How concerned should we be about our credibility?

On November 20, 2006, USA Today had an op-ed piece entitled “When religion loses its credibility” by Oliver “Buzz” Thomas that started with the following text:

“Galileo was persecuted for revealing what we now know to be the truth regarding Earth’s place in our solar system. Today, the issue is homosexuality, and the persecution is not of one man but of millions. Will Christian leaders once again be on the wrong side of history?”

Of course, those of you who have read my posting on “The Galileo Affair” can imagine that this quote caught my attention initially for that reason. The ignorance of the facts that permeates popular culture regarding “The Galileo Affair” was not only reflected in this editorial, but it was also used to attempt to bludgeon Christians into reasoned submission on the issue of homosexuality.

The author purports to be a Christian ministers. He starts out stating that the Church lost credibility with the scientific community when it took a stand against Galileo’s heliocentric model of the Solar System.

Let me address this first: the Church’s loss of credibility was a fabrication of positivists and others who took up Galileo’s cause in order to promote their agenda to elevate science and reason over revelation, and to relegate religion to the irrelevant corners of superstition in society for the woefully ignorant and misled. The real problem with this is that Western Christianity gracefully conceded defeat to the apparent overwhelming intellectual prowess of science.

To make matters worse, Christians since then have struggled to make faith somehow intellectually sound to the scientific mind, accepting science as authoritative.[1] A catch phrase we see often in apologetics and the more intellectual circles of the Church is “reasons to believe” that are attempts to show that faith is actually quite rational.

Why are we wasting our time? Paul said,

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”[2]

And later he said,

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”[3]

In a conversation with a Christian acquaintance, he stated that everything regarding wisdom and foolishness in the first two chapters of 1 Corinthians is in reference to issues of salvation and not anything else. The first verse cited above would seem to refer to that indeed – that is if we take “the preaching of the cross” to refer only to Christ’s crucifixion and not issues of life, morality and our view of God and the universe. I think that’s a limited view of “the preaching of the cross,” but I’ll concede it here only for the sake of argument.

Then what about the second verse? Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. This would seem to broaden the scope of that which would seem to be foolish to those who walk after the ways of this world.

So, basically, I find a major flaw in the foundation of our thinking if we are trying to make the gospel and “the things of Spirit of God” palatable to the ungodly heart of mankind through reason. In trying to do this, we strip the gospel of its power and reduce it from an issue of faith to an issue of intellect. We are not saved by intellectual acquiescence. We are saved by faith and faith alone, at least as far as anything on our part.[4]

What happens if science really does “prove” that homosexuality is genetic and not simply behavioral? Thomas states the following:

“Religion’s only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.”

Do you see a flaw in this argument? We have nothing but moral authority that is based upon being “right” in the eyes of the world. If the world judges us foolish or wrong, we lose credibility, and credibility in the eyes of the world is essential. Loss of credibility means the end of Christ’s mission on earth.

According to Paul, we should already have lost credibility with the world – except among those who are saved or are being saved.[5] Clearly, if our loss of credibility is due to sin on our part, that’s a very different story. But if we hold out the truth as revealed by the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures, walking in the Light as He is in the Light,[6] and the world thinks us fools, then we should not be surprised,[7] nor should we be apologetic about it either.

I want to insert something very important here before I go on. Abuse of a homosexual, verbal or otherwise, is completely unacceptable for Christians. We must show them the love of Christ. The problem is that many of them insist that to do so requires that we also accept their lifestyle. This we cannot do. It is interesting that Jesus rarely had to confront an individual about his or her sin, except the Pharisees, and that quite harshly so, because they perverted God’s law and led many astray after them. Yet, not one of those people Jesus didn’t confront believed that his or her sin was acceptable in God’s sight. In coming to the love of God in Jesus, each of them recognized their sins as the Father saw them and repented of them all. This we must do as Jesus did, extending the love of Christ without compromising His standard of righteousness for ourselves first and then for all others.

That said, as to Galileo and the position of the earth in the universe, neither the geocentric nor the heliocentric view is based upon the revelation of God – see Origin of ideas - is there a problem?. In fact, the issue has little if any relevance for Christians at all, except as that view contributes to blinding men – Christians and non-Christians alike – from the our Father in Heaven, which has been the case. Will it be the same with the issue of homosexuality?

So, what happens if homosexuality turns out to be genetic and not simply behavioral, at least according to science? Will, as Thomas pleads for, the church change its stand and accept homosexuality as a morally valid alternative? Thomas tells us, correctly, that we did so regarding heliocentrism. Will the issue of homosexuality turn out to be the next great shame of the Church?

Thomas tries to give an argument from Scriptures that is a repeat of what many have said about being kind and not judging, etc., which I’ll not comment on here, except to say that his commentary is incomplete and flawed.

But he does raise a good question for us. Will we bow to science once again, in fear of losing our “moral authority” and “credibility”? Will we close up shop when we lose those because we can’t stand the shame of being wrong or looking like fools? Will we justify our compromise as being “for the sake of the Gospel,” as the Church has done so many times over the last 2000 years? The question may come down to this: will we stand by God’s revelation to us, regardless of the loss of credibility, or will we choose science’s determination and return to reinterpret the Scriptures to fit science as we have in so many other cases? This is being done regarding Creationism. Science is causing a bending of our will.

The problem that really confronts us foundationally is whether we will bow to science or bow to God. Francis Schaeffer believed that science and theology, if “adequately pursued” will not ultimately be in conflict.[8] Notice the caveat: “if both studies can be adequately pursued.” He doesn’t provide a definition of what he means, but I think it fair to say he is talking about both science and theology being pursued with intellectual honesty and no ulterior agenda. In actuality, isn’t God’s agenda the only one that counts? Can there be any other agenda which man can hold up to see if God’s telling the truth? (Isn’t this the attitude of rational approaches to faith?) Any other agenda than God’s, any other point of view than God’s must have an agenda contrary to His.

Schaeffer rightly raises the possibility that our understanding of theology, the Scriptures, is not correct. If we are going to take a hard stand in front of the world on some issue, we should make sure we have it right, or we will rightly be shown to be, not fools for Christ, but simply foolish. But I disagree with Schaeffer that science can be, or at least will be, “adequately pursued.”

So, we have a dilemma. We’d love to have a happy ending where science and theology agree at some point, and we can stand in front of the entire world with a completely rational argument that no one in his right mind can refute. In so doing, we do not appear to be fools, but they do, if they persist in their ignorance. But that’s not the way it’s going to happen. Science has a foundation that is pagan. It has an agenda that is at best atheistic if not pagan, as well. Rationality tries to set up a standard outside of God to see if He measures up to it, but the rules of rationality are rigged against Him. These things, I believe, will become apparent in future postings.

So, what do we do when science disagrees clearly with the revelation of the Scriptures? That’s our dilemma. We’d love for it not to happen, but it will. I believe that strongly. I also believe that it has, and the Church has compromised. How many times more will we compromise?

For now, let me ask this: are we willing to appear foolish to those who are lost? Can we, like Paul, say, “And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”[9] Are we ourselves looking to man’s wisdom, or are we looking to His Spirit to reveal to us the things of the Spirit?

“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”[10]

Until later,
Rob

---

[1] It actually started far earlier, but more on that in a later post.

[2] 1 Corinthians 1:18

[3] 1 Corinthians 2:14

[4] Ephesians 2:8, Hebrews 11:6

[5] 2 Corinthians 2:14-16

[6] 1 John 1:7

[7] John 15:18-22

[8] Schaeffer, Francis A., No Final Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975), p. 45.

[9] 1 Corinthians 2:4-5

[10] 1 Corinthians 2:12-14