Worldviews in Conflict, Part 2

Read part 1.

Resolving the dispute

The entire dispute is one of worldviews. The two views, Secular America and Christianity, are in conflict. Inherent presuppositions mean it is not enough to ask which view is correct. It is also appropriate to consider which one is more rational. Which worldview is more coherent? God has given all men intellect (Gen 2:19-20), and Christianity can be shown to be true by presenting good, persuasive arguments for its central tenants and showing the world makes sense only when viewed through a biblical lens.

Ronald Nash observed that men should choose a worldview system which provides the most coherent picture of the world.1 He went on to explain three worldview tests which this essay will apply to the Chick-Fil-A controversy: reason, experience and practice.

On the basis of reason, experience and practice, it is clear the secular American worldview which condemns the anti-gay stance as “hateful” is completely irrational. Greg Koukl noted something is “irrational” if it violates clear principles of reason or flies in the face of clearly demonstrable evidence.2 A coherent worldview must pass the tests of reason, experience and practice. If a worldview fails any of these three tests, it is illogical and irrational. Secular America does fail each of these tests; therefore the secular American worldview is illogical and irrational.

Discussion

People of God: Israel and Israel and the Church

NickImageRead the series so far.

When discussing the relationship between Israel and the church, the word continuity can be pretty slippery. In some discussions, to assert that one sees continuity between the church and Israel is virtually to assert that they are one and the same body. Nevertheless, the term does not have to be employed in this extreme sense. If someone suggests continuity between a Chevy Silverado and a Dodge Ram, the language means that they belong to the same class and are the same kind of thing (in this case, a pickup truck), not that they are numerically identical.

What I have argued is that the continuity between Israel and the church is a continuity that comes from analogy. They belong to the same class of things: peoples of God. Because they are both peoples of God, they exhibit marked similarities. Because they are not one and the same people, however, they also exhibit differences. Israel remains Israel, and the church remains the church.

Of course, the Scriptures can be read in ways that contradict my understanding. After all, there would be no debate among Bible believers if the entire Bible spoke with equal clarity on one side of the question. To this point, I have focused primarily upon Scriptures that appear to distinguish peoples of God. It is worth spending some time on Scriptures that appear to identify Israel and the church, or even to make the church into a new Israel.

Discussion