropped as the standard and the New Testament took its place.

The result? No worldview. Take again the example of taxation. You can read the Old Testament, especially the Torah, and you find there is no scope for civil taxation as we know it. Certainly no grounds for personal income tax. (This, by the way, explains why in the Western world, personal taxes almost disappeared after the collapse of the Roman high taxes.)

Here’s another question: Should the government operate radio stations? What standard says they should? How will they pay for it? Voluntary advertising or compulsory taxation?

What, by the way, is the real role of the government? Is it the government’s role to make law, or simply to administer someone else’s law.

What’s the standard?

Now there’s a question, the answer of which eludes many people. So instead of specific answers we get vague notions of morality about how if the government did not act, we we would be a menace to one another.

Now you cannot read the Old Testament, particularly the first five books containing the Law of God, without coming away with at least one impression. There is no national government. There are national rules of right living, but no national government to enforce the rules. Apparently God is quite capable of enforcing His rules without aid from the government. (Someone should tell them!)

With Christianity’s progressive abandonment of the Old Testament, there are no more comprehensive biblical answers to the questions. But there has been a rise of national governments attempting to enforce the rules of right living.

Until there is a united testimony from both Old and New Testaments, the cultural questions will remain unanswered because those who claim to have the answers are divided. And we all know the prophecy that a divided city cannot stand.

Neither can a divided religious group.

Now I am going to bring this series to a close. But I have one more e-zine to go. Part 7: The distinguishing mark of the Christian World View in the modern era.

God bless you this week.