Trying to Justify Good Ideas Using Secular Methods
I see this disease all too often. It is everywhere and if Christians are not careful it can easily infest their thinking. Once thoroughly infested, our decisions become guided by godless maxims, worldly proverbs and secular methodology instead of Christ and God's Word.
Most people would agree that basic civility is morally good. But how can a secular institution or a pluralistic association affirm these "good ideas" without reference to a divine standard? Several paths have been proposed, but perhaps the following example is representative of the most popular method in vogue.
A recent TV show aimed at toddlers illustrates well how secular technicians have worked hard to define what is good and moral without reference to God. By repeatedly raising from different angles the question "Who can say this (e.g. skin color, nose shape, etc.) is any better than that one," this particular television show sought to teach my son a method of reasoning whereby he should "accept people who look different than him and who might do things differently." For Christians, who because of our moral training agree that we should not be racists or act in prejudiced ways, such presentations are especially dangerous because it is easy for us to agree with the conclusion and therefore unwittingly also accept the methodological path used to arrive at the conclusion.
Should a Christian embrace all people regardless of their skin color, the shape of their nose, the style of the clothes they wear? Of course, but not for the reason which that toddler's show proposed! In contrast to that show's implied worldview which is devoid of any higher authority and where nobody's opinion is any better off than any other person's beliefs, a Christian recognizes that the authority of God teaches him or her such tenants as:
These are some of the reasons which should guide a Christian's behavior toward people who look different and act different. Truly Christian thinking is not based upon the secular belief that "neither you nor I can claim a superiority of opinion and therefore all opinions must be equally valid, true and valuable" which then is supposed to lead you to conclude that you should accept others who are different.
How can you teach someone that they ought to live a certain way when divine authority is taken out of the picture? This is a genuine problem for the secularist. He must try to build a case for what is good and right without any real objective bricks. (Although certain attitudes and behavior might be valuable in building a cohesive society, if there is no canon of truth, who can even say that our goal should be to build a workable society?)
Just as the secularist must reject Christian reasoning because he knows it changes how a person thinks, so too Christians ought to reject secular reasoning for the very same reason. Our method of living by God's authority is not compatible with a secular humanistic methodology.
Where do we encounter secular reasoning?
We will encounter secular reasoning in any pluralistic environment where there is a need for a particular behavioral code to be enforced, but where appeal to a standard higher than social consensus will be frowned upon the status quo. One common postmodern conclusion of such secular reasoning is "it really doesn't matter what you personally believe in as long as it does not hurt anybody else. Whatever you believe is true for you, but just don't push it upon anyone else."
In fact, if the stated goal of the leadership is to remain absolutely neutral in the face of pluralism, the official religion and policy of that leadership must worship the mantra, "nobody's opinion is better than any other person's." This actually creates the untenable position that the leadership's policies will support neither "this perspective" nor "that one," and yet it must determine a standard of what is good, right and acceptable for the group. In such a situation where values will be determined by a standard other than God, utilitarianism (or pragmatism) informed by empirical evidence tends to reign supreme. In order to weld together as equally viable a pluralistic society composed of fundamental contradictions, such a leadership must abandon worshiping God in order to devote itself to Itself.
Final Thoughts
Once someone accepts a secular methodology (such as the attempt to level everything to the same level with the question "who can say this is better?") as being a legitimate means to make decisions and discover what is true, then Pandora's box has been opened justifying all sorts of evil behavior. What do you think of the previous sentence? Go back and reread it. What am I arguing against and upon what am I basing this reasoning?
I believe the first sentence in the previous paragraph is a true sentence, but did you catch this reasoning? What is the reason why Christians should reject secular methods of thinking and reasoning? Is the bottom line for rejecting such reasoning because pragmatically they can at times be used to support ideas which we do not hold? Or is it because that when I recognize God's authority as holding ultimate sway over my life that all other forms of reasoning will necessarily become displaced by His standard? Think about it.
Barry Newton, Revised version Copyright © 1999
Other similar articles which may be of interest: