All in the Family featured the curmudgeonly Archie Bunker. Archie was television’s most famous grouch, blunt, blustering, straightforward and untouched by the PC crowd. He was the archetype of the conservative male. Michael desprately tried to reeducate him, but he persisted in his breviloquence.



Looking back at the last 40 years, we realize: ARCHIE WAS RIGHT!

3/26/2014

For Susan: Christian World View

It pleases me when something I write strikes a cord with someone.  Susan waxed appreciative on my Nimrod post.  She pointed out that there are several Old Testament stories that have modern day application.  She is right.  Before you can make application to those events, like I did with "Nimrod",  there is a step that needs to be taken first.  There is a larger picture that we often over look, the Christian World View (CWV).  Without it, there isn't much point making application to ancient events.

I haven't heard the CWV talked about in several years if not decades.  It was a popular topic among the Baptists of my youth, but the topic seems to have dropped off the popular radar.  The CWV is just a more refined version of a philosophy known as the Judeo-Christian moral/ethic or belief system.

The Judeo-Christian belief system is the philosophical umbrella of Western Civilization. Any number of other philosophical systems used in the United States depend on the fundamentals defined under it.  The founding fathers belief in Common and Natural Law depend on Judeo-Christian definitions and concepts.  Government by Constitutional Consent, which is what we theoretically have as a basis for our Administrative and Legal systems is based on those principles.

Wow!  Was that a dry monolog or what?  If your eyes haven't glassed over with phrases like  "philosophical umbrella of Western Civilization", congratulations!  Here is the point:  We used to have a common basis for our understanding of how the world works.  As a nation we don't have that anymore.

100 years ago if you said, "he is a good man", people knew what you meant.  You were saying that he was the kind of guy you could rely on to do as he said, do his work etc.  If you said, "he is a good man, but he likes his spirits", you meant that he was reliable, honest etc but that he like to drink more than what was socially acceptable.  Most of the people you talked to shared this point of view, and understood what you meant.  Our society doesn't have that common point of reference anymore.  If I say, "this would be good for the country", or "we are going down the wrong path", people don't automatically share the same point of reference with the words "good" or "wrong".

So what is a Christian World View (CWV)?
  • It is a perspective that evaluates information or events from a Christ centered view of the universe.
  • It requires that Biblical texts be viewed as authoritative.  
  • A commitment to consider and reconsider information in light of Biblical principles and standards.
  • A consistent exegetical and hermeneutic standard.
  • A Biblical view of history, modern and future events.
There are some things that it does not require.
  • You do not necessarily have to arrive at the same conclusions as some one else.
  • You do not need to subscribe to a particular theological belief system.
  • It is not denomination specific.
There are probably other points you could interject that would make this list better.  The basic idea is one of accepting the traditional/historical perspective on Jesus Christ and using the revealed truth of scripture to evaluate and understand the events happing today.

This is just an aside but its important.  A CWV has not been the historical American standard.  The generic Judeo-Christian belief system was.  Until about 40 years ago most people operating under the Judeo-Christian belief system understood where the folks under a CWV were coming from.  That isn't the same as believing it.  Many people today, who aren't Christians, accept Judeo-Christian morality because they see the practical utility of the system.  For them it is a matter of a social construct, not a matter of faith.  Since they view it as an optional form of morality, and not as a fundamental requirement of reality, they do not feel it is binding or even the default setting required for civilization. 

11 comments:

WaterBoy said...

"•A consistent exegetical and hermeneutic standard

•A Biblical view of history, modern and future events.
"


It is easy to envision these two points not always being compatible with each other, though. I'm thinking of a particular conversation, which included Astrosmith, regarding a literal view of the Bible, specifically a Young Earth reading of Genesis. You remember?

I mostly agree with you when it comes to acceptance of Judeo-Christian morality, as you noted. However, I don't think it can necessarily be applied quite as readily to history -- as before, those caves in France come to mind, for instance.

Is that what you meant when you included this point?:

"•You do not necessarily have to arrive at the same conclusions as some one else."

Forgive me, if you don't wish to rehash the subject again.

Susan said...

Wow. I just about fell out of my chair when this title popped up on my screen!! You made my day Res, I thank you very much.

Maybe wisdom comes with age, but there are several stories in the Bible that I think not only prove history, but they also prove that God knows what He is doing when He tells you to do something.

For instance, King Saul. He was told to destroy ALL the Amalekite nation. Everything. He did not do that. He had his excuses for not doing so, but then you fast forward to the book of Esther. Looky here! A reading of Hamman's history will tell you exactly why God instructed Saul to destroy the Amalekite nation. Hamman's ancestry was Amalekite, and he was determined to revenge the death of his nation on the Persian Jews.

Then there is the impatience of Sarah. She was not convinced God would keep His promise to her. So Abraham was nagged into having a son, Ishmael, with Hagar the servant. Ishmael's descendants? The modern Arabs and Persians of today. Imagine a world without Islam. No Crusades, no jihads, no terrorist bombings and 9/11 would not have happened.

There is so much more in the Bible that is applicable today if only people would put their prejudices aside and just look honestly. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

I appreciate your patience Res. I also enjoy reading a Christian man's blog. It is also nice to have a decent conversation without the troll noise.

Res Ipsa said...

Forgive me, if you don't wish to rehash the subject again.

I don't think that it is possible to convince some people about YE creationism. So I think it will come up over and over again, and that's OK.

A consistent exegetical and hermeneutic standard

This refers to the study habits of the person involved. They have to understand how and why they arriving at the conclusion that they are drawing. There are a number of different study methods used within individual churches. There are also major differences between denominations. The individual doing the study has to be aware of how that affects the answers they get.

A Biblical view of history, modern and future events

Biblical history has to be viewed as revealed from God's point of view. The basic story is that God made things perfect, man messed it up, and God has been trying to win man back ever since. If that is the case, modern and future events can be evaluated from with in that frame work, as can secular history.

Susan said...

Waterboy,

Have you ever read through the laws listed in Deuteronomy, and noticed how many of them you recognize as laws that are on the books today in some form?

Susan said...

On the subject of YE, I believe that the orb that is now Earth, was just hanging in dark space until God decided in His wisdom that it was time to create.

So while what we know as earth may only have started 6K years ago, I believe the orb Earth was made on is older than that.

When you look at the moon and see all the craters and such, I believe those happened when Satan tried to take over Heaven and God and 2/3rds of the angels fought him and kicked him out. I mean God fire and brimstoned S & G, so I think it totally possible He and Satan had quite the galactic battle, flinging stuff at each other. Wasted effort on Satan's part I know, but with big ego's you are going to have hopeless battles.

Res Ipsa said...

I mostly agree with you when it comes to acceptance of Judeo-Christian morality, as you noted.

The key to my statement is that I'm applying that standard to a historical concept of "Western Civilization". Western Civ begins with the Greeks and moves forward through Rome and Western Europe. The Greek's had minor Jewish influence as did the Romans. The major influence for the Romans was in the second half of their empire. The Roman influence on the rest of Europe was undeniably Christian in terms of the morals that developed.

•You do not necessarily have to arrive at the same conclusions as some one else.

No I wasn't thinking about YEC or Day Age specifically. I don't believe Christians have to come to the same exact conclusions on every topic. I believe their is room for freedom of conscience as well as difference in understanding matters of cultural influence.

A better example would be moderate consumption of alcohol as a matter of conscience or women wearing vales as a cultural example.

Res Ipsa said...

Susan,

I am a YE creationist. I don't know if it was 6,000 years or not. I say that because I don't believe the point of the genealogies was to mark time. Also due to scholarly understanding/mistakes we have different dates depending on who is counting. I'm comfortable with any estimate under 12,000 years. I know that the Jews reckon this as year 5,774. I can accept that, although I have no definitive proof as who is right. Anyway that keeps me out of the Millions and Million club.

Also, I've been having fun researching some of the ideas in quantum physics and cosmology that seem to support a literal biblical account. Unfortunately I never progressed in Mathematics beyond statistics, so the proofs are slow going for me.

I don't know if you've studied this or not, but there are a great many scientific statements throughout the bible that have been made. Some of those were once believed false and have been proven true and some are still open to conjuncture.

WaterBoy said...

Res Ipsa: "This refers to the study habits of the person involved. They have to understand how and why they arriving at the conclusion that they are drawing."

Yes, but IIRC, in that long-ago discussion it seemed as though you were recognizing only one possible exegesis relating to the "day-age" interpretation which Astrosmith was advancing, that being a purely literal one. It may be that my memory of that discussion is incorrect...but if it's accurate, this would seem to be a shift in your own philosophy, no? (Not that you are accepting the Old Earth belief yourself, as you clearly don't. Just that you don't seem to insist it is the only correct interpretation of Genesis, now.)

Res Ipsa: "No I wasn't thinking about YEC or Day Age specifically."

Yet your further explanation seems to support my earlier conclusion on the softening of your previous stance. Thanks for your response.

Res Ipsa said...

WaterBoy,

I didn't see where you were coming from when I responded. I'm not sure I'm on the same page with you as far as the conclusion you are drawing about my views.

IN GENERAL
A person needs to know how and why they arrived at the conclusion that they did. Just because that person does or does not arrive at the same conclusion that I (or someone else) does, does not mean that they are not developing a CWV.

MY POV
I haven't changed my understanding of YEC or how I arrived at my conclusions.

If two POV are mutually exclusive, only one can be right or both can be wrong but they can't both be right.

Anonymous said...

What is this Jewish year stuff?

WaterBoy said...

Susan: "Have you ever read through the laws listed in Deuteronomy, and noticed how many of them you recognize as laws that are on the books today in some form?"

Not that many, really. Most significantly, of course, are most of the Ten Commandments (though not all). Endangered species acts prohibiting the killing of animals which may align with those which are prohibited from being eaten (assuming that the purpose of killing them is to eat them; otherwise, not). Honest weights and measures. Prohibitions on incest and beastiality.

That's pretty much it. But there is a plethora of such laws which are not represented -- significantly more than those which are.