So, last night I was watching The Santa Clause and, I guess it was because I hadn't seen the movie since I was 12 or 13, I started paying attention to worldview issues that I had not caught onto before. You know the movie line, right? Tim Allen is a toy company rep, a divorced father of one, and kind of a jerk. Well, Santa falls off of his roof, so Allen (Scott Calvin...get it? SC) ends up putting on the Santa suit and becomes Santa. Well, this line of the story does not present any real worldview problems, as it portrays mystical belief in things unseen in good light. This draws good parallels to Christianity, in spite of its perversion of Christmas. The issue lies in the step-father, Neil, a psychiatrist.
I guess I should be honest and say that I was in a way looking for stereotypical portrayals of those overly committed to "rational" psychology. But, I also must be honest in stating that I have a slight bent against pop psychology. That will be saved for another blog. Anyway, Neil looks for the empirical evidence and makes the argument against Santa Claus based on the fact that he has never seen reindeer fly. He also raises the question about how Santa can travel the whole world in one night, denying the existence of supernatural activity. Now, I could care less about Santa Claus and who believes in him and who doesn't. But the parallels to the Christian faith run rampant in this movie. The first and most obvious is the notion that such faith in the existence of Santa is childish delusion, which we find in the modern university and in much of the extra-biblical "Christian" doctrine purported by theological liberals within the church. Belief in an all knowing and all powerful God and a sinless savior is childish fable that rational adults must grow up and reject. So they say.
Well, something much greater than Santa is at stake here. Following this worldview based solely on empiricism, comes the natural "logical" attacks on Christian faith. Namely, the incarnation of Christ and the virgin birth. If scientific evidence proves that there is no way for a virgin to become pregnant, then the rationalist/empiricist will conclude that the Bible is errant in the birth narrative of Christ, and therefore a sinless savior cannot be born to sinful man and the crucifixion was in vain and the resurrection impossible. Do you see how important it is that we start with the incarnation of Christ and get it right for our theological systems to work? The notion that Jesus could still be the propitiation for our sins even without the virgin birth is scripturally unfounded and therefore, heretical.
John chapter one tells us that in the beginning was the Word, directly paralleled with Genesis 1. The Word was with God and the Word was God and through the Word were all things made. The Word was not a creation, nor was it a lesser heavenly being as some would posit. It was of the same substance and nature of God and, therefore, was God. But the verse I want to key on is John 1.14 which says, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." We have seen the FULL glory of God in the life of Jesus Christ. The fullness of the grace of God is found in the incarnation and notice that John says it is truth. The very nature of God is truth and His Word is true (Psalm 119.160; John 17.17). But there is so much wrapped up in the very fact that He became flesh to walk with us and die for our sins.
Athanasius says it this way: "The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father's Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human bretheren by the offering of the equivalent." (On the Incarnation, ch. II, SS 9).
In short, it was because sin had so greatly permeated our lives (our= all of humanity), that there was no way for us to be saved from sin unless the Word came and died on our behalf. The Old Testament holiness code demanded blood for the sins of man, but it was an insufficient system that only atoned man for a certain period of sin. The blood of the stainless Savior was the only way that our sins could be atoned for in full. The Word became flesh so that we could evade death by our faith in Him.
So, what does this say about worldview? Well, to be brief, this says that a system that is built purely on visible, scientific evidence is flawed in its very nature. It is inundated with fear, doubt, and a concern only for the mind and not the soul. Christ came to give us hope, faith, and abolish the fear of death. The Christian worldview must affirm the acts of the supernatural and live by faith, lest we pigeonhole God into a mindless figurehead incapable of creation or salvation. Adrian Rogers always said, "In the beginning, God...if you can get past that, then you will have no problem with the rest."
I guess I should be honest and say that I was in a way looking for stereotypical portrayals of those overly committed to "rational" psychology. But, I also must be honest in stating that I have a slight bent against pop psychology. That will be saved for another blog. Anyway, Neil looks for the empirical evidence and makes the argument against Santa Claus based on the fact that he has never seen reindeer fly. He also raises the question about how Santa can travel the whole world in one night, denying the existence of supernatural activity. Now, I could care less about Santa Claus and who believes in him and who doesn't. But the parallels to the Christian faith run rampant in this movie. The first and most obvious is the notion that such faith in the existence of Santa is childish delusion, which we find in the modern university and in much of the extra-biblical "Christian" doctrine purported by theological liberals within the church. Belief in an all knowing and all powerful God and a sinless savior is childish fable that rational adults must grow up and reject. So they say.
Well, something much greater than Santa is at stake here. Following this worldview based solely on empiricism, comes the natural "logical" attacks on Christian faith. Namely, the incarnation of Christ and the virgin birth. If scientific evidence proves that there is no way for a virgin to become pregnant, then the rationalist/empiricist will conclude that the Bible is errant in the birth narrative of Christ, and therefore a sinless savior cannot be born to sinful man and the crucifixion was in vain and the resurrection impossible. Do you see how important it is that we start with the incarnation of Christ and get it right for our theological systems to work? The notion that Jesus could still be the propitiation for our sins even without the virgin birth is scripturally unfounded and therefore, heretical.
John chapter one tells us that in the beginning was the Word, directly paralleled with Genesis 1. The Word was with God and the Word was God and through the Word were all things made. The Word was not a creation, nor was it a lesser heavenly being as some would posit. It was of the same substance and nature of God and, therefore, was God. But the verse I want to key on is John 1.14 which says, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." We have seen the FULL glory of God in the life of Jesus Christ. The fullness of the grace of God is found in the incarnation and notice that John says it is truth. The very nature of God is truth and His Word is true (Psalm 119.160; John 17.17). But there is so much wrapped up in the very fact that He became flesh to walk with us and die for our sins.
Athanasius says it this way: "The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father's Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human bretheren by the offering of the equivalent." (On the Incarnation, ch. II, SS 9).
In short, it was because sin had so greatly permeated our lives (our= all of humanity), that there was no way for us to be saved from sin unless the Word came and died on our behalf. The Old Testament holiness code demanded blood for the sins of man, but it was an insufficient system that only atoned man for a certain period of sin. The blood of the stainless Savior was the only way that our sins could be atoned for in full. The Word became flesh so that we could evade death by our faith in Him.
So, what does this say about worldview? Well, to be brief, this says that a system that is built purely on visible, scientific evidence is flawed in its very nature. It is inundated with fear, doubt, and a concern only for the mind and not the soul. Christ came to give us hope, faith, and abolish the fear of death. The Christian worldview must affirm the acts of the supernatural and live by faith, lest we pigeonhole God into a mindless figurehead incapable of creation or salvation. Adrian Rogers always said, "In the beginning, God...if you can get past that, then you will have no problem with the rest."
Comments
Post a Comment
Hey! I want to hear from you. Let's bridge dialogue as followers of Christ and not followers of the world. I am eager to see how we can grow together!