The Triumph of Thomas Paine?
Wednesday, November 1, 2006 at 08:41AM 
A recent Harris poll confirms what many of us suspect. America is not only secularizing, but Evangelical Christians are more and more apt to think and act like deists--echoing the view of Thomas Paine that morality is far more important than theology.
Some of the Harris poll numbers are not surprising (see read the raw numbers for yourself, Click here: While Most U.S. Adults Believe in God, Only 58 Percent are 'Absolutely Certain': Financial News - Yahoo! Finance)
For example, only 58% of those polled are absolutely certain of God's existence. That's down from 66% in 2003. This doesn't really surprise me, especially during a time of war and after the events of 911. In a world of continual violence and uncertainty, people become increasingly sceptical about God.
More revealing of the state of Christianity in America are the following numbers: "Do Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God?" "About half (51%) of all adults, including a majority of Catholics (63%), believe that Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God. One-third (32%) believes they do not and 16 percent are not sure. On this question, as on the others, the views of Born Again Christians are different - a 54 percent majority believes they do not worship the same God and only 34 percent believe they do."
While a slim majority of evangelicals understand that the Triune God of Christianity is not Allah of Islam, more than one third of Christians polled do not understand this fundamental point of Christian theology.
And then when asked "How much control does God have over events on earth?" The result was that "less than one-third of all adults (29%) believe that God `controls what happens on Earth' (this includes 57% of Born Again Christians). A plurality (44%) believes that God `observes but does not control what happens on Earth.'" While a slight majority of Christians believe that God controls what happens, a deistic world-view is commonplace among Christians.
So, what can we say?
1). America is a nation of doubting deists who practice a moralistic religion which often times bears little, if any, resemblance to biblical Christianity.
2). Many Christians echo the views of a secularizing culture. The numbers show that many Christians are functional deists in terms of their views of God's relationship to the world. I guess people aren't really buying Rick Warren's "God has a purpose for your life" argument--but then, maybe they are. After all, according to Warren, God's purpose for your life is that you control your own destiny through the choices you make--and how is that different from a practical deism?
3). The default setting of many Christians and non-Christians alike is that everybody worships the same God. The differences among the religions stem from prejudice, or personal experience, or preference. This is no longer seen as a matter of competing truth claims. Many people see no possibility of one religion being true and the others false. It is all a matter of subjective and personal factors.
4). Given the depth of moralistic deism in the culture, it is no wonder that Reformed theology is hated in so many quarters (even in the churches).
5). Reformed Christians should see this as a moment of great opportunity. Our Christ-centered covenant theology (the mediator of the covenant is the Word made flesh) is a powerful antidote to moralistic deism. Therefore, let us be fully prepared to give to everyone who asks, a reason for the hope that is within (1 Peter 3:15).
Any thoughts?
Reader Comments (25)
no, i most surely do not. however, it is my experience that when folks assume that ours is somehow a cultural task, as you seem to, that it always becomes their own set of particulars that show up on the radar screen. why? because we all have our own set of "just what is wrong with the world." happens every time. thus, if you are allowing for the grid that ours is a task to transform the world some how, you simply cannot criticize folks like falwell, no matter how mean they *appear* to be. so i ask you that question again: what's wrong with the televangelists exactly?
"The church not affecting their culture thru example and witness and challenge is surely iniquity."
no, it's not. not keeping her covenant with God is. God is concerned for His people, not pagans. but don't mistake me: this is not to say that God doesn't care about pagans in some sort of cold-hearted sense. in the scene at sinai we a covenant being made between who? God and His people. not God and the whole earth. they are to remain faithful to God, not the egyptians or any other surrounding pagan culture.
pick up van drunen's 'a biblical case for natural law.'
"We accept, and now I know I'm speaking your language, the definition of iniquity set forth in Scripture (Sola Scriptura)."
i am not sure what you mean by 'my language,' unless perhaps you mean 'sola scriptura'?
"We most certainly do have a responsiblity to influence our environment for God, or perhaps more accurately, by obeying God.'
no and yes. you are partly correct. let me edit your words to reflect my point: "We most certainly do have a responsiblity to...obey God."
now, in your christian conscience, if this means you as an individual want to help chase away the evils of darfur, knock yourself out and more power to you. but don't make that the onous of the Church or of me. plug in any cultural cause you want to in place of darfur and the answer is the same. the onous on the Church is to preach the gospel, administer the sacraments and pursue her discipline. (yes, we evangelize and do mission work, but we also nutrure our children. in fact, when it comes to the perpetuation of faith i think our confessional tradition emphasizes the latter over the former, but that's another discussion).
"If America is ill-lit and unsavory who's fault is it? The light's and the salt's."
predictably, i disagree again. it is theirs. paul makes it clear in romans that no one escapes natural law. the burden is on all men. i might say "ours" since we have a dual citizenship. yes, i think that might be a good way to go here, because otherwise you risk self-righteousness by setting up a "us-them" grid: it's all those pesky sinners out there who made this mess. no, it isn't. it's all of ours. we christians just happens to being donning the life jacket of Christ. again, sibert, it always sounds nice and pious to lay the guilt on we christians as if we bear more guilt than others. but that presumes that we are the fixers of the world and we are not. we are salt an dlight inasmuch as we hold out the beckon of the Gospel, not because there is something resident within us that has the secrets to this-worldly wellness or (super) natural ability to solve the world's problems. the burden is on us all naturally. we hold forth the Gospel of life and hope as the Church, not solutions.
zrim
Our covenant, in part, is to be light an salt. To not hide our light under a bushel. God's covenant with Israel did indeed effect the whole earth and it was supposed to. The OT covenant, among other things, displayed God's character to the nations!
Further, there is indeed something, or SomeOne, resident within us that does have the ability to solve all the world's problems!
We are not fixers of the world. We are not even capable of fixing ourselves! What I contend, and you are of course free to disagree, is that Christ is not just some life-jacket that keeps us out of what is a bad situation that will eventually hit the dirt. He commands us to give a drink of water, He commands us to practice true religeon by ministering to the widows and orphans, He hungered to spend time with the worst elements of the culture of His day. If we do this the culture will change. We do not do this to change the culture, but because we want to obey.
I do not disagree with you in regards to Paul's explaination of natural law. Every man's own standard convicts him as damned. But you cannot roll that over to mean that we do not have solutions to life's problems today for people. What is a cup of water? What is a loaf of bread, or even enough bread to feed 5000?
Back to the main point; we are indeed responsible if our culture is ill-lit and unsavoury.
so is our only engagement via evangelism? see, i find this perspective too informed by a gnostic dualism really. so it always seems to have a double problem: it assumes we are supposed to "transform the world" and that that trnasformation comes by way of conversions, as if the world's ills will be solved by having more christians populate the earth. and what is the presumption of the latter? that christians somehow know better than non- how to fix things?
evidently so...as you say, "there is indeed something, or SomeOne, resident within us that does have the ability to solve all the world's problems!"
huh? maybe i am just awfully unspiritual, sibert, but i have been christian for about 15 years now and i don't know how to solve anyone's problems better than anyone else. and to serve up the Gospel as if it solves any and every problem is a gross misrepresentation. it solves our other-worldly problems, but not this-worldly ones. i tried swallowing that sort of doctrine for years. it was like trying to keep a balloon under water.
"I also mean that we stand against evil when we see or hear it. This includes Darfur..."
ok, so where does it stop? this world's problems are absolutely endless. darfur is but one speck of this world's problems. when does the church stop and say, "sorry, but the inn is full, we simply can't solve another problem." becayse you know that a line has to be drawn...so why would all those problems over there get our attention and not these over here?
"What I contend, and you are of course free to disagree, is that Christ is not just some life-jacket that keeps us out of what is a bad situation that will eventually hit the dirt."
yes, i disagree completely. yours appears to be quite a low view of Christ's intent. the ship is sinking. now, at this point i do zig where the "too spiritual for any earthly good" pietist zags. this world does matter and i don't embrace a googly-eyed gnosticism that is swept up in purely spiritual endeavors. but i think it's a matter of where hope is placed: in this world or the next? i say the next.
"He hungered to spend time with the worst elements of the culture of His day."
largely a symbolic getsure. the natural poor are pointers to the spiritually poor, which is all of us. you must look beyond the immediate poverties and not catch up His mission to be tied to this world. if it were, He would have roamed the earth fixing a sinking ship, making everyone who was blind see, deaf hear, fixing governments, etc. His was a symbolic gesture that while not having NO sympathy for the immediate problems He encountered also saw them as pointing to greater realities. His was, as ours should be, a nuanced mission that puts primacy on our other-worldly problems.
"But you cannot roll that over to mean that we do not have solutions to life's problems today for people."
i can and i do. again, i have never found christians to know anything more or better when it comes to this world's problems, no matter how hard they try to look like ambassadors for all things ideal. that we do is a form of narcissim. we do not have the answers to any worldly problems. we don't have better marriages or kids or finances or any more moral or political acuity than anyone else. and christians who like to think they do are fooling themselves royally.
"Back to the main point; we are indeed responsible if our culture is ill-lit and unsavoury."
and i know i sound like a broken record, but no we are not--"they" are. the light we hold out is the Gospel, not solutions. if we don't know what the difference is we have compromised that very Gospel. indeed, we hide the light under a bushel when we align it with this world's own mission to save itself. it is no longer the pure Gospel but another solution designed for self-justification and takes its seat amid the throng of other voices setting themselves up against the Gospel.
zrim