catapult magazine

What do Christians do about non-Christian thought?

“So there seems to be no “neat” and theologically-convincing way to mark a boundary between subject matter in which non-Christian thought is really dangerous (because of its origin in antitheistic presuppositions) and areas in which non-Christian thought is more benign (because common grace holds sway). We have no formula for anticipating at the outset how a particular scholar’s rebellion against God’s truth will manifest itself in his scholarship, or how it may be restrained from error by God’s common grace. In this complex situation, knee-jerk rejection of ideas, perspectives, arguments, or evidence simply because their source is non-Christian is not a mark of Reformed and Van Tillian presuppositional vigilance. It may rather be a symptom of intellectual laziness or insecure defensiveness, seeking an easy escape from the arduous and sometimes puzzling task of exercising biblical discernment."

—Dennis Johnson, Professor of Practical Theology

ps. Johnson also offers guidelines for dealing with non-Christian thought:

1. Cultivate a Christian mind by reading Scripture. 2. Seriously engage all relevant disciplines and responsible thinkers. 3. Engage disciplines without compromise. 4. Worship gratefully, for truth from non-Christians by virtue of God’s common grace and for salvation by God’s special grace.

Quote from the first message
" In this complex situation, knee-jerk rejection of ideas, perspectives, arguments, or evidence simply because their source is non-Christian is not a mark of Reformed and Van Tillian presuppositional vigilance. It may rather be a symptom of intellectual laziness or insecure defensiveness, seeking an easy escape from the arduous and sometimes puzzling task of exercising biblical discernment."

A good way of saying “Don’t hide in the bushes when a non-Christian, even in our society, a blatant pagan, comes out with a good idea.”

I am not of reformed background (i.en non dutch also). So those particular things some of you react to (or against) I might not know of.
But as a protestant, I have seen & heard the following (not in any order of importance or outrageousness):They are not exact quotes but represent the essense of this fine group of thinkers:

*"We’re going to encourage our son to get to the highest military office he can so he can bomb the tar out of the bad guys (i.e. nuclear bombs) and nuke us into Armagedden & the return of Christ."

’Women should be content with their jobs & not complain. (A picture of a woman with a typewriter accompanied this t ext.)"

“If I want pizza, I just tell my wife & kids that that’s what I want. No discussion, no nothing comes from them. I am head of this house.”

“My philosophy teacher told me there were alligators on the roof. So all philosophy is bad.” ( tried in vain to point out my fine philosophy teacher, but to no avail.)
8888888
I have more samples, but this above is representative of those who do not want to question the status quo. Or, they have warped ideas of how Christians should work to improve our culture.

Regarding the last point from the first post…about engaging truth from non-Christians.

When, in my life, I have been forced to venture from my general protestant Christian ghetto, I find very quickly the errors in my logic are pointed out.

Sometimes (I hope) those questioning me may get a few correct insights (I hope) into what Christianity actually is as compared to what they think it is.

Nowadays, there is more open hostility to Chr. In the past, it was the bored look. (I remember my husband’s cousin, after a course in “anti0Christianity” from his formerly Christian based university….sneering at Christianity where he once had just polite interest.)

And yes, someone on the internet (a site with mainly or all non Christians) someone actually accused Christians of cannibalisn. (Misunderstanding the Lord’s supper.)

I heard a quote about ancient Christians who greedily said “All truth is ours.”

If the proverbs which sais “As iron sharpens iron so one man (woman in my case) sharpens another” is indeed true,……………………..
perhaps talking with those outside our religious, sometimes even sub cultural, ethnic circles means we may take some garbage, but we also can be sharpened by encounter with some truth that our little group of friends/associates has missed.

All t ruth is God’s. Not all truth claims, but all things that are actually true. We are the ones sometimes skewed.
And no, I do not believe truth is whatever I form it to be. for instance, that there are many ways to God. God has come to us,and we choose to follow Him…or not.

Much of what fuels the notion that “all truth is ours” comes from the writings of John, I think. John, like the other gospel writers, wants to show just how powerful God’s Kingdom is over all other Kingdoms. Rather than let Roman law, Greek philosophy, or secular science define truth, Christians look to God, the creator of what “is”, for truth. There’s a great section in 1 John 3:11-20 that explains how God defines truth for us. How do we know that Cain was a murderer? God said so. How do we know what love is? We’ve seen it demonstrated in Christ. How do we know anything? Only through God who “is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything”.

I have been severely challenged by John’s letter, in particular. In order to display the lordship of Christ, John clearly delineates Christianity from non-Christianity. Christ from the anti-Christ. As John puts it, the antithesis between Christ and anti-Christ is as clear and distinct as the difference between darkness and light. This has been hard for me to conform my thinking to because I live in a culture that prefers the grey areas.

valee, could you explain what you mean by this:

“All truth is God’s. Not all truth claims, but all things are that actually true.”

What do you mean by “not all truth claims”?

Anton has asked a question about my last post:

“valee, could you explain what you mean by this:

“All truth is God’s. Not all truth claims, but all things are that actually true.”

What do you mean by “not all truth claims”?

What I mean is that there are a lot of claims out there that are false.

I may claim I can fly (without a plane or other mechanical aid) bit that truth claim is false.

The current culture has mutated the meaning of “tolerance” from:
Allowing others the courtesy of having their own views without persecution, harassment.
to:
One must accept all points of view (notably in the field of religion and ethics) as equally valid.

Allowing all views of religion/ethics as valid/true to someone—-somewhere is a tacit way of saying that no views of religion…ethics really matter.

We do not operate on the “all truth claims are valid” principle in most other areas of life:
Not all houses are equally good to buy
Not all men or women are equally goodto marry
Not all financial investments are equally valid to invest in
Not all persons are equally worthy to be considered friends
Not all babysitters are good for my kids
Not all cars can perform equally well.
etc. etc.

We discriminate. We value one selection over all the rest in some cases. (In marriage, notably, tho I hear rumors some would love polygamy to come back.)

And so it should AGAIN be in t he realm of faith & ideas. All faith & value ideas should be examined & tested, for some are true, & some are not. (The 20th Century, as everyone is tired of hearing me say, has ABUNDANT examples of persons choosing bad ideas…and the evil consequences that follow. Sop does my own personal and my own family history. So does yours.)

thought this was an interesting quote from fish, who is highly post-modern, believes that for one to participate in academia one must hold previous assumptions loosely, and that is there is no place for absolutes. from what i have seen and experienced in academia (that is not explicitedly xn) this seems to be a common opinion, not necessarily overtly expressed but implied in what is expected of one’s work and arguments (arts, social sciences, and science inclusive).

in light of anton’s original post on how xn’s fail to engage non-xn ideas, arguments, etc. and this quote from fish, how can an academic or non-academic that is a xn even begin to respond to and engage in an intellectual environment that is hostile to any belief in absolutes or certainties?

This post is only in response to the last post, as I haven’t had a chance to catch up on all of this discussion yet. This quote from Terry Eagleton may be helpful in responding to the attitude of Mr. Fish and others like him. Fish is right in that many Christians behave as though they agree with him, which is deeply unfortunate. Eagleton is writing from a Marxist perspective, but I think you’ll agree that the quote applies equally well to a Christian’s perspective on literary theory, showing that even those dang non-Christians can come up with a useful idea from time to time:

“…Iser’s liberal humanism, like most such doctrines, is less liberal than it looks at first sight. He writes that a reader with strong ideological commitments is likely to be an inadequate one, since he or she is less likely to be open to the transformative power of literary works. What this implies is that in order to undergo transformation at the hands of the text, we must only hold our beliefs fairly provisionally in the first place. The only good reader would already have to be a liberal: the act of reading produces a kind of human subject which it also presupposes. This is also paradoxical in another way; for if we only hold our convictions rather lightly in the first place, having them interrogated and subverted by the text is not really very significant. Nothing much, in other words, will have actually happened.”