Skip to main content

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality


There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another. 

Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24). Or something else. 

The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrection were less logically and historically credible than Jesus' actual, physical resurrection. But that didn't matter, because 

  1. The cultural acceptance of secularity prejudiced people against feeling the need to give the possibility of Jesus' resurrection a fair hearing, and 
  2. People don't naturally want to believe that Jesus really, physically rose from the dead and now uniquely possesses eternal life. Because if he did, then he is the final, ultimate human being who has the right to judge all other people - Acts 17:31. And we don't have the ability to discover or create eternal life ourselves, through religion or transhumanism or anything else - we have to receive it as a gift from him. 

The decline of this kind of secularity will probably replace this kind of dismissal of Jesus' resurrection with a reinterpretation of it. This Worldview Bulletin post (which is an extract from a new book) demonstrates 

  1. The Biblical basis of Jesus' physical resurrection; 
  2. The long-term, well-established, 'catholic' nature of that belief; 
  3. The relative novelty of belief that Jesus rose only in a 'spiritual,' immaterial, non-physical manner, and how such a belief lacks biblical credibility. 

I'd be glad to be wrong on this, but I have a bad feeling that the above, while true, won't be able to persuade many people. Because belief in the 'spiritual' will predispose people to prefer the 'spiritual,' non-material interpretation. It's more convenient than the reality that we rely on the risen, ever-living Christ for eternal life. 

So let's get ready for one set of prejudices to be replaced with others. And let's try to gently but clearly demonstrate the superiority of Christ, and pray the Holy Spirit open blind eyes and enable people to put their trust in him and enjoy eternal life with him. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...
Post a Comment
Read more