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
TGC Australia recently published an analysis by Dr Sarah Quicke of whether we are experiencing a 'quiet revival' of interest in and/or conversion to Christianity  here in Australia. It does it a good job of describing the difficulties involved in both gathering and interpreting data about religious beliefs and behaviours, e.g. the difference between the 44% who (still) call themselves Christian and the 8% of people aged 18-35 who actually "believed and lived out the gospel."  Quicke refers to the very insightful McCrindle report An Undercurrent Of Faith , released in March 2025, which uses an analytical method called cohort analysis to try and work out how a particular group of people tend to behave over time. The purpose of this post is to draw attention to one element of that report which agrees with Quicke's analysis but also adds some detail to it.  Here is what the cohort analysis showed about different age groups' identification with Christianity:  As y...
Post a Comment
Read more