Español

¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte II

¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte II

By Xavier Gonzalez

Part I: Definition and history of Fideism.

Reasonable Faith, Historical?

This section is not a commercial for the ministry of the popular American philosopher William Craig. It is intended to investigate the history of the early church, that is, have the first Christians always been irrational and anti-intellectual? Did they embrace any idea of ​​fideism? Did they avoid the objections that were put to them? Or is it the opposite?

Well, for this section we will try to answer these questions and others that may come to mind, but our short answer to these questions and others is:

NO

The early church like the church fathers always had a reasonable faith!

And to demonstrate this, we are going to defend two theses: the first is that the first Christians really did think about what respected their faith and the second is that God does not want ignorant or anti-intellectual followers.

Going back to the beginnings of Christianity, the early Christians were generally known for worshipping God [1] and not for venturing to resolve the great philosophical and doctrinal dilemmas of their time.

We can say that Christianity in its beginnings was a religion that was concerned with the worship of God and those who cared about helping others, however, at first Christians did not focus on answering the question of the origin and value of the world as something to be resolved, nor as a doctrine that they should defend.

Yet, strange as it may seem, even the first Christians did not consider an explanation of the origin and functioning of our world to be important. For them, creation was so important in their worship, because in some way it praised God the Creator, something like hymns or quotes in the Psalms.

Like the ancient Hebrews, Christians came to think of the same God who was their redeemer as the creator of all things. That is, they claimed that the God they worshipped was the same God to whom they entrusted their salvation . By then, the Christian doctrine of creation came from the experience of worship, not from an intellectual exercise.

The conviction in Christian worship carried with it certain guidelines towards the world, how to live in it. In the pagan and cloying world where the church was located, it was the cradle of the union of Judaism and Christianity, an action planned towards God’s saving purpose.

The doctrine of creation was not important as an explanation of the origin of the world, but rather as the foundation for life in the world and as a neat expression of faith, which the church celebrated and shared in its worship.

The early Christians had pagan culture as their neighbors, and this led them to think and reason, as well as to objections outside the ranks of Christianity. Christian leaders of that time felt compelled to think and write about creation for two reasons:

First, there was always the danger that pagan cultural views on the nature and value of the world would creep into the life of the church. This would have undermined Christian obedience in the present world, while calling into question faith in the creator and redeemer God whom the church worshipped.

Secondly, it became necessary to show society in general that what the Church celebrated in its worship, nor the way in which Christians viewed the physical world, was not irrational.

Otherwise, Jesus and faith in him would have been a source of ridicule and mockery. It was in response to this double challenge that Christians developed the doctrine of creation. A doctrine—again—that they shared with the people of Israel. That is why the official doctrine of creation was developed in response to the challenges of opposing opinions.

And with that ideal in mind, some of the first Christian theologians, or “second-century apologists,” set about seeking points of contact (or common ground) between the teachings of the Church and the opinions and most respected traditions of the surrounding Hellenistic culture.

This may come as a surprise, but it was very important to remove all obstacles from the path of unbelievers to faith. In addition, Christians had to combat many of the rumors and accusations that circulated about the supposedly “perverse” practices of their new cult [2]

Despite the struggles, not everything was bad…

The task had been greatly simplified for the benefit of Christians, thanks to the good work of a number of thinkers and philosophers of that time. They did not see the world as if it were a cruel battlefield between gods, but instead tried to explain the world in a coherent and rational way. However, Christians would take these tools with a grain of salt, as they rejected, accepted or modified the theses.

This allowed the Neonate [3] of the church to present the Christian doctrine of creation for one God in such a way that the Hellenistic world and its intellectual class could understand and respect the formulation of the creation of the world. This would answer important questions for the new religion, difficult questions such as, How is God dependent on the different places and times where people have not heard about Jesus Christ? To deny such activity would be a dagger in the heart of creation and its redemption. Therefore, Christians needed to consider the origin as the value of cultures that did not know about Jesus Christ in order to answer such questions.

But still, Christians had some difficulties in communicating the gospel to people from a different or totally different cultural background, after all, many of those cultural backgrounds differ massively from Christian doctrine.

And if we talk about the most cultured people of that time… It was difficult to converse with clever citizens who were proud of the achievements of their civilization and of their philosophers. This raised the obstacle that it would be necessary to suggest that they reject all this, or was there some way in which the Christian understanding of the world, creation and history could interpret, evaluate, accept or transform some of the most valuable achievements of civilization? Was the Christian message so radically new as to tear out such roots? To give a frivolous yes would be like falling into the Marcionism that the Church of the second and third centuries fought so hard, leaving individuals naked in their culture to embrace Christianity…

Another difficulty for the expansion of the gospel was the Roman persecution, apart from the accusations, let us see for example the relations of the Roman emperor, Trajan , with the Christians, in this case the response given to Pliny the Younger :

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting through the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down a general rule to serve as a sort of fixed standard. They should not be sought; if they are denounced and proven guilty, they should be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it—that is, by worshipping our gods—even though he was under suspicion in the past, should obtain forgiveness by repentance. But anonymously published accusations should have no place in any judicial proceedings. To do so is at once a dangerous sort of precedent and would not be in keeping with the spirit of our times. [4]

Adding these negatives, Christianity had it difficult at that time, this pressure led them to inquire about the faith and the culture that surrounded them, for them to use the following instrument, The doctrine of the Logos .

In the philosophical tradition it was customary to refer to a Being who was above all others and to whom all others owed their existence. Some Platonists thought that reality was the product of a series of emanations from that first being, the One . Christians soon realized the need to reject such ideas, because they led to pantheism and, therefore, to idolatry. Despite these stains, the idea that there was only one being, above all others, coincided with Christianity and this was very attractive to Christians who were trying to refute the polytheistic ideas of pagan culture.

That tradition had been reflecting on the perfections of this First and Supreme Being since the time of Parmenides of Elea (6th century BC), one of the pre-Socratic philosophers. Parmenides, and his long tradition of followers, had reached a certain consensus about those perfections. And as Parmenides, and most of the Platonic tradition, had understood them, Christian theologians adopted those perfections with slight changes. In this way they sought to show that their faith was not as irrational as some claimed and that, far from being atheistic innovators, the Christian faith was actually the culmination of the best of classical philosophy. For these perfections have become part of the Christian heritage when speaking and thinking about God. [5]

In short, the first Christians, moved by their worship, persecution and pressure, took on the task of presenting their faith as a reasonable faith.

Next part, meet the promoters of Reasonable Faith.

References

[1] Let us consider, for example, the satire made by the second-century Greek satyr , Lucian of Samosata , when he speaks of Christians in his work, The Death of Peregrine :

11. It was then that he learned of the wonderful tradition of the Christians, through association with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And – how else could it be? – in an instant he made everyone look like children, for he was a prophet, a cult leader, a synagogue chief, all of that, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they worshipped him as a god , made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him up as a protector, next to that other, to be sure, to those who still worship , the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

13. Indeed, people came even from the cities of Asia, sent by the Christians at their common expense, to succour and defend and encourage the hero . They show incredible speed whenever such public action is taken; for in a short time they squander their all. So it was then in the case of Peregrinus; much money came to him from them on account of his imprisonment, and he did not seek not a little of the proceeds of it. The poor wretches have convinced themselves, in the first place, that they will be immortal and live for ever, consequently, whereof they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody; most of them. Moreover, their first lawgiver convinced them that they are all brothers among themselves after they have transgressed once, for all in denying the Greek gods and in worshipping that crucified sophist and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definitive proof. So if any charlatan and swindler, capable of taking advantage of opportunities, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing it on the simple people….

-Lucian of Samosata, The Pilgrim’s Pass, 11 and 13.

[2] Nero’s slander towards Christians for the fire in Rome:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/historia/grandes-reportajes/neron-y-el-incendio-de-roma_6822

[3] Newborn.

[4] As you can see, it is not a witch hunt, but the fruits of rumors and heavy slander that fell on Christians in the Roman Empire are undeniable:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

[5] Paraphrase, Brief History of Doctrines , Justo L. Gonzalez, pp. 47-58)

 

Xavier Gonzalez is from Venezuela and is dedicated to the study of philosophy, early Christianity and theology. He converted to Christianity at the age of 15. He managed the Me Lo Contó Un Ateo website and is in charge of the apologetics section of the Iglesia Cristiana la gracia website ( http://www.iglesialagracia.org ).

/by
¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte I

¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte I

Por Xavier González

No les ha pasado que cuando están debatiendo con un ateo e intentas dar sus mejores argumentos, un hermano en Cristo o un desconocido que se meten en la discusión y comienza a dar sus argumentos. Pero cuando te das cuenta es pura tontería lo que proponen, dicen cosas como “La filosofía va en contra de las escrituras” o “Jesús no vino a discutir”.

Bueno, me ha pasado y debo de decir que a veces me provoca darles un cabezazo para que no vuelvan a argumentar tantas tonterías…

En éste escrito vamos a tratar un tema que tal vez muchos cristianos desconozcan o alguna vez han oído, pero no han profundizado en él. Este artículo fue escrito con la intensión de corregir a ciertos hermanos en la fe que, por alguna razón en sus falsas o descuidadas congregaciones, se les ha enseñado que la Fe y la Razón no se juntan o que “no son compatibles”, en pocas palabras, Fideísmo.

Irónicamente, esto también lo “predican” la gran mayoría de ateos (Principalmente los Nuevos Ateos), pero vamos a demostrar que esto es falso y que realmente tanto en la historia de la iglesia como en la misma biblia nos dan razones suficientes para concluir que la Razón y la Fe son compatibles.

Definición

Antes de profundizar en el tema, creo que es importante dar una definición apropiada a lo que el Fideísmo es realmente:

  • «Sistema de pensamiento y de interpretación de los valores y hechos religiosos mediante el cual se da la primací­a absoluta la fe con menosprecio de los otros rasgos que apoyan las creencias, la razón, la tradición, la autoridad.

En general el fideí­smo roza el misticismo exagerado de quien, con motivos y actitudes afectivas más que racionales, deposita una confianza ciega en lo que se cree ser revelación divina. Sin embargo, sabemos que Dios ha hecho al hombre libre para creer y desea que también reflexione sobre su fe».

  • «Error que dice que la fe es la única fuente del conocimiento de Dios; la razón no lo puede conocer».
  • «El fideísmo es cualquiera de los varios sistemas de creencias que sostienen, sobre variados argumentos, que la razón es irrelevante a la fe religiosa. De acuerdo a algunas versiones de fideísmo, la razón es la antítesis de la fe».

De hecho, Alvin Plantinga define el fideísmo como “la exclusiva o básica dependencia sobre la fe sola, acompañada por un consecuente menosprecio de la razón y utilizada especialmente en la persecución de una verdad filosófica y religiosa”.

Con estas definiciones, se nos da a entender que simplemente la Fe de cualquier creencia (sobre toda la cristiana) es ciega e irracional. Pero antes de desmontar eso, vayamos por unos breves antecedentes históricos.

Historia del Fideísmo

Para eso, debemos viajar a la historia de la teologí­a católica, el fideísmo como un movimiento de pensamiento se desarrolló en Francia a mediados del siglo XIX:

Este movimiento nació para ser antítesis hacia racionalismo y el liberalismo del siglo pasado y sus principales representantes suelen enlistarse a el abate Bautain (1867), A. Grahy (1872). A. Bonnettv (1879), fundador de los Annales de pí­lilosophie chrétienne, Bonald (1840) como Lamennais (1854).

La principal caracterí­stica del movimiento fue una crí­tica cerrada contra la razón humana convertida por los enciclopedistas en el criterio único de verdad, en favor de una exaltación exagerada de la fe, fundamento de sí­ misma y capaz de reconocer la verdad de la revelación sin ninguna necesidad de signos exteriores o de motivos de credibilidad.

Aunque las desviaciones del fideí­smo fueron condenadas varias veces por el Magisterio, sobre todo con Gregorio XVI (DS 2751-2756), con pí­o IX en la encí­clica Qui pluribus de 1846 (DS 2778-2780) y finalmente por el concilio Vaticano I, -donde se reconoció expresamente la posibilidad de conocer a Dios “con la luz natural de la razón humanan (DS 3004; DS 3008-3009), todaví­a hoy siguen estando presentes ciertas formas larvadas de esta actitud en muchos católicos (como protestantes), que no conceden ninguna importancia a los problemas de credibilidad de la revelación.[1]

Por otro lado:

…estas fórmulas sistemáticas de fideísmo, nos encontramos a través de toda la historia de la filosofía desde la época de los sofistas hasta la actualidad una actitud fideísta de la mente, que se volvió más o menos conspicua en diferentes períodos. El fideísmo debe su origen a la desconfianza en la razón humana, y la secuencia lógica de esta actitud es el escepticismo. Es para escapar de esta conclusión que algunos filósofos, aceptando como principio la impotencia de la razón, han hecho hincapié en la necesidad de la creencia por parte de la naturaleza humana, ya sea afirmando la primacía de la fe sobre la razón o, de otro modo, afirmando una separación radical entre la razón y la creencia, es decir, entre la ciencia y la filosofía por un lado y la religión por el otro.

Tal es la posición adoptada por Kant, cuando distingue entre la razón pura, confinada a la subjetividad, y la razón práctica, que sola es capaz de ponernos por un acto de fe en relación con la realidad objetiva. También es una actitud fideísta que es la ocasión del agnosticismo, positivismo, pragmatismo y otras formas modernas de anti-intelectualismo

No es de sorprender, por lo tanto, que la Iglesia haya condenado tales doctrinas. En 1348, la Santa Sede proscribió ciertas proposiciones fideístas de Nicholas d´Autrecourt (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10ma. ed., núms. 553-570). En sus dos encíclicas, una en septiembre de 1832 y la otra en julio de 1834, el Papa Gregorio XVI condenó las ideas políticas y filosóficas de Lamenais. El 8 de septiembre de 1840 se le requirió a Bautain que suscribiera varias proposiciones directamente opuestas al fideísmo, la primera y la quinta de las cuales leen como sigue:

“”La razón humana es capaz de probar con certeza la existencia de Dios; la fe, un don celestial, es posterior a la revelación, y por lo tanto no se puede utilizar adecuadamente contra el ateo para probar la existencia de Dios “; y “El uso de la razón precede a la fe y, con la ayuda de la revelación y de la gracia, conduce a ella.” Y, finalmente, el Concilio Vaticano I enseña como un dogma de la fe católica que “un verdadero Dios y Señor puede ser conocido con certeza por la luz natural de la razón humana por medio de las cosas creadas”.[2]

Es bastante evidente que el despreciar las enseñanzas de los sabios, los descubrimientos científicos del pasado, y la voz de común acuerdo sería condenarnos a una infancia perpetua en el conocimiento, hacer imposible cualquier avance en la ciencia, ignorar el carácter social del hombre y hacer la vida humana intolerable: pero, por otro lado, es un error hacer de estos elementos el criterio supremo de la verdad, ya que son sólo reglas particulares de certeza, cuya validez está cimentada sobre una norma más fundamental. En efecto, es cierto que la certeza moral difiere de la matemática, pero la diferencia no reside en la firmeza o la validez de la certeza que ofrece, sino en el proceso utilizado y las disposiciones requeridas por la naturaleza de las verdades con las que tratan respectivamente.[3]

Promotores del Fideísmo

En la actualidad todavía hay ciertos cristianos siguen con este pensamiento irracional y que para nada concuerda ni con la historia de la iglesia primitiva ni con la misma biblia, de hecho, vamos a citar a ciertas personas que promulgan esto, no obstante, hasta un reformador se une a esta penosa lista:

«Si quieres moverte en lo sobrenatural tienes que dejar a un lado la razón»

—Guillermo Maldonado.

 «No te pierdas en medio de tanto conocimiento de la Palabra. ¡Cree! Eso es lo importante.»

—Cash Luna.

«No Seas un Cristiano Razonable»

—Otoniel Font.

«Los hechos pueden decirte una cosa. Pero, Dios no está limitado por los hechos. Elige la fe a pesar de los hechos.»

—Joel Osteen.

Decepcionante… ¿Verdad? Y como pueden ver, en general son los predicadores de un evangelio a lo “pare de sufrir” o el evangelio de la prosperidad los que predican estas ideas.

Ahora bien, esta pequeña lista no trata de ser exhaustiva y tampoco trata de exponer un remanente del anti-intelectualismo en el protestantismo. Pues el catolicismo, por lo menos en el área popular también existe este tipo de ideas, así que, si es de una denominación u otra, es irrelevante, lo que nos importa discutir es el problema del fideísmo.

Por otro lado, los promotores y defensores del Ateísmo y principalmente del Nuevo Ateísmo, aplaudirían y se levantarían de sus sillas de lo más felices por escuchar estas palabras, de hecho, hasta comparten dichos pensamientos, aquí algunas citas:

«La fe es la gran excusa, la gran excusa para evadir la necesidad de pensar y evaluar las pruebas. La fe es creencia a pesar, incluso tal vez por la falta de evidencia».[4]

—Richard Dawkins.

«La fe es la rendición de la mente; es la rendición de la razón, es la rendición de lo único que nos diferencia de otros mamíferos».[5]

—Christopher Hitchens.

«La fe generalmente no es más que el permiso que las personas religiosas se dan mutuamente para creer las cosas fuertemente sin evidencia».[6]

—Sam Harris.

Debo de decir que, si un cristiano que va en esta línea de pensamiento (aunque lo desconozca y lo haga inconscientemente) se le pone en duda su creencia o doctrina, muy posiblemente pasen 4 cosas:

  1. Ignorará las objeciones en contra de su fe o doctrina.
  2. Insultara a su replicante.
  3. Dara una excusa para no replicar con versículos de la biblia y con mucha seguridad, serán citas sacadas de contexto.

O en el peor de los casos…

  1. Se alejará de su fe o doctrina.

De hecho, este tipo de cristianos se basan más en sus experiencias emocionales que en la misma biblia y debo de mencionar que esto es lo que asombra más de ellos, por varios motivos. La primera razón obviamente, es que a medida que estas personas crecen en su fe, prefieren vivir en un éxtasis que conocer y asegurar que la biblia es verdadera como también si su Fe es verdadera.

La segunda razón es que este tipo de cristianos, le tienen miedo al conocimiento de la palabra de Dios (Su estudio formal y sistematizado).

Y la tercera razón, más extraño aun, es un delirio que no quieran profundizar y conocer su fe, porque piensen que la “letra mata”. De las tres razones presentadas, creo que esta es la más disparatada.

Próxima parte, la historia que hay de cristianos con una fe razonable.

Referencias:

[1] R. Latourelle, Fideísmo y tradicionalismo, en DTF, 483-486: R. Aubert, El acto de fe, Barcelona 1965:

https://mercaba.org/VocTEO/F/fideismo.htm

[2] PERRONE, Praelectiones theologicae, vol. I: De ver Religione; OLLE-LAPRUNE, De la Certitude Morale (5ta ed., Paris, 1905); MERCIER, Critériologie générale (4ta. ed., Lovaina, 1900), III, ch. I; JOHN RICKABY, The First Principles of Knowledge (4ta. ed., Londres, 1901), chs. XII, XIII.

Párrafo 4 al 8.

[3] Ibíd, párrafo 9.

[4] Discurso del Festival Internacional de Ciencia de Edimburgo (1992)

[5] Penn y Teller: ¡Mierda! (Temporada 3, Episodio 5: “Holier Than Thou”)

[6] Carta a una nación cristiana (Vintage Books, 2008), 110.

 

Xavier González es de Venezuela, se dedica al estudio de la filosofía, cristianismo primitivo y teología. Se convirtió al cristianismo a los 15 años. Administró la página de Me Lo Contó Un Ateo y es el encargado de la sección de apologética de la página de la Iglesia cristiana la gracia (http://www.iglesialagracia.org).

/by
Molinismo, identidad y mundos posibles

Molinismo, identidad y mundos posibles

By Randy Everist

Is Molinism really compatible with the idea of ​​people in other possible worlds? Can it really be possible that there is a counterfactual truth about me such as “If I had been born in the 18th century, would I have sided with the American colonists against the British”?

So, here, a lot depends on one’s theory of personal identity, as to what counts in discerning modal truths. I personally hold at least a basic account of Plantinga’s theory of creaturely essences, where there is an abstraction that is “made up of” all and only essential properties, including properties indexed to a world [1] (of course, this is an abstract account; my concrete theory of personal identity is that we are immaterial souls). So, Socrates in our world is the concrete instantiation of the abstraction that had this “maximal property”—call it “Socraiety”—and he had these properties de dicto (“about what is said”) because of the abstraction, but de re (“about the thing”) because of his own decisions. This includes counterfactuals .

Now consider that there is a truth to the matter of the following counterfactual (at least if it is not counterpossible):

(S) If Socrates had been born in 20th century Athens, then he would not have been killed.

Now, what if someone argues for a kind of origin essentialism, which is the doctrine that teaches that one’s origin cannot be significantly different from what it was in order to preserve personal identity (I use “preserve” in a colloquial sense, since no thing loses its identity in favor of something else)? Is S still possibly true? Origin essentialist explanations always or almost always depend on the idea of ​​physical transmission of genetic material, and so depend on one’s parents being the same. If this is true, the claim can go, then such a counterfactual about Socrates is a counterpossible, and has nontrivial truth value. While I’m not sure about origin essentialism, I think we can admit it and still achieve the original desired result. After all, God presumably could have made it the case that Socrates’ parents were a special creation, made up of the appropriately relevant genetic material and information—or whatever Socrates himself was.

But if this is so, then it follows that all sorts of counterfactuals about Socrates are true, both in our world and in many other worlds. But then it follows that there are many indexical properties of the world that correspond to these true counterfactuals, and these indexical properties of the world together help (with all the other essential properties of Socrates) to constitute Socraness. So then it follows that if such counterfactuals were descriptive of actual situations (or states of affairs), then Socrates would be who he is.

I also think that we should be interpreted as saying something like, “It is possible that the set of true counterfactuals could have turned out such that _______________ (fill in the counterfactual under consideration).” It may or may not be part of the set of true counterfactuals; we have no way of knowing. However, most people take the real modal logical possibility to mean cases where the concept or situation (or state of affairs) under consideration is articulated without self-contradiction or violation of a necessary truth to rule it out. There doesn’t seem to be anything about the example provided that is self-contradictory, and I think the above suggests that we don’t have a sufficient necessary truth to rule it out. So while, for all we know, S is a false counterfactual, the set of true counterfactuals could have turned out to be different than it did, and in those related worlds (presumably not like Lewis’s nearby worlds, at least not close enough)—worlds where a different set of counterfactuals is true—such a counterfactual as S can be true. This also suggests that it is at least possible, for all we know, for one to exist in worlds sufficiently removed from the true set of counterfactuals (not exactly hard); this sense of existence is in an abstract, not a concrete, sense.

Plantinga does believe that we are immaterial souls; this is the concrete particular of abstraction that is creaturely essence. I dare call them universals, only because this raises the potentially controversial problem of multiple instantiation.

It seems at least possible that Socraiety, for example, has as part of its set the property of being killed in 21st century Athens at time t in world M-146. This could be either on the A-theory or the B-theory. On the B-theory, time is a block, and so located at that particular point in the particular block belonging to world M-146 could potentially be that counterfactual. On an A-theory, that property can be sustained, since it does not seem to be something that excludes the mere possibility of world M-146 (its feasibility is another matter entirely). And if this is the case, then Socraiety can include time-indexed counterfactual properties (properties we have about counterfactual scenarios), where the times are radically different. And I mean “can” in the mere sense of logical possibility, which is of course not the same as feasibility.

So my conclusion is that Molinism will work with potentially true counterfactuals about individual persons in various worlds that differ even radically from this one.

Grades

[1] Properties indexed to a world are defined by reference to one or more possible worlds, as (to maximum extent) unrestricted, because in modal logic S5 the properties of one world can affect those of others. (FC editor’s note)

About the Author: Randy Everist is very interested in philosophy and theology. He is working on his PhD in philosophy. He loves hockey, Jesus, his wife Jodi, and his little boy, Titus!

Please take some time to read all of Randy’s work on Possible Worlds

 

Original Blog http://bit.ly/3474MBc

Translated by Allan Sanchez

/by
La participación del creyente en el proceso político, parte III

La participación del creyente en el proceso político, parte III

By David L. Rogers

Part I: A Book, an Illustration of Governments.

Part II: The Christian and the World.

  1. God and the three institutions:

Founded on the belief that the Bible possesses total authority as the Word of God, being inspired by His Holy Spirit, it is important to recognize that He has established three institutions, which are absolutely crucial to the proper operation of man’s life and society. It is like the illustration at the beginning of this study: the binding of a book that binds together all the loose pages, and thus forms a cohesive whole. The three institutions are:

  1. The Family –it is a “cornerstone” for society, which is to reflect the order of the Godhead (see I Corinthians 11:3 compared with Ephesians 5:21-32, and also Genesis 1:26-28). Through the family, God established the function of personal and individual order.   The family is responsible for passing on to children the standards of life that God the Master Designer instilled in man by his conscience and morality. Later, God established another institution.
  2. Government is a cornerstone which performs another function , a function which is clearly NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE FAMILY TO PERFORM, and that is to maintain order, protect the citizen, and punish the lawbreaker (in Genesis 9:5-7; Romans 13:1-7). Through government, God sets the standard of man’s responsibility toward his fellow man.
  3. The Church — this last institution was established by God in a very different way than government and the family. In this case, He Himself formed it through the price paid by the shed blood of His own Son, Jesus Christ. This institution deals with an entirely different area, as well, than the other two. Its function is to share order in the spiritual and personal realm, in the context of a living body empowered by the same Holy Spirit.  (Matthew 16:15-18; Acts 2; Hebrews 8:6-13)

So, these three institutions, designed and forged by the Lord Himself, each serve a different purpose and function that is interrelated, but NOT necessarily dependent or subject to the other.  In a sense, each institution that God formed was built on the weakness of the institution that preceded it.   Furthermore, there is also a very important distinction between each of these three institutions. It is knowing where to distinguish and how to separate each one that is difficult for the believer in Christ. This is the challenge that now confronts us.

There are basically four perspectives on the TWO KINGDOMS concept throughout the history of Christianity . The arrows indicate authority and power over the respective groups of people indicated. The line also indicates an established hierarchy based on the source of their authority.

      1. The Roman Catholic Concept:

Pope Boniface VIII, in 1302, declared the following pattern:

The participation of the believer in politics 1

     2. The Anabaptist Concept: (17th Century)

The participation of the believer in politics 2

     3. The Calvin Concept:

    The participation of the believer in politics 3

     4. The Lutheran Concept:

The participation of the believer in politics 4

     5. An Evangelical Model for Today:

    The participation of the believer in politics 5

The traditional models of government from the Middle Ages onward have their modern adherents in various parts of the world. Only in some cases there are those who take the place of God, believing themselves to be the ultimate national and final authority when they try to force everyone to abide by their “inspired” precepts. The first of these, the Roman Catholic concept, is distinguished by the idea that God does not control the world of the state except through the church, and therefore the church is “in charge” of the world of the unsaved, with or without its blessing. This model represents a unilateral and exclusive authority over all human beings.

The Anabaptist model, founded primarily on Colossians 1:12-13, separates the world and society into two large groups: the group of those who are “of the kingdom of darkness” and the kingdom of the glorious Son of God. The two kingdoms cannot, and should not, intermingle. Historically, and in practice, this has been the position of Pentecostals and ultraconservatives in democratic countries.

The model of John Calvin is particularly strict in that its vital sign is related to the direction of human government by the church, since the Church represents divine interests, and the state fulfills its desires and designs. This model places in the hands of ecclesiastical authorities the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the good of society, just as the church of Christ does.

Martin Luther had a thought that advocated more distance between church and state, but not in a categorical way, since God reigns over both. This model operates within a “secular” state and a Church “separated” from the state. There can be collaboration between the two, but not an obligation or a demand from one to the other. Historically, this model was the one that was most adapted by the founders of the democratic experiment in the United States originally.

Finally, this author’s model is called “an evangelical model for today” in reference to three realities. First, it does not ignore and, indeed, highlights the sovereignty of God over both church and state, regardless of whether it is a democratic state or not. God “sets up kings and removes kings” (Daniel 2:21) in all the nations of this world. Second, of particular importance is the belief that the local or national church is not the entity that God uses to direct or restrain the state. The church exists for the edification of the believer, the evangelization of the unsaved, and the exaltation of the Lord of lords, Jesus Christ Himself. The state does not operate around these ends. And, third, this is a model that promotes the believer’s responsibility to serve other people as an instrument of justice in a wicked world through positive, proactive, and holy interaction and influence through politics and community, state, federal, and military efforts.

Related Texts : Titus 3:1; 1 Tim. 2:1-2; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:11-17. The last chart differs from the preceding ones in the emphasis given to the believer’s duty to exercise a godly, God-fearing influence over human institutions. Being a part of the Kingdom of Heaven does not excuse the believer from the privilege (or duty) of being a citizen of a particular nation or country. In the words of the famous ancient author: “A good man must do nothing and wickedness will reign.”

How it applies to modern politics:

Being a believer today has inherent and unavoidable risks. There has always been a degree of danger. Danger, however, is no justified cause for avoiding the field of politics as a way for believers to exert a positive influence on society. Being a citizen of heaven does not take away from the duty of being a moral and upright representative of heaven on earth. The Scriptures bear this out, and so does history!

Second, we recognize that the Bible never excuses a believer from giving testimony of his faith even in high places of government. Examples mentioned in the Old Testament support this truth. Joshua rescued the nation of Egypt from the sad situation of a famine. Daniel led the most powerful king of the Eastern world to prepare for inevitable changes. Nehemiah was God’s instrument first in the court of an Asian king followed by the most outstanding reconstruction work in ancient history! Each of them had a crucial voice and example in God’s plan for the nations. Today, too, God places men and women in strategic places to give testimony of Him in “pagan” and secularized governments.

Finally, it is through the way of forming an influence in politics that many more will come to know God. We must not think that the primary work of the church is to save society or the reigning power. But it is a secondary necessity to pray for the authorities (1 Timothy 2:1-3) and also to collaborate with them in the government of the country by offering them the light of the Gospel. While it is true, the dishonesty and corruption so prevalent in the political world today is not far from the same sad conditions of financial banking, medicine, education, production and industry or any other work field. With a firm focus on the sovereign God, the Christian today can glorify Christ through a good academic and professional preparation and thus serve his people or nation. When God works through him or her, in the political field many will see that following Christ opens doors for them in every career and every aspect of life.

Avoiding the political world only leaves you to your own blind human deliberations, which will eventually end up closing off opportunities to serve God by glorifying Him in the world of politics. For this reason, we go toward a holy influence in an area where power and money corrupt, but doing so with the conviction that God is greater than kings, and that even there He will provide us with the determination, intelligence, strength and clarity to see how to implement laws, regulations and projects that advocate for the sanctity of life and for the name of truth.

In conclusion, consider how Christ Himself intervened in and responded to the government of His day:

“In short, Jesus rejected the idea of ​​the state as an absolute, but neither did he wage war against it. To those who wished to make the state the absolute authority, he reminded them that they must render to God what is God’s. To those who wished to revolt against the state, he required that they render to Caesar what belonged to him. Jesus acted both as subject to the general authority of the state while living above it in fulfilling his mission and ministry. The teaching of Christ and the function of the state intersected at those points where Jesus’ moral teaching served to indict those in power, and at those points where he interacted with the politically and socially untouchables in order to meet their needs…” (Fienberg and Fienberg, 1993, p. 389).

The challenge facing a believer and follower of Christ is to live by the same pattern today.

Literature

Eidsmore, John, God and Caesar: Christian Faith and Political Action (Crossway Books, Westchester, 1984 ).

Feinberg, JS, & Feinberg, PD, Ethics for a Brave New World ( Westchester , IL: Crossway Books, 1993).

MacArthur, John, Think Bible-Wise, (Portavoz Publishing, Grand Rapids, 2004.)

Pearcy, Nancy R., Whole Truth: Freeing Christianity from its Bondage to Culture (YWAM Press, Tyler, Texas, 2014).

Sproul, R. C. Following Christ . (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996.)

Whitehead, John W., An American Dream (Crossway Books, Westchester, 1987, Un Sueño Americano ).

 

David L. Rogers, a missionary and teacher in Chile for 35 years, is a graduate of Clarks Summit University, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania (1980, BRE) and Moody Theological Seminary, Chicago (1997, M.A.). David and his wife of 39 years, Ruth Ann, and their four children have served in Santiago planting three churches, and founded a Chilean publishing house that for 14 years has published books, resources, and original studies in Spanish. His passion is training local leaders capable of guiding God’s work with love, humility, and spiritual skill. Apologetics is also a priority for David, and he is currently in his second year of a Masters of Arts in Apologetics program at Houston Baptist University. David and Ruth Ann have four precious grandchildren who live in the United States with their parents.

/by
The Action Lab y el Argumento de la Intencionalidad

The Action Lab y el Argumento de la Intencionalidad

Alvin Plantinga desarrolló un argumento en contra del materialismo que puedes encontrar aquí. Pero si quieres una versión algo más fácil de digerir, puedes leer la versión de Craig aquí (solo inglés). Recomiendo leer ambos recursos para un mayor entendimiento del argumento en general de que la existencia de los estados intencionales (o la consciencia) son evidencia de que Dios existe.  Para los propósitos de este artículo, simplemente citaré la exposición de Craig sobre este argumento en el debate de Rosenberg:

Dios es la mejor explicación de los estados intencionales de conciencia en el mundo. Los filósofos están desconcertados por los estados de intencionalidad. La intencionalidad es la propiedad de ser sobre algo. Significa la atención hacia el objeto de nuestros pensamientos.

Por ejemplo, puedo pensar sobre mis vacaciones de verano o acerca de mi esposa. Ningún objeto físico tiene este tipo de intencionalidad. Una silla o una piedra o una bola de tejido muscular como el cerebro no atienden hacia alguna cosa. Solo los estados mentales o los estados de conciencia atienden a otras cosas. Como materialista, el Dr. Rosenberg reconoce eso y concluye que en el ateísmo realmente no hay estados intencionales.

El Dr. Rosenberg afirma audazmente que nunca pensamos realmente en nada. Pero esto parece increíble. Obviamente estoy pensando en el argumento del Dr. Rosenberg. Esto me parece una reducción al absurdo del ateísmo. Por el contrario, en el teísmo, porque Dios es una mente, no es sorprendente que haya mentes finitas. Así, los estados intencionales se ajustan cómodamente a una cosmovisión teísta.

Entonces podemos argumentar:

  1. Si Dios no existiera, los estados intencionales de conciencia no existirían.

  2. ¡Pero existen estados intencionales de consciencia!

  3. Por lo tanto, Dios existe.

Ahora, muchos detractores del argumento señalarán que se comete (entre otras) una falacia de petición de principio, ya que simplemente el argumento presupone la existencia de Dios. Pero como el Dr. Craig señala, ¡el Dr. Rosenberg cree que la premisa (1) del argumento es verdadera! Así que no parece una afirmación exclusiva del teísta que, en un mundo natural (sin ninguna clase de ser espiritual como Dios o los ángeles) los estados de consciencia no existen. Pero ¿existe algún otro no teísta aparte de Rosenberg que crea que la premisa (1) es verdad? Al parecer sí, y no de un parte de un filósofo, sino de un científico, me refiero al autor del canal de YouTube The Action Lab.

Dejaré el video aquí mismo para que veas las conclusiones a las que llega el autor sobre la consciencia basándose en los experimentos de Libet (que suelen citar los naturalistas para demostrar que el libre albedrío y la consciencia inmaterial no existen, nada más lejos de la realidad[i]). Pero si no quieres ver todo el video ni los divertidos experimentos que realiza o tu inglés no es lo suficientemente bueno para entenderlo, no te preocupes, puedes saltarte el video e ir directamente a la traducción que he realizado para este artículo.

Esto es lo que The Action Lab explica a partir del minuto 6:51 sobre los experimentos realizados:

Así que puede que no hayas pensado mucho en ello, pero ¿qué sucede realmente cuando haces esto (cierra y abre la palma de la mano)?, ¿cómo decidí mover mi brazo? Bien, cuando decides mover el brazo, parece un pensamiento consciente, piensas en moverlo y se mueve. Así que ahora mismo estoy decidiendo mover mi brazo, pero ¿mi cerebro consciente decidió moverlo o hay algo más?

Así que se han realizado múltiples estudios sobre esto y lo extraño es que en realidad hay algo que se llama potencial de preparación (muestra una gráfica sobre cómo el voltaje se eleva antes del tiempo consciente al 0s.) que sucede en tu cerebro antes del pensamiento consciente y el movimiento de tu brazo. Así que, lo que quiero decir, es que tienes el pensamiento consciente para mover tu brazo, pero lo que sucede antes es que hay un potencial que se eleva en tu cerebro, así que hay algo que sucede en tu cerebro incluso antes de tener la idea de mover el brazo.

Ahora, como algunos han leído este dato, significa que nuestro subconsciente realmente está tomando todas las decisiones, por lo que nuestro subconsciente realmente decide mover el dedo y luego después de decidir el potencial de preparación aumenta hasta que se produce la sinapsis que provoca la reacción en cadena que realmente mueve el dedo. Por lo que esto debería ser un poco molesto para ti, porque significa que nuestra consciencia no está realmente tomando la decisión de hacer algo, sino que en realidad es nuestro subconsciente el que toma la decisión y luego lo inserta en nuestra consciencia como si fuera nuestro propio pensamiento consciente haciéndolo.

Pero en 2016, los científicos en Berlín realizaron un experimento para probar si es la consciencia o la subconsciencia la que toma estas decisiones. De modo que, lo que hicieron estos científicos, es que utilizaron una computadora para medir estos potenciales de preparación en el cerebro y trataron de ver si este programa en la computadora podía predecir en tiempo real los pensamientos o los movimientos conscientes de alguien, por lo que esperaban medir el potencial de preparación en el cerebro antes de que la persona realmente tuviera el pensamiento consciente de mover alguna extremidad y pudiera predecir que se moviera algo. Pero la parte interesante, es que los sujetos en el experimento realmente aprendieron cómo engañar a la computadora, de modo que lo que sucedería en su cerebro es que el potencial de preparación se elevaría, pero el movimiento no se produciría porque la persona conscientemente había pensado que no haría el movimiento, por lo que parece contradecir la opinión de que la consciencia es un subproducto de la subconsciencia, porque ¿cómo conscientemente decides cancelar un movimiento que realiza tu subconsciente que en realidad está controlando tu consciencia? Parece que la consciencia es en realidad la que tiene el control, no la subconsciencia.

Pero esto se vuelve aún más raro. Por ejemplo, un científico llamado Benjamín Libet se dispuso a responder la misma pregunta de si es la consciencia o la subconsciencia la que está involucrada en la toma de decisiones y en la elección de lo que hacemos en nuestra vida diaria. Así que lo que hizo Libet fue que se sometió a pacientes a una cirugía cerebral, de modo que su cerebro estaba abierto y colocó electrodos en su corteza somatosensorial, de modo que pudo medir el impulso creado al tocar la mano de una persona. Así que él tocaba su mano y podía medirlo en su cerebro.  De modo que, lo que midió, fue que cuando tocaba su dedo había un retraso de aproximadamente 30 milisegundos de la señal que se movía hacia su cerebro y luego después de esos 30 milisegundos tenían el pensamiento consciente de que alguien había tocado su dedo, y, luego de que esos 30 milisegundos y del pensamiento consciente aumentaran, tenían alrededor de 500 milisegundos de actividad de picos de voltaje en su cerebro en esa área de la corteza somatosensorial donde eso corresponde a su dedo.

Toque de la mano → 30ms → Picos de voltaje → 500ms
        La consciencia nota el toque   Picos de voltaje

Después, lo que hizo fue que, en lugar de tocar realmente su dedo, simplemente tocaba la parte de su cerebro que correspondía con alguien tocando su dedo y, en ese caso, el paciente tenía alrededor de 500 milisegundos de actividad en su cerebro y sentían que alguien les tocaba el dedo.

Toque del cerebro → 500ms → La consciencia nota el toque
    Picos de voltaje    

Luego lo que hizo fue estimular el tálamo en el cerebro del paciente y que daba lugar a un pico de voltaje inicial después de 30 milisegundos, pero no a los picos potenciales de voltaje 500 milisegundos en el cerebro, por lo que el experimento demostró que, para tener la idea consciente de que alguien tocaba su dedo, tenía que tener esos 500 milisegundos de la actividad cerebral en curso en la corteza somatosensorial.

Toque del tálamo → 30ms → Picos de voltaje → No más actividad
        La consciencia NO nota el toque    

Pero la parte extraña de esto es como el paciente inicialmente siente y tiene el pensamiento consciente de que alguien tocó su dedo después de solo 30 milisegundos si se requieren 500 milisegundos de potencial en su cerebro para que tenga ese pensamiento. Lo que Libet propone es que los 500 milisegundos que suceden después en realidad se remiten antes en el tiempo, por lo que el paciente realmente es consciente de que eso sucederá después, porque si eso no sucediera después, no debería haber tenido el pensamiento consciente de que sucedió.

Ahora esto suena un poco loco, si Libet tiene razón, lo que significa es que nuestra consciencia está realmente a cargo y tenemos libre albedrío en nuestra consciencia, pero la información en realidad se remite hacia atrás en el tiempo para que nuestra subconsciencia obtenga el potencial de preparación listo antes de que realmente tengamos el pensamiento consciente de hacer algo.

Por supuesto, en la escala macro esto simplemente suena una locura, porque eso significaría que… digamos que tienes un balón de fútbol allí, luego el balón de fútbol comienza a moverse repentinamente y luego mueves tu pie para patearlo, y dices que la razón por la que el balón de fútbol comenzó a moverse fue porque lo pateaste más tarde en el tiempo, lo que no tiene ningún sentido, ya que la causa siempre tiene que venir antes que el efecto en la escala macro (aunque en la escala cuántica, a veces la causa puede ser posterior al efecto).

Así que no está claro si es nuestra consciencia o nuestra subconsciencia la que está liderando el camino y las decisiones que tomamos a diario. De hecho, la consciencia es uno de los aspectos menos entendidos en la ciencia, por ejemplo, ¿por qué una computadora, con todas las señales en movimiento y la información que ocurre en ella, no puede experimentar algo; pero para mí, cuando tengo todas estas sinapsis que están ocurriendo en mi cerebro, ¿puedo tener una experiencia?

Actualmente no hay nada en la ciencia que pueda explicar por qué tenemos sensaciones reales, los científicos pueden explicar el mecanismo que hay detrás, sabemos muy bien cómo ocurren las sinapsis y el mecanismo real del por qué están ocurriendo como si fuéramos una gran máquina en movimiento, pero no hay nada que pueda explicar la sensación real de ello. ¿Por qué experimentamos el color? Sabemos cómo se produce el color y qué es y qué lo causa, pero no sabemos por qué experimentamos el color. Y la consciencia es una de esas cosas de las que no estoy seguro de si alguna vez se resolverá en la ciencia. No estoy seguro de si alguna vez podremos explicar científicamente por qué tenemos sensaciones, por qué podemos sentir y experimentar cosas, mientras que algún otro objeto que tiene las mismas reacciones atómicas y movimientos mecánicos y un movimiento molecular no experimenta algo.

Ahora, la consciencia es tan difícil que ha sido apodada El problema de la consciencia en la ciencia. Esta es la razón por la que algunas personas pueden recurrir a la religión para explicar cosas como esta, por ejemplo, tal vez se deba a algo que no es físico, sino a algo espiritual que sucede dentro de ti y que realmente te hace tener consciencia. Ahora, hay muchas teorías religiosas, filosóficas y científicas, y tú eliges lo que decides creer de dónde viene la consciencia, porque la ciencia no ha resuelto esto aún.

Desconozco si The Action Lab se ha pronunciado alguna vez como ateo o agnóstico, pero es claro por todo lo que acabas de leer que no es algún tipo de teísta. Pero observen que él ofrece las mismas razones que el Dr. Craig y el Dr. Rosenberg sobre por qué parece imposible que los estados intencionales existan en un mundo puramente material. Y, lo más interesante, son las conclusiones distintas a las que llegan los no teístas: Rosenberg se aferra a su cosmovisión ateísta y decide creer que los estados intencionales no existen, ¡una postura bastante radical con tal de evitar la conclusión de que Dios existe! En cambio, The Action Lab termina sosteniendo una postura más débil y que a pocos ateos les agradará: los estados intencionales no pueden y probablemente nunca puedan ser explicados por la metodología científica. Por supuesto, él no admite que Dios sea la mejor explicación debido a su compromiso científico; pero tampoco cree que sea irrazonable postular causas sobrenaturales, al menos no en este terreno sobre la consciencia.

NOTAS

[i] Para una discusión teísta sobre estos experimentos: https://es.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P230/el-experimento-de-libet-y-el-determinismo

 

Jairo Izquierdo es miembro del equipo de Social Media y autor para la organización cristiana Cross Examined.  Estudia filosofía y teología, siendo su actual foco de estudio la lógica clásica, epistemología, doctrinas cristianas y filosofía del lenguaje.  Es cofundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y director de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.

/by
La participación del creyente en el proceso político, parte II

La participación del creyente en el proceso político, parte II

Por David L. Rogers

Parte I: Un libro, una Ilustración de los Gobiernos.

El cristiano y el mundo:

El mundo está mal por muchos motivos, algo parecido a lo que vivió Lot (Génesis 19:1-29 con 2a Pedro 2:6-7). Hoy vemos que el crimen se escapa de la mano de las policías quienes no logran frenar su aumento año tras año, la perversión sexual y moral está en plena calle, la familia está degradada y corrompida, los padres y las madres pelean y se atacan, resultando en consecuencias tan graves como el femicidio y el fratricidio, los niños y los adolescentes mienten a sus padres, odian a sus padres y aun matan a sus padres (parricidio), la corrupción abunda en las fuerzas armadas y los carabineros en donde la misma institución esconde los abusos financieros y éticos, los políticos se aprovechan de las excepciones de la ley a fin de lograr fines ilícitos, la sociedad promueve lo que antes era vergonzoso como es la homosexualidad, los “Drag Queens,” los Travestis, los “Queer” – todo tipo de práctica porque “no hay nada más relevante que la cuestión de su género” y las lesbianas quienes caminan por la calle sin recelo alguno acariciándose a vista de otros. En nuestro mundo ya reinan los extremos sin límite. Estamos rodeados de peligros por ataques terroristas, por sicarios que se desquitan matando a sangre fría con armas automáticas, hay protestas y marchas para toda clase de causa y la sociedad está cada vez más revolucionada y alterada. Vivimos en un mundo realmente autodestructivo.

En otro tiempo, Lot sintió el peso del pecado de manera que estaba “abrumado” (2 Pedro 2:7, LBLA) por su cultura. No por nada se vive hoy, como en aquel tiempo, y claro, se experimenta las expresiones y prácticas nada menos opresivas frente al pecado y el libertinaje que se vive hoy. El pecado sobreabunda y permea la sociedad a tal punto que el que temeroso de Dios no sabe qué más puede hacer para ayudar a frenar este desenlace desenfrenado.

Por todo esto, se puede concluir que nuestro mundo es menos que moderno. El posmodernismo ha creado una realidad de extrema perversión. Me explico. El modernismo como movimiento o como postulación social y cultural aceptaba y creía que había verdades que eran objetivamente universales. Esas verdades definían lo que era bueno o malo, verdadero o falso, aceptable o intolerable. Sin embargo, el modernismo falló porque descartó y desmintió muchas de las verdades tradicionalmente aceptadas, tales como la definición de lo correcto, la necesidad de una moral objetiva, y la verdad de que existía un Dios verdadero y conocible. El modernismo puso en tela de juicio todo lo que nuestros abuelos, desde el Siglo XIX y hacia atrás, creían y confirmaba. En su lugar, durante los años 1930 en adelante, la gente cuestionó qué era verdad y el movimiento del postmodernismo teológico y moral o ético inundó la educación. Ya no se creía que había verdades objetivas. Lo racional y lo lógico era desmentido, descartado, y reemplazado por lo conveniente, lo tolerado. Nadie podía decir a otro que sus creencias fueran universales ni absolutas.

Esto del postmodernismo dividió lo objetivo de lo subjetivo en una especie de casa de dos pisos. Dividió lo que era intelectual, científico y racional, juntándolos en el “primer piso” de la filosofía, en donde las cosas nombradas eran objetivas, reales, seguros y superiores. Estos últimos los divorció del “segundo piso” de la esfera de lo emocional, religioso, moral y ético. El primer piso es donde se ubican las “verdades públicas” siendo las cognitivas, verificables, objetivas. El segundo piso es donde se ubican creencias subjetivas, relativas, culturalmente definidas y en especial las ideas-preferencias individuales o personales.  Desde la década de los ´70 en adelante la definición de lo que era verdad o no, lo que era racional o no, y lo que es personal versus lo que es público se han dividido y apartado de manera plena. Todos los postmodernos (sépanlo o no) creen que la fe, la religión y las morales son valores personales y por ende no son universales ni son objetivas, y menos son racionales. Son simplemente relativas. Es como quien dice, “Tú tienes tu verdad, yo tengo la mía. No hay una verdad universal.” La sociedad ahora acepta y actúa a base con los dos pisos, o dos “reinos” de verdad: la verdad personal y la verdad cultural o social. Esto es el postmodernismo. Y ello ha infiltrado posteriormente en la cultura, también en la política y en el acto de gobernar.

Es en este segundo ámbito que se define o se inserta la política moderna. Pero ¿Cómo se está infectando el postmodernismo a la política actual? Todos los hemos escuchado: a los influenciadores de la opinión pública quienes dicen cosas como, por ejemplo: “No se puede legislar la moralidad,” o “El estado no debe fomentar ni promover ninguna religión en especial,” o por ejemplo “deja tu fe en casa cuando vengas a realizar tu trabajo en el congreso.” Estos y otros dichos hacen echo de la filosofía secularizada para con el lugar de la fe y las creencias. Vale decir, de la separación entre la verdad objetiva versus las creencias personales.

La casa del gobierno, el senado, la oficina del alcalde, ¿son acaso lugares donde no corresponde, o donde no hay lugar para la fe pública? No fue así cuando Chile se fundó. El mismo Simón Bolívar, creador intelectual de la primera constitución de Chile y de varios países de Latinoamérica, fue un creyente férreo en la dignidad del ser humano porque estaba basado en la santidad de vida otorgada por la Biblia misma. La historia de las revoluciones latinoamericanas demuestra que Simón Bolívar sabía el valor de la moral, las leyes basadas en la misma Ley divina. Entonces, cuando Chile nació, al igual que muchos de los países en el continente sud americano, la fe y las creencias cristianas influyeron fuertemente en la formación de las constituciones originales.

Desde esta mira preguntamos: ¿debe el cristiano contemplar integrarse en la clase política o ser un líder político? ¿Qué sucede si un creyente se integra al mundo de los políticos o de los que gobiernan la nación? La Biblia entrega amplios ejemplos de personas—tanto hombres como mujeres—quienes sí, formaron parte de la clase política y quienes fueron insertos, a veces a la fuerza, al liderazgo o la gobernación de un país. De ellos podemos sacar importantes ejemplos de cómo y por qué un cristiano hoy también puede tener una influencia en la dirección de su país.

  1. Consideraciones bíblicas:

En primer lugar, a través de la historia del pueblo judío, se ven varios “hombres políticos” que, sin ser reyes ni generales, fueron parte de un gobierno, el cual hasta a veces era totalmente pagano. Una breve lista sirve para mostrar que la integración a una administración de un rey u otro les proveyó de muchas oportunidades influyentes e importantes.

Por Ejemplo:

Nehemías, el asistente personal del rey de Babilonia. Siendo un hombre de confianza del rey Artajerjes, Nehemías estaba dotado de especial influencia tanto en las leyes como en la toma de decisiones del rey. Nehemías fue seleccionado por Artajerjes porque poseía las cualidades de un hombre imparcial, confiable y sabio. (ver Nehemías 2:1-10). Demostró las cualidades necesarias para ser un líder a nivel real y con una influencia clave para el gobierno de Babilonia.

Daniel, el gobernador real, primer ministro de Babilonia. En el mismo país que Nehemías, Dios preparó a un joven, de entre 17 a 22 años quien accedería al palacio de Nabucodonosor, en función de un miembro del gabinete de rey. (Considera Daniel 1 y 3). Daniel poseía un don especial: poder interpretar los sueños. Esta habilidad divina fue estratégica para el momento que vivía la nación judía a ser un defensor de dicho pueblo.

José, el esclavo hecho vice rey, segundo solo al mismo Faraón. Otra vez, un gobernante que fue ascendido por sus capacidades extraordinarias de poder interpretar los sueños. No es eso, sin embargo, la condición necesaria para lograr este puesto importante. José se destacó primero en la cárcel por ser un administrador excelente.

Estudia Génesis 41:1-46, esp. v. 14-16, 46

En el contexto israelita, Moisés fue un legislador por excelencia. Moisés, claramente nombrado por el Dios de Israel, conoció sus primeros lineamientos de la legislación nacional cuando en Egipto, siendo considerado el hijo de la hija de Faraón, le enseñaron sus leyes junto con sus respectivos castigos y condenas.

En otra época al momento de nacimiento de la iglesia primitiva, también hay muchos ejemplos y enseñanzas específicas.  No hay que olvidar que los apóstoles y los cristianos del primer siglo no buscaban estar involucrados en la política, pero por necesidad, fueron obligados a enfrentarse con el sistema político del día.

Ejemplos del Nuevo Testamento:

1) Hechos 4:8-20 con 1 Pedro 2:13-17–los apóstoles reconocían y respetaban tanto las autoridades judías, así como las romanas.  Esto quiere decir que el cristianismo no fue un movimiento revolucionario en contra del orden establecido. Los temas al eje del trato con el gobierno son respeto, honor, el actuar siendo hombre/mujeres libres en una manera digna, y la sumisión a las autoridades. El mismo Apóstol Pedro quien respondió con valentía y firmeza que no podía desobedecerle a Dios, a pesar de la orden dada por el Sanedrín, es el mismo Pedro que exhortó a los cristianos perseguidos a someterse al gobierno del hombre. Solo cuando las órdenes del gobierno fuesen en contra de la voluntad de Dios era posible y aceptable (pero no recomendable) actuar contrarios a las mismas y esto sabiendo que el cristiano sufriría por ello cual hicieron eventualmente.

2) Hechos 4:19-20; 5:29-30—al enfrentar las leyes humanas que iban en contra de la ley de Dios, los apóstoles tomaron una posición en contra, mostrando así sus convicciones personales. El conflicto en ambos pasajes se originó a causa de la libertad de expresión personal, no para la iglesia. Esta represión contra ellos fue entendida como algo permitido por el Señor. Pero los apóstoles siguieron predicando y enseñando en desobediencia a las autoridades de la nación judía. Por lo tanto, se ve en estas acciones la posibilidad de la desobediencia civil que en ocasiones sucede. Junto con ella, también comenzó la persecución contra la iglesia. En resumidas cuentas, la libertad de expresión fue tan valiosa que los apóstoles estaban dispuestos a sufrir por ella, sabiendo que no podían desobedecer a Dios (Hechos 4:20).

3) Hechos 4:13; 5:1-11, 26, 39; 26:26–La actitud tomada por los apóstoles y la hermandad en general les dio una excelente plataforma del cual podían dirigirse a los asuntos morales, éticos y políticos, teniendo como respaldo un estilo de vida radicalmente diferente que la sociedad, pero no radical en su actitud hacia las autoridades civiles. Nunca intentaron crear una tendencia en contra de las autoridades, pero tampoco se escondieron su actuar (Hechos 26:26).

Entendemos que los apóstoles mantuvieron una actitud de reverente respeto hacia el Sanedrín, hacia las autoridades políticas de la nación de Israel y también hacia el gobierno reinante, los romanos. Pero, por otra parte, no fueron tímidos ni esquivos al defender sus convicciones de que la voluntad de Dios para la iglesia incluía, según el caso, marcar una diferencia entre la libertad de culto y la expresión personal de la misma y las prácticas represivas de los líderes judíos cuando se manifestaron en contra de la iglesia. Nadie ni nada superaba la Palabra de Cristo al ser testigos de su Nombre. Ni siquiera las autoridades patriarcales de una nación corrupta que había vendido su alma al gobierno opresor romano.

¿Cuáles principios podemos extraer de estos eventos? Son al menos tres:

1) El respetar a las autoridades de una nación no elimina la posibilidad de discrepar de sus órdenes y hasta incluso desobedecerlas. Aunque el creyente corra el peligro de sufrir por ello, le será necesario en esta situación pedir al Señor la gracia para aguantar las consecuencias.

2)  Los creyentes abogamos por la libertad de expresión, la libertad de culto y la libertad de prensa. Estas libertades pueden ser costosas al defenderlas. El derecho que se debe defender para efecto de predicar el Evangelio y de vivir una vida tranquila lo debemos defender al igual para todos de cualquier religión, credo, fe o doctrina, sabiendo que, al hacerlo, se defiende un derecho esencial de la vida.

3)  De particular importancia es la conclusión fundamental que la iglesia de Cristo no posee ni la exigencia ni el privilegio de controlar, manejar, dirigir ni castigar las autoridades civiles. La iglesia de Cristo posee otros fines de mayor calibre y duración que los que se ve el gobierno humano posee. No es la iglesia universal ni local un mero siervo de las autoridades gubernamentales ni tampoco es un bastón para castigarlo.

Ahora conviene pasar a considerar los aspectos fundamentales del modelo bíblico de la sociedad y, por ende, el gobierno civil.

Bibliografía

Eidsmore, John, God and Caesar: Christian Faith and Political Action (Crossway Books, Westchester, 1984, Dios y el César: La Fe Cristiana y la Acción Política).

Feinberg, J. S., & Feinberg, P. D.,  Ethics for a Brave New World  (Etica para un Mundo Nuevo Valiente, Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1993).

MacArthur, John, Piense Conforme a la Biblia, (Editorial Portavoz, Grand Rapids, 2004.)

Pearcy, Nancy R., Verdad Total: Liberar el Cristianismo de su Cautiverio a la Cultura (Editorial JUCUM, Tyler, Texas, 2014).

Sproul, R.C. Following Christ. (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996.)

Whitehead, John W., An American Dream (Crossway Books, Westchester, 1987, Un Sueño Americano).

 

David L. Rogers, misionero y profesor en Chile por 35 años, es graduado del Clarks Summit University, Clarks Summit, Pensilvania (1980, BRE) y del Seminario Teológico “Moody” de Chicago (1997, Masters of Arts). David y su esposa de 39 años, Ruth Ann, y sus cuatro hijos han servido en Santiago en la fundación de tres iglesias, donde además fundaron una editorial chilena que durante 14 años ha publicado libros, recursos y estudios originales en español. Su pasión es de capacitar a líderes locales capaces de guiar la obra de Dios con amor, humildad y destreza espiritual. También la apologética es una prioridad para David, y por ello, está cursando su segundo año en un programa de Masters of Arts in Apologetics en la Houston Baptist University. David y Ruth Ann tienen cuatro nietos preciosos quienes viven en los Estados Unidos con sus padres.

/by
La participación del creyente en el proceso político, parte I

La participación del creyente en el proceso político, parte I

By David L. Rogers

A book, an Illustration of the Governments

Books, which enrich our lives so much, are an invention of the 16th century. Before that, all writing was on scrolls or parchments or in letters. There were no books as we know them today. Books are held together by something that most readers are unaware of: a binding. It was in 1473 that Mr. William Claxton in Great Britain learned to use a printing press to mass produce books, and he was the first to print the captions of “The Trojan War” by binding the sheets together using a binding to hold them together. Previously, Mr. Johann Gutenberg, in 1455, was the first to experiment with movable type using a printing press to print books. Once the pages are printed, they have to be put together, assembled and collated in a curiously “backwards” manner. That is, the first pages are connected to the last pages, and the front pages of the book are connected to the back pages. What binds the whole book together is the part called the book back, a cover that most consider unimportant. The binding makes a book a book, otherwise it would be nothing more than a stack of separate, loose sheets of paper. Interestingly, even before the events mentioned above, the Chinese knew and used removable characters to create books in Chinese as early as 1050 AD. For almost 1,000 years, man’s civilizations have benefited from what we know as the book!

The binding of a book is a legitimate analogy to the government of a people: it must bind the citizens together, almost imperceptibly, but with firmness and durability. The government of a given country must function so that what is unequal or unknown sticks together, is held together, and is considered as an integral part of society. The problem is when the government is too weak, allowing the pages of the book to be easily separated by the pressures of society. That is, a government that has no elasticity soon cracks and allows its citizens to separate or distance themselves. On the other hand, the reality of a demanding, heavy and abusive government is like a binding that does not allow the book to be opened, nor to be manipulated because it is too stuck and hard. It is like a binding to which too much glue has been applied, ending with the pages of the book stuck together, unified, but restricted. The book cannot be used and read.

When man comes together or wishes to form a group, community or organization, it is natural and necessary that there should be some degree of administration. The set of laws and rules and ordinances that allow him to govern exemplifies and establishes government. In practice, families unite around a matriarch or patriarch, tribes function with a chief or leader, clans follow an elder or a guide, and towns also follow someone… whether by choice, by inheritance, by feat or by popularity. All united groups throughout the world require some kind of leader, whether social, religious or national. Government gives character and unity to society.

Governments are formed under this precept. Whether informal or formal, whether highly constituted or rather relaxed, governments exist to dictate laws and practices to benefit the members of society. Their only reason for existing is to look after the good of the people they govern. In other words, the government exists for the people, NOT the other way around. This means that the government must function within parameters agreed upon and approved by the people themselves. A government without the support of the people themselves is an imposition or a manipulation of the people. Or worse, it is a dictatorship.

Regarding the role of the politician and the political class, it is essential to understand that the mass of people (i.e., the common people) have allowed politicians to govern them, being different from themselves in their worldview, to maintain a practical distance from the people. Very few ordinary citizens understand politics, and even fewer want to get involved in it. This is because many believe that politics is “dirty” or “dishonest” or even more, corrupt.

Large nations, made up of masses and their subordinate citizens, are people who do not care about the work or responsibilities of their own rulers. Citizens blindly trust politicians to be capable of exercising political power and to possess the qualities or courage to protect their national and personal interests. But the sad reality is that “the 20th century was the bloodiest ever” in the history of man (Nancy Pearcey, p. 141) which may indicate that citizens have lost control of their governments, and because governments have taken advantage of the blind trust that was placed in them.

In some places and contexts, modern governments, perhaps more than at any time in human history, are trampling on the citizens they are meant to care for. The abuse of political power today has left millions of people without the proper protection of an effective government founded on right principles and concepts and by the design of the Creator.

Our objective in this study is to present some of the concepts that the Bible establishes as solid and necessary for government, and in turn, to examine reasons that support and propose the participation of the believer in the processes of government.

By way of introduction, let us look at some texts that demarcate the limits of human government:

  1. Genesis 9:5-6. The man who kills another man shall suffer the death penalty. The government has power over the life of the one who commits the crime of murder against his brother. But God, for those who commit involuntary manslaughter, provided a refuge or a protected place for the guilty one. This shows that God makes a difference between malicious death and accidental death.
  2. Exodus 20:13 Taking another’s life with the intent to harm another is forbidden. But if a man kills another because he hates him or because he wants to harm him, the former must suffer the death penalty. This penalty will be issued by the authority of the government. Compare Ex. 21:12-15. Administering capital punishment is the sole responsibility of judges and authorities. It is not up to the individual to decide how and when to apply capital punishment.
  3. The reason the government uses the sword as an instrument of punishment, according to Romans 13:1-7, is to protect the citizen, to pass judgment, and to honor man who was created in the image of God. God entrusted the government with the duty of protecting people. This is because when a man or woman attacks other people, they are attacking the Creator God Himself. Therefore, God Himself demands that other men apply the sword to them or stop them from doing more harm to other people. It is a way of protecting the inherent image of God in the human being.
  4. This foundation—the right over the life of man—indicates that human government has limited power, temporal authority, and the function of instituting laws, ordinances, and punishments for the citizens under its supervision and care. But it does not indicate what is the best model of this government, nor what role the citizen plays in the exercise of these powers. To do so, we will have to examine certain biblical models or examples.

[The next part of this writing will develop on: The Christian and the world].

Literature

Eidsmore, John, God and Caesar: Christian Faith and Political Action (Crossway Books, Westchester, 1984 ).

Feinberg, JS, & Feinberg, PD,   Ethics for a Brave New World   ( Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1993).

MacArthur, John, Think Bible-Wise, (Portavoz Publishing, Grand Rapids, 2004.)

Pearcy, Nancy R., Whole Truth: Freeing Christianity from its Captivity to Culture (YWAM Press, Tyler, Texas, 2014).

Sproul, R. C. Following Christ . (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996.)

Whitehead, John W., An American Dream (Crossway Books, Westchester, 1987, Un Sueño Americano ).

 

David L. Rogers, a missionary and teacher in Chile for 35 years, is a graduate of Clarks Summit University, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania (1980, BRE) and Moody Theological Seminary, Chicago (1997, M.A.). David and his wife of 39 years, Ruth Ann, and their four children have served in Santiago planting three churches, and founded a Chilean publishing house that for 14 years has published books, resources, and original studies in Spanish. His passion is training local leaders capable of guiding God’s work with love, humility, and spiritual skill. Apologetics is also a priority for David, and he is currently in his second year of a Masters of Arts in Apologetics program at Houston Baptist University. David and Ruth Ann have four precious grandchildren who live in the United States with their parents.

/by

¿Están realmente dejando el cristianismo los jóvenes?

Much has been written about the biblical illiteracy of teenage believers and the flight of young people from the Church. Many have observed this trend, and I too have seen it anecdotally as a youth pastor (and shamefully, I contributed to the trend for some time before changing course). Some Christian writers and observers deny the flight of young people outright, but the mounting statistics should alarm us enough as Church leaders to do something about it. My hope in this post is simply to consolidate some of the research so that you can decide for yourself. I will organize recent findings in a way that illuminates the problem:

Research related to the spiritual life of adolescents:

Soul Searching : The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers*

Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton, Oxford University Press, 2005

What we find in the books: Most teenagers are incredibly inarticulate about their faith, religious beliefs and practices, and its place in their lives. The de facto dominant religion among contemporary American teenagers* is what they call “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism”: There is a God who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth; God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to one another, as taught in the Bible and most world religions; the central goal of life is to be happy and feel good about oneself; God need not be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to solve a problem; and good people go to heaven when they die.

*Given the technological and cultural state, this is today a global reality that encapsulates Latin American adolescents alike (Jorge Gil)

Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teens Is Telling the American Church

Kenda Creasy Dean, Oxford University Press, 2010

What we find in the books: Dean states what Soul Search calls ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’ “If teenagers lack articulate faith, it may be because the faith we show them is too weak to merit much attention in conversations.”

The Teen Guide to Global Action: How to Connect with Others (Near and Far) to Create Social Change

Barbara A. Lewis, Free Spirit Publishing, 2007

What we find in the books: More teens are embracing a nebulous belief about God. However, there has been an “explosion” in youth service since 1995, which Lewis attributes to more schools emphasizing community service.

The State of Theology

Ligonier Ministries and Lifeway                         Research (2015)

Study Findings: In this survey of theological beliefs, researchers asked self-professed Christians to respond to a series of statements related to classical and historic Christian doctrine. In every response offered regarding these theological beliefs, young people between the ages of 18 and 34 consistently held heretical views at a higher rate than older respondents. Young people who identify as Christian are much more likely to hold non-Christian views.

Research related to the attitude of university professors:

Politics and career advancement among university professors

Stanley Rothman, S. Robert Lichter, Neil Nevitte (2005)

Study findings: “Nearly three-quarters” (72%) of faculty members describe themselves as politically liberal, according to 1999 data from the North American Academic Studies Survey (NAASS), up from 39% in a 1984 survey by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

How religious are American college professors?

Neil Gross, Solon Simmons (2006)

Study findings: About 25% of college professors are atheists or agnostics (5-7% of the general population is atheist or agnostic). Only 6% of college professors said the Bible is “the true word of God.” 51% described it as “an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts.” 75% believe religion does not belong in public schools.

Religious beliefs and behaviors of university professors

The Institute for Jewish & Community Research Review – Personal (2007)

Study Findings: The study revealed several findings related to teachers’ political and religious views, including the following key findings:

“Most teachers believe in God, but atheism is significantly more prevalent among teachers than among the general public.

The proportion of professors who self-identify as atheists is more than five times greater than the proportion of people who self-identify as atheists in the general public.

Teachers are much less religious than the general public

The American public** is much more likely than teachers to say that religion is very important in their daily lives and to attend religious services more frequently.

Teachers perceive themselves as warm toward most religious groups, but cold toward evangelicals and Mormons

Teachers have positive feelings towards Jews, Buddhists and atheists.

Teachers feel very unfavorable towards evangelical Christians

This is the only religious group about which the majority of non-evangelical faculty have negative feelings.

Professors are almost unanimous in their belief that evangelical (fundamentalist) Christians should keep their religious beliefs out of politics.

Professors who are secular/liberal are more likely to favor separation of religion and government, and those who are religious and conservative are more likely to advocate a closer connection between religion and government.

Although professors generally oppose religion in the public sphere, many support the idea that Muslims should express their religious beliefs in politics.

“Teachers are much less likely to support evangelical Christians who express their beliefs in American politics.”

* *Given the technological and cultural state, this is today a global reality that encapsulates the Latin American public equally (Jorge Gil)

Compromising scholarships: religious and political bias in American higher education

George Yancey (2011)

What we found in the books: “Conservative religious scholarship is at a distinct disadvantage in our institutions of learning, threatening the free exchange of ideas to which our institutions aspire and leaving much scientific inquiry unexplored.”

Research related to the decline of the Christian population in general

American Religious Identification Survey

Barry A. Kosmin, Egon Mayer, and Ariela Keysar (2001)

Study Findings: The number of people who identify as Christian has dropped from 85% in 1990 to 76% in 2008. About 52% of American adults identify as Protestant or other non-Catholic Christian denominations, according to their self-reported data. That’s down from 60% in 1990.

The Changing Religious Landscape of the United States**

Pew Research Center (2015)

Study findings: “The percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christian has declined by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in a similarly massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Over the same period, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated — describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” — has risen more than six points, from 16.1% to 22.8%.”

Gallup Religious Identification Survey

Gallup Daily Tracker

Study Findings: While the number of Americans** who identify as Christian remains high (75%), it has dropped 5% since 2008.

Five key findings about religion in the United States**

Gallup National Poll (2016)

Study Findings: This national survey of Americans’ religious affiliation revealed the following (among other findings):

The United States remains a majority Christian nation, though less so than in the past. 74% of Americans identify as Christian, only 5% identify as affiliated with a non-Christian religion. When the last survey was conducted in 2008, 80% of Americans identified themselves as Christian.

The trend away from formal religion continues. About 21% of Americans say they are atheist, agnostic or have no religious affiliation. This represents an increase of 6% since 2008.

Americans continue to say that religion is losing its influence in American society. 72% of Americans say that religion is losing its influence in American life.

The persistent and exceptional intensity of religion: A response to recent research

Study of Sociological Science (2017)

Study Findings: This study, which examined the General Social Surveys from 1989 to 2016, found the following:

The number of people who say they are strongly affiliated with a religion is a minority, but it does not seem to have changed much between 1990 and 2015.

Less than 40% of Americans say they have strong religious affiliations. Those who say they are not strongly affiliated are leaving the church, dropping from about 55% in 1990 to about 42% in 2015. Those who say they are not affiliated with any religion have gone from 8% of the population to about 22% over the same period.

Only about 8% of the population attends church several times a week. The number of people who said they attended “sometimes” has dropped from about 79% to 69% between 1990 and 2015. Those who never attend church have increased from 14% to nearly 25% in the same time period.

About 33% of the population described the Bible as the “Literal Word of God.” The number of people who describe the Bible as “inspired, but not literal” has decreased from about 53% to 47% between 1990 and 2015. The number of people who describe the Bible as a “Book of Fables” has increased from about 15% to 21% during that time.

The number of people who identify as “evangelical” has remained somewhat stable over this period, at around 29%. The number of people who identify with a “non-evangelical” affiliation has dropped from about 66% to 51%. The number of people who say they have no religious affiliation has increased from about 8% to 23% over this same time period.

Investigation into the escape of young people from the Church

Why Christian Boys Abandon the Faith

Tom Bisset, Discovery House Publications (1997)

Book Findings: In this very early study, Tom Bisset interviewed people and asked them when, why, and how they left their faith. He identified four major reasons:

They left because they had troubling and unanswered questions about faith.

They left because their faith was not “working” for them.

They left because they allowed other things to take priority.

They left because they never owned their faith.

Southern Baptist Convention Facts

Pinkney, T.C., Remarks to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, Nashville, Tennessee (2001)

Study Findings: Data from the Southern Baptist Convention indicates that they are currently losing 70-88% of their youth after their first year of college. 70% of teens who participate in church youth groups stop attending church within the first two years of their high school graduation.

“The cycle of religiosity”

Gallup Poll Study (2002)

Study Findings: Results indicate that teens are most religious during their early teen years, and that religiosity begins to decline as they approach adulthood. Sixty-three percent of 13- to 15-year-olds responded “very important,” compared with 52 percent of 16- to 17-year-olds. Church attendance also declines during adolescence and young adulthood and begins to increase as adults age. Fifty-four percent of 13- to 15-year-olds reported attending church in the past seven days, as did 51 percent of 16- to 17-year-olds. The figure drops to 32 percent among 18- to 29-year-olds, but rises again to 44 percent among 50- to 64-year-olds and 60 percent among 75-year-olds and older. Sixty-nine percent of 13- to 15-year-olds say they are members of a church or synagogue, compared with 59% of 16- to 17-year-olds, 60% of 18- to 29-year-olds, 72% of 50- to 64-year-olds, and 80% of those 75 and older.

The Family Life Council of the Southern Baptist Convention

Report of the Southern Baptist Council on Family Life to the Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (2002)

Study Findings: 88% of Children in Evangelical Homes Leave the Church by Age 18

Revolution

George Barna, Tyndale House Publications, Carol Stream, IL (2005)

What we find in the books: If current trends in the belief systems and practices of the younger generation continue, in ten years church attendance will be half of what it is today.

Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers

Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton, Oxford University Press (2005)

What we found in the books: Students leave faith behind primarily because of intellectual doubt and skepticism (page 89). “Why did you turn away from the faith you were raised in?” This was an open-ended question—there were no multiple-choice answers. 32% said they left faith behind because of intellectual skepticism or doubt. (“It didn’t make sense anymore.” “Some things are too crazy for me to believe.” “I think scientifically and there’s no real proof.” “Too many questions that can’t be answered.”)

“Most twenty-somethings put Christianity on the shelf…”

Barna Studio (2006)

Study Findings: Most twentysomethings—61% of today’s young adults—had attended church at some point in their teens but are now spiritually disinterested.

The last Christian generation

Josh McDowell, David H. Bellis, Green Key Books (2006)

What we found in the books: 63% of Christian teens do not believe Jesus is the Son of the one true God. 51% do not believe Jesus rose from the dead. 68% do not believe the Holy Spirit is a real entity. Only 33% of church-going teens have said the church will play a role in their lives when they leave home.

Assemblies of God Study

Dayton A. Kingsriter (2007)

Study Findings: At least half and possibly more than two-thirds of Christian youth will fall away from the Christian faith while attending a non-Christian college or university. Between 50% and 66.7% of Assemblies of God youth who attend a non-Christian public or private college will have left the faith four years after entering college.

LifeWay Research Study

LifeWay Ministry Research and Development (2007)

Study Findings: 70% will leave the faith in college. Only 35% eventually return. 7 in 10 Protestants ages 18 to 30 — both evangelical and mainline — who went to church regularly in high school said they stopped attending school by age 23. 34% of respondents said they had not returned, even sporadically, by age 30. This means that about one in four young Protestants has left the church. “The most frequent reason for leaving the church is, in fact, a self-imposed change, ‘I simply wanted a break from the church’ (27%). “The path to college and the workforce are also strong reasons for young people to leave the church: ‘I moved away from college and stopped attending church’ (25%) and ‘work responsibilities prevented me from attending’ (23%).”

Antichristian

David Kinnaman, director of the Barna Research Group, Baker Books; (2007)

What we found in the books: Christians in their twenties are “significantly less likely to believe that a person’s faith in God is meant to be developed by involvement in a local church. This life stage of spiritual disinterest is not going away.”

Rethink: Is Student Ministry Working?

Steve Wright, InQuest Ministries, Inc. (2007)

What we found in the books: 63% do not believe that Jesus is the Son of the one true God. 58% believe that all religions teach equally valid truths. 51% do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. 65% do not believe that Satan is a real entity. 68% do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a real entity.

Religious and political self-identification, 1990-2008

Barry A. Kosmin and Juhem Navarro-Rivera (2008)

Study Findings: This research, based on the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, addresses the religious beliefs and behaviors of people born from the early 1960s through the late 1970s and early 1980s:

Generation X has weakened its ties to Christianity (85% in 1990 vs. 75% in 2008)

Generation X has become more secularized over time. In 1990, 11% were “nones” compared with 16% in 2008; 13% of Gen Xers did not identify with a religion (including Don’t Know and refusals) in 1990, compared with 21% in 2008.

Christian Gen X groups became more female-dominated over time (with the exception of Protestant sects), while “nones” and other religions became more male-dominated.

Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults

Christian Smith, Patricia Snell (2009)

What we found in the books: Among American adults, emerging adults are significantly less religious. Generally speaking, the importance and practice of religion declines among young adults. No more than 15% of the total emerging adult population embraces a strong religious faith. Thirty percent tend to customize their faith to fit the rest of their lives. They often have a strong religious upbringing, but tend to be more discerning about what they will embrace. A smaller group, about 15%, believes in some higher power, but they are not sure what that means. About 25% of the emerging adult population may say they are religious or even appreciate religion, but it just doesn’t matter. 5% of all emerging adults have had little or no exposure to religious people, ideas, or organizations. 10% of emerging adults are skeptical of religion and reject the idea of ​​personal faith. They tend to have critical, dismissive, and antagonistic attitudes toward religion.

The present and the future: Six difficult questions for the Church

Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2009)

What we find in the books: 90% of young people active in high school church programs leave the church by the time they are sophomores in college.

Those Who Have Already Left: Why Your Kids Will Leave the Church and What You Can Do to Stop It

Ken Ham, Britt Beemer, with Todd Hillard, New Leaf Books Group/Master Publications (2009)

What We Find in the Books: Young people in the church are already “lost” in their hearts and minds in elementary, middle, and high school – not in college as many assume.

After the Baby Boomers: How Twenty- and Thirty-Somethings Are Shaping the Future of American Religion

Robert Wuthnow, Princeton University Press (2010)

What we found in the books: “Unless religious leaders take young adults more seriously, the future of American religion is in doubt.” The share of young adults who identify with mainline churches is “about half the size it was a generation ago. Evangelical Protestants have barely held on.”

“Spirituality in Higher Education”: The UCLA Higher Education Research Institute

Alexander W. Astin, Helen S. Astin, and Jennifer A. Lindholm (2010)

Study Findings: 52% of college students reported frequent church attendance in the year before entering college, but only 29% continued to attend church frequently in their junior year of high school.

University Transition Project

The Fuller Institute for Youth (2010)

Study Findings: Current data seems to “suggest that about 40-50% of students in youth groups struggle in their faith after graduation.”

Ex-Christian Generation: Why Young Adults Are Leaving the Faith…and How to Bring Them Back

Drew Dyck, Moody Publishers (2010)

What we find in the books: The departure of young people from the Church is recognized and several categories of “leavers” are identified, including “postmodern leavers,” “retrogrades,” “modern leavers,” “neo-pagans,” “rebels,” and “drifters.”

You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving the Church…and Rethinking Faith

David Kinnaman, Baker Books (2011)

What we find in the books: Nearly three out of five young Christians disconnect from their churches after age 15.

Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood

Christian Smith with Kari Christoffersen, Hilary Davidson and Patricia Snell Herzog, Oxford University Press (2011)

What we find in the books: Young adults are unable to think coherently about beliefs and moral issues. Young adults have an excessive focus on consumption and materialism as the good life. The predominant lifestyle of young adults includes frequent intoxication and drug use. Young adults’ sexual encounters are not practiced in an environment of physical, mental, or emotional health. Young adults seem to have an inability to care about, invest in, and have hope for the world at large through civic and political participation.

Listening to young atheists: Lessons for a stronger Christianity

Larry Taunton, Punto Fijo Foundation (2013)

Study Findings: Taunton interviewed members of atheist campus groups (the Secular Student Alliance and the Freethought Societies). “These campus groups are the atheist equivalents of Campus Crusade: They meet regularly for fellowship, encourage one another in their (dis)belief, and even proselytize. These are people who are not merely irreligious; they are actively and decidedly irreligious.” Taunton eventually recognized an emerging pattern in those he interviewed, and identified several characteristics of “decidedly irreligious” young college students:

They had attended church at some point

The mission and message of their churches were vague

They felt their churches offered superficial answers to life’s difficult questions.

They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously.

The ages of 14 to 17 were decisive

The decision to embrace disbelief was often an emotional decision.

The Internet greatly influenced his conversion to atheism

Unchurched: Understanding the Unchurched Today and How to Connect with Them

George Barna and David Kinnaman, Tyndale Momentum (2014)

What We Found in the Books: The Barna Group conducted tens of thousands of interviews with unchurched people and discovered the following:

The number of unchurched Americans has increased by nearly a third in just 20 years

If unchurched Americans were their own nation, they would be the eighth largest on Earth.

The younger you are, the more likely you have never been to church.

The younger the generation, the more post-Christian it is

America’s Changing Religious Landscape

Pew Research Center (2015)

Study Findings: “While many American religious groups are aging, the unaffiliated are comparatively young – and getting younger, on average, over time… One of the most important factors in the decline in Christian participation and the growth of the “nones” is generational replacement. As the “millennial” generation enters adulthood, its members show much lower levels of religious affiliation, including less connection to Christian churches, than older generations. 36% of younger millennials (ages 18-24) are religiously unaffiliated, as are 34% of older millennials (ages 25-33).… As a growing cohort of highly unaffiliated millennials enters adulthood, the median age of unaffiliated adults has dropped from 38 to 36, down from 38 in 2007 and well below the median age of 46 years of the general (adult) population.4 In contrast, the median age of mainline Protestant adults in the new survey is 52 years (compared with 50 in 2007), and the median age of Catholic adults is 49 years (compared with 45 seven years earlier).

Choosing a New Church or House of Worship

Pew Research Center (2015)

Study Findings: In this seemingly unrelated study, researchers surveyed religious “nones” (78%) who said they had been raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood, and asked them to explain, in their own words, why they no longer identified with a religious group. They uncovered the following themes:

About 50% said that “lack of belief led them to leave religion.” This includes many respondents who cite “science” as the reason they don’t believe in religious teachings, including one who said, “I’m a scientist now and I don’t believe in miracles.” Others cite common sense, logic, or lack of evidence, or simply say they don’t believe in God.

About 20% said they were “opposed to organized religion in general.” This share includes some who dislike the hierarchical nature of religious groups, several people who think religion is too much like a business, and others who cite clergy sexual abuse scandals as reasons for their stance.

About 18% said they were “religiously unsure.” This includes people who said they were religious in some way despite being unaffiliated (e.g., “I believe in God, but in my own way”), others who describe themselves as “seeking enlightenment” or “open-minded,” and several who said they are “spiritual,” or religious.

About 10% said they “may have certain religious beliefs, but they do not currently participate in religious practices.” And most of them simply (said) they (did not) go to church or participate in other religious rituals, while others (said) they (were) too busy for religion.

Exodus: Why Americans are abandoning religion and why they are unlikely to return

Betsy Cooper, Ph.D., Daniel Cox, Ph.D., Rachel Lienesch, Robert P. Jones, Ph.D., Public Religious Research Institute (2016)

Study findings: “Today, nearly four-in-ten (39%) young adults (ages 18-29) are religiously unaffiliated, three times the unaffiliated rate (13%) among older adults (ages 65 and older). While previous generations were also more likely to be religiously unaffiliated in their twenties, young adults today are nearly four times as likely as young adults a generation ago to identify as religiously unaffiliated. In 1986, for example, only 10% of young adults claimed no religious affiliation. Among young adults, the religiously unaffiliated dwarfs the percentages for other religious identifications: Catholic (15%), white evangelical Protestant (9%), white mainline Protestant (8%), black Protestant (7%), other non-white Protestant (11%), and affiliation with a non-Christian religion (7%).”

“In the 1970s, only about one-third (34%) of Americans who were raised in religiously unaffiliated homes remained unaffiliated as adults. By the 1990s, just over half (53%) of Americans who were unaffiliated as children retained their religious identity into adulthood. Today, nearly two-thirds (66%) of Americans who report being raised outside a formal religious tradition remain unaffiliated as adults.”

More importantly, the study found that most Americans who abandon their childhood religion do so before reaching adulthood. Seventy-nine percent of young adults ages 18 to 29 who become religiously unaffiliated report having made this decision during their teenage years. In earlier years, those who abandoned religious beliefs reported doing so much later. Only 38 percent of people over age 65, for example, reported having abandoned their religion during their childhood years.

National CARA Study

Mark M. Gray, Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (2016)

Study Findings: (Although CARA only surveys young Catholic believers, its results parallel the results of the Christian surveys reported in this article.) “The first CARA study, commissioned by Saint Mary’s Press, included a survey of a national random sample of young people, ages 15 to 25, who had been raised Catholic but no longer identified as such. The second CARA study, made possible by funding from the John Templeton Foundation, included a survey of a random sample of self-identified Catholics, ages 18 and older, and focused on issues of religion and science.” Most young people said they left the Church by age 13: 63 percent said they left between ages 10 and 17. Twenty-three percent said they left before age 10. Those who left cited the following reasons:

“Because I realized it was a story like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.”

“As I learn more about the world around me and understand things I didn’t understand before, I find the thought of an all-powerful being less and less credible.”

“Catholic beliefs are not based on facts. They are all hearsay from before anything could be documented, so nothing can be refuted, but they certainly should not be taken seriously.”

“I realized that religion is in complete contradiction to the rational and scientific world, and to continue subscribing to a religion would be hypocritical.”

“I need proof of something.”

“It no longer fits into my understanding of the universe.”

NextGen Research

Larry Barnett, Next Generation Project (2016)

Study Findings: NextGen research revealed the following key points:

The decline of Christianity in America spans all segments of the population: young and old, men and women, within all races, at all income and education levels, and in all geographic regions.

The presence or absence of doubt was found to be the best predictor of Christian affiliation and spiritual health, compared to several hundred other factors.

Adults (and teens) who are younger, highly educated, knowledgeable, high-achieving, technologically engaged individuals who may have religiously diverse friends are the most likely to leave the faith.

CIRP Freshman Survey

Cooperative Institutional Research Program (2017)

Study Findings: The CIRP Freshman Survey of 184 U.S. colleges and universities collects data on incoming college students’ background characteristics, high school experiences, attitudes, behaviors, and expectations for college. This survey revealed the following key findings:

Thirty-one percent of incoming freshmen are not affiliated with any religion, a threefold increase since 1986, when only 10 percent identified themselves this way. Because the survey is administered to students before they arrive on campus, the decline in religious identity seen in these cross-sectional studies cannot be attributed to the college experience. Religious attendance is also declining precipitously among incoming students.

Generation Z: The culture, beliefs and motivations that shape the next generation

Barna Research Group (2018)

Study Findings: Barna’s most comprehensive research study investigating the perceptions, experiences and motivations of 13- to 18-year-olds from Generation Z reports the following:

59% of students in this age group identify as Christian or Catholic (compared to 75% of the Elders). 21% say they are atheist or agnostic (compared to 11% of the Elders). 14% say they have no religious affiliation (compared to 9% of the Elders).

Students in this age group offer the following “barriers to faith”:

“I find it hard to believe that a good God would allow so much evil or suffering in the world” (29%).

“Christians are hypocrites” (23%)

“I think science refutes too much of the Bible” (20%)

“I don’t believe in fairy tales (19%)

“There are too many injustices in the history of Christianity” (15%)

“I used to go to church, but it’s not important to me anymore” (12%)

“I had a bad experience at church with a Christian” (6%)

Students in this age group struggle to reconcile science with the Bible. 24% side with science (vs. 16% of boomers). 31% believe science and the Bible refer to different aspects of reality (vs. 25% of boomers). 28% believe science and the Bible can be used to support each other (vs. 45% of boomers). 17% consider themselves to be on the side of the Bible (13% more than boomers, but 19% less than millennials).

Students in this age group have positive perceptions of the church in the following areas:

The church is a place to find answers to living a meaningful life (82%)

The church is relevant to my life (82%)

I feel like I can “be myself” at church (77%)

People in the church are tolerant of those with different beliefs (63%)

Students in this age group have negative perceptions of the church in the following areas:

The church seems to reject much of what science tells us about the world (495)

The Church overprotects teenagers (38%)

People in the church are hypocrites (36%)

The church is not a safe place to express doubts (27%)

The faith and teaching I find in the church seem quite superficial (24%)

The church is too much like an exclusive club (17%)

When students in this age group were asked why they did not believe the church was important, they gave the following reasons:

“The church is not relevant to me” (59%)

“I find God elsewhere” (48%)

“I can teach myself what I need to know” (28%)

“I think the church is outdated” (20%)

“I don’t like the people who are in the church” (15%)

“Church rituals are empty” (12%)

ABC News / Washington Post Religious Affiliation Survey

Langer Research Associates (2018)

Study Findings: Based on 174,485 interviews from ABC News and ABC News/Washington Post polls conducted by telephone from 2003 to 2017, the study found that 18- to 29-year-olds are becoming less religious, at a rate that far outpaces that of their older counterparts. Between 2003 and 2017, the number of 18- to 29-year-olds who identify as nonreligious has increased by 16% (from 19% to 35% of the U.S. population), while the percentage of Americans age 50 and older who identify as nonreligious has increased by only 5% (from 8% to 13%).

When Americans say they believe in God, what do they mean?

Pew Research Center (2018)

Study Findings: This survey of more than 4,700 American adults found that there is a wide discrepancy related to beliefs about God between 18-29 year olds and older generations:

Those who believe in God as described in the Bible: 43% of 18-29 year olds / 65% of boomers

The survey also found that among people who believe in God or a higher power, young people are less likely to believe God is active and engaged:

Those who believe that God loves all people, despite their faults: 67% of 18-29 year olds / 83% of boomers

Those who believe God has protected them: 68% of 18-29 year olds / 83% of boomers

Those who believe that God knows everything: 63% of 18-29 year olds / 76% of boomers

Those who believe God has rewarded them: 61% of 18-29 year olds / 68% of boomers

Those who believe God has the power to direct/change everything: 52% of 18-29 year olds / 67% of boomers

Those who believe that God determines what happens in their lives: 41% of 18-29 year olds / 51% of boomers

Those who believe that God has punished them: 44% of 18-29 year olds / 33% of boomers

Those who believe God has spoken to them: 21% of 18-29 year olds / 31% of boomers

Interestingly, this survey also found that young people, when thinking about God, are more likely to think of Him as a punishing Deity than their older counterparts.

He’s gone, he’s gone, he’s gone: The dynamics of disaffiliation in young Catholics

Saint Mary’s Press Research Group and The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University (2018)

Study Findings: Although this is a Catholic study, there are many parallels with evangelical studies conducted over the past 10 years. This two-year national study on why young people are leaving the Catholic Church found that young former Catholics (the vast majority of whom now self-identify as “nones”) are leaving Catholicism for the following reasons:

“They perceive that organized religion has corrupted the fundamental teachings of Jesus.”

“They see the dogmas and doctrines of the church as nonsense.”

“They believe they can live a more moral life without the burden of religion.”

“Many feel that religion was imposed on them.”

“They report feeling freer and happier without what they experience as the burden of religion.”

“When asked at what age they no longer identified as Catholic, 74 percent of the sample said between 10 and 20 years old, with a median age of 13.”

Millennials and their retention since confirmation: A survey of LCMS congregations

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (2018)

Study Findings: This comprehensive survey of 184 LCMA congregations found the following:

Congregations reported that only 1 in 3 young people who were confirmed between 2004 and 2006 are still worshipping in an LCMS church today:

30% of these young people left before graduating from high school.

34% left after graduating from high school.

The study also found that LCMS churches retained young believers at a much higher rate if they:

They retain their youth pastor or youth leaders for a long period of time (“The data is clear: local retention when the pastor changes is substantially lower.”).

Their church leadership was generally younger (“Congregations with young adult leaders performed better on all retention measures. They were more likely to retain young people to graduation, produced greater numbers of confirmands who remain in the LCMS, retained more in their own church body, and even attract more young adults today.”).

Their youth group is larger (“Based on average weekly attendance, large congregations confirm a greater number of youth and retain more of their confirmands in the LCMS, regardless of whether they remain in their home congregation.”).

Although this survey of books and studies is not complete, it does provide us with powerful cumulative and circumstantial evidence supporting the claim that young people are leaving the Church in large numbers. More importantly, it appears that most of these young people leave before their college experience. But, although colleges may not be the primary cause of the youth exodus, they certainly play a role in affirming and reinforcing a secular worldview in the minds of young people who have already left the faith. Some studies have attempted to isolate potential responses that can be employed by parents and Church leaders:

Research into possible responses to youth flight from the Church

Youth Theological Initiative at Emory University in Georgia.

Elizabeth Corrie

What we find in books: There seems to be no shortage of teens who want to be inspired and make the world better. But the version of Christianity taught to some doesn’t inspire them “to change something that’s broken in the world.” Teens want to be challenged; they want their tough questions to be taken up. “We think they want cake, but they really want meat and potatoes, and we keep giving them cake,” churches, not just parents, share some of the blame for teen religious apathy. “…The gospel of niceness can’t teach teens to deal with tragedy. It can’t bear the weight of deeper questions: Why are my parents getting divorced? Why did my best friend commit suicide? Why, in this economy, can’t I get the good job I was promised if I was a good kid?”

Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults

Christian Smith, Patricia Snell, Oxford University Press (2009)

What we find in the books: Parents are the most important and powerful socializers in the lives of their teens. The teen years are not the time to stop parenting. Teens’ growing independence often requires negotiation. If teens experience parents who are religiously withdrawn and functionally absent, then an emerging adult’s faith will likely also be hollow, directionless, and empty. The more adults involved in teens’ lives, the better off they will be. This will mean that youth and family ministries must find ways to incorporate loving, agenda-free adults into ministry lives. Youth ministries matter now more than ever. With the disintegration of the family and the systemic erosion of adult support, congregational youth ministers are needed more than ever.

Christians are hateful hypocrites…and other lies you’ve been told: A sociologist busts myths about secular and Christian media (2010)

Bradley R. E. Wright, Bethany House (2010)

What we found in the books: Parents of students who did not leave the church emphasized religion twice as much as students who left the church. Students who stayed in the church during college said the first thing they do when they have doubts or questions is talk to their parents and then read their Bibles.

You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving the Church…and Rethinking Faith

David Kinnaman, Baker Books (2011)

What we found in the books: Nearly 25% of 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed said “Christians demonize everything outside of the church” most of the time. 22% also said the church ignores real-world problems, and 18% said their church was too concerned with the negative impact of movies, music, and video games. 33% of survey participants think “church is boring.” 20% of those who attended as teens said God seemed absent from their church experience. Many young adults dislike the way churches seem to be against science. More than 33% of young adults said “Christians are too confident they know all the answers,” and 25% of them said “Christianity is anti-science.” 17% of young Christians say they have “made mistakes and feel judged in church because of them.” Two in five young adult Catholics said the church’s teachings on birth control and sex are “outdated.” Twenty-nine percent of young Christians said “churches are afraid of the beliefs of other religions” and feel they have to choose between their friends and their faith. More than 33% of young adults said they feel they cannot ask life’s most pressing questions in the church and 23% said they have “significant intellectual doubts” about their faith.

Families and Faith: How Religion Is Transmitted Through Generations

Vern L. Bengtson. Norella M. Putney, Susan Harris, Oxford University Press (2013)

What We Found in the Books: Several key findings were uncovered in this 35-year study of families, focusing on the question of how religion is transmitted across generations:

Parents continue to be the greatest influence on their children’s faith.

When a child sees and hears that faith really makes a difference in the lives of mom and dad, they are much more likely to follow their example.

Young adults are more likely to share their parents’ religious beliefs and involvement if they feel they have a close relationship with them.

Young Christians who leave the faith are much more likely to return when parents have been patient and supportive, and perhaps more tolerant and open than before the prodigal son left.

5 Reasons Millennials Stay Connected to Church

Barna Studio (2013)

Study Findings: This research included a series of national public opinion surveys conducted by the Barna Group to find the most effective ways to keep millennials connected to church. Listed below are the following strategies:

Developing meaningful relationships with millennials

Teaching millennials to study and discern what is happening in the culture.

Helping millennials discover their own mission in the world, rather than asking them to wait their turn.

Teaching millennials a more powerful theology of vocation, or calling.

Helping millennials develop lasting faith by facilitating a deeper sense of intimacy with God.

Nothing less than that: Engaging young people in a life of faith

Jana Magruder and Ben Trueblood (2018)

What We Found in the Books: / Studies: Shelby Systems conducted a study in preparation for the publication of this book. The study surveyed 2,000 Protestant and nondenominational churchgoers who attended services at least once a month and have adult children ages 18 to 30 who are still believers. They found the following “Predictors of Spiritual Health for Young Adults”:

The child reads the Bible regularly as he grows up.

The boy regularly spent time in prayer while growing up.

The boy served regularly in the church while growing up.

The child listened mainly to Christian music.

The child participated in church mission trips/projects.

Additionally, they found that parents who had successfully transmitted their faith to their children were typically involved in the following activities:

Read the Bible several times a week.

Participate in a service project or church mission trip as a family.

Sharing their faith with non-believers.

Encourage teens to serve in the church.

Asking for forgiveness when they made mistakes as parents.

Encourage your children’s unique talents and interests.

Taking annual family vacations.

Attend churches with teachings that emphasize what the Bible says.

Teaching your children to tithe.

There you have it; a brief summary of some of the research being done on the exodus of young people from the Church and some of the reasons given for their departure. Can it be argued that young Christians are leaving the Church in record numbers? Yes. Can it be argued that many of these young people are leaving because the culture around them has deeply impacted them and caused them to question the truth claims of Christianity? Yes, again. So what are we going to do about it? What can be done? Think about it, that’s what we’re here for.

 

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Adjunct Professor of Christian Apologetics at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, author of Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, and creator of the Case Makers Academy for children.

/by
Las citas de San Pablo: evidencia de la datación temprana de los evangelios

Las citas de San Pablo: evidencia de la datación temprana de los evangelios

Por Lidia Mcgrew

La sabiduría popular del mundo de la erudición del Nuevo Testamento sabe que, si uno es muy conservador, se fechan todos los evangelios entre 60 DC y 100 DC. No antes. El único registro de las enseñanzas de Jesús que tenemos antes de eso es una tradición oral, y cuando nosotros los occidentales escuchamos “tradición oral”, asumimos que esto significa “algo muy incompleto y minimalista de lo que tenemos en los textos de los Evangelios”.

El consenso casi universal de los expertos -no sólo entre los eruditos “muy conservadores”- es que el Apóstol Pablo murió a más tardar en el año 68 durante la persecución de Nerón a los cristianos.

¿Qué nos dice entonces, la sabiduría popular, si encontramos que el apóstol Pablo hace alusiones casuales a pasajes de los Evangelios como si esperara que sus lectores los reconocieran y aceptaran como autoridad?

Se dice que la sabiduría popular bien podría estar equivocada. Esto aumenta significativamente la probabilidad de que al menos un evangelio sinóptico (o evangelios), que contiene los pasajes que Pablo menciona, fueron escritos mucho antes de lo que la sabiduría popular sostiene. O por lo menos que necesitamos reforzar radicalmente nuestra noción de la “tradición oral”. Recuerda que todo lo que Pablo citaba tuvo que haber tenido suficiente tiempo para ser difundido a sus lectores, muchos de ellos lejos de Jerusalén. Esto es importante. Si él se refería a documentos, se refería a documentos escritos lo suficientemente atrás de la fecha de su propia escritura que, copias de estos documentos o informes precisos, hubiesen llegado a sus lectores y estos los hubieran aceptado como copias o informes verdaderos de los acontecimientos de la vida y enseñanzas de Jesús.

Dicho esto, algunos ejemplos de estas alusiones paulinas:

1 Corintios 9:14 “Así también ordenó el Señor que los que proclaman el evangelio, vivan del evangelio” ¿El Señor ordenó? ¿Dónde? Aquí, en Mateo 10:9-19: “No se provean de oro, ni de plata, ni de cobre para llevar en sus cintos, ni de alforja para el camino, ni de dos túnicas, ni de sandalias, ni de bordón; porque el obrero es digno de su sostén”. O aquí, en Lucas 10:4.6 “No lleven bolsa, ni alforja, ni sandalias… Permanezcan entonces en esa casa, comiendo y bebiendo lo que les den; porque el obrero es digno de su salario.”

1 Corintios 6:2 “¿O no saben que los santos han de juzgar al mundo? Y si el mundo es juzgado por ustedes, ¿no son competentes para juzgar los casos más sencillos?” ¿Por qué se esperaría que los corintios sepan estos? Posiblemente, por Mateo 19:28 “Jesús les dijo: “…cuando el Hijo del Hombre se siente en el trono de Su gloria, ustedes se sentarán también sobre doce tronos para juzgar a las doce tribus de Israel.” (O su pasaje paralelo en Lucas 22:39).

1 Corintios 13:2 “… y si tuviera toda la fe como para trasladar montañas, pero no tengo amor, nada soy.” ¿Por qué alguien pensaría que la fe mueve montañas? Quizás por qué Jesús lo dijo. Mateo 17:20 “Y Él les dijo: “Por la poca fe de ustedes; porque en verdad les digo que, si tienen fe como un grano de mostaza, dirán a este monte: ‘Pásate de aquí allá,’ y se pasará; y nada les será imposible.”

Permítanme señalar en este punto que este tipo de alusión, sin citar exactamente igual es perfectamente normal en los escritos de este tipo (también es común en la predicación y en la literatura de hoy en día). Justino Mártir, por ejemplo, hace alusiones similares no sólo a los Evangelios, sino también a la Septuaginta.

1 Corintios 11:23-26, uno de los pasajes más famosos de la Escritura:

“Porque yo recibí del Señor lo mismo que les he enseñado: que el Señor Jesús, la noche en que fue entregado, tomó pan, y después de dar gracias, lo partió y dijo: “Esto es Mi cuerpo que es para ustedes; hagan esto en memoria de Mí.” De la misma manera tomó también la copa después de haber cenado, diciendo: “Esta copa es el nuevo pacto en Mi sangre; hagan esto cuantas veces la beban en memoria de Mí.” Porque todas las veces que coman este pan y beban esta copa, proclaman la muerte del Señor hasta que El venga.”

La redacción paralela es Lucas 22,19-21, es sorprendente:

“Y tomando el pan, después de haber dado gracias, lo partió, y les dio, diciendo: “Esto es Mi cuerpo que por ustedes es dado; hagan esto en memoria de Mí.” De la misma manera tomó la copa después de haber cenado, diciendo: “Esta copa es el nuevo pacto en Mi sangre, que es derramada por ustedes. Pero, vean, la mano del que Me entrega está junto a Mí en la mesa…”

Además de la redacción casi exactamente igual al relato de Lucas de la Institución de la Eucaristía, tenemos la alusión a la traición de Cristo (Todas las narraciones de la Pasión en los Evangelios dicen que esto ocurrió en la noche de la traición de Jesús). Y tan sólo unos pocos versículos antes en Lucas y Mateo, Jesús menciona su regreso: “Porque les digo que no volveré a comerla (la Pascua) hasta que se cumpla en el reino de Dios.”

Es justo señalar que muchos comentaristas toman que Pablo recibió su información acerca de la última cena como una revelación directa de Dios -esto como una interpretación de la frase de Pablo “Yo recibí del Señor.” Sin embargo, los paralelos verbales al evangelio de Lucas, en concreto, son muy llamativos en este pasaje. Parece poco probable que Jesús hubiera hecho una revelación a Pablo que hace parecer que Pablo específicamente se estuviera refiriendo al evangelio de Lucas y no a los demás. Aun cuando Pablo recibió una revelación directa de Dios acerca de la Última Cena, él pudo haber comentado esa la revelación en forma verbal en la carta a los corintios, citando el testimonio que Lucas había investigado y proporcionado. También es posible que algunos comentaristas estén influenciados por la suposición de que los evangelios escritos no estaban disponibles a Pablo en esta fecha temprana, y que por lo tanto él debe haber recibido esta información por completo como una revelación especial. Pero, en realidad, la redacción del pasaje sugiere que Lucas o algo muy parecido a Lucas era conocido por Pablo.

Estas alusiones son pruebas importantes para demostrar la familiaridad de Pablo, ya sea con el texto de algunos de los Evangelios, especialmente Mateo y Lucas, o de lo contrario a las “tradiciones” muy detalladas que llegaron por lo menos a textos parciales de los Evangelios en sustancialmente la misma forma verbal como los escritos que tenemos.

Dado que Lucas fue compañero de Pablo (véase, por ejemplo, Hechos 16:10-17 y 20:5-15, entre otros “nosotros” de los pasajes de Hechos), tiene todo el sentido imaginar que Pablo realmente estaba presente mientras que Lucas redactaba su Evangelio y pudo haber leído partes del mismo “en proyecto”, por así decirlo, y la referencia en 2 Corintios 8:18 “Junto con él hemos enviado al hermano cuya fama en las cosas del evangelio se ha divulgado por todas las iglesias.” puede ser una referencia a Lucas y a su trabajo en ese momento de anotar las “Buenas Nuevas “. Y una vez más, las referencias de Pablo implican una expectativa de familiaridad por parte de su público, que sería bien explicada por la disponibilidad del Evangelio de Lucas a los Corintios previo a la escritura de I Corintios.

Puede parecer como “pescar en un barril” citar a Richard Dawkins sobre dicho tema, pero la siguiente cita ilustra una actitud bastante común hacia la relación entre las epístolas paulinas y los Evangelios:

“Los evangelios no son relatos confiables de lo que sucedió en la historia del mundo real. Todos fueron escritos mucho después de la muerte de Jesús, y también después de las epístolas de Pablo, que no mencionan casi ninguno de los supuestos hechos de la vida de Jesús.” El espejismo de Dios (edición de 2008, p. 118).

San Pablo es una vergüenza para el escéptico sobre la historicidad de los Evangelios, y mientras más radical es un escéptico, más vergonzoso se vuelve Pablo. La historicidad de Pablo es indudable. Incluso la denuncia falsa de que no tenemos cartas escritas por Jesús (como si eso fuera un requisito para la aceptación de la historicidad de nadie) no se aplica a Pablo. Y el breve credo al principio de I Corintios 15 se ha utilizado ampliamente y con vigor por los apologistas cristianos para argumentar a favor de la fecha temprana de las afirmaciones básicas del cristianismo. Es útil, si no realmente necesario, para alguien en la posición de Dawkins, rebajar el grado en que las epístolas paulinas confirman los Evangelios.

De la declaración de Dawkins se podría obtener la impresión de que las epístolas paulinas son poco teológicas de manera que esto impide que tengan alguna relación significativa con siquiera los acontecimientos fundamentales de la vida de Jesús como se informa en los Evangelios, y mucho menos los textos de los Evangelios mismos. Aunque las epístolas son realmente teológicas y, por lo tanto, diferentes en el género de los evangelios, se basan claramente en una religión con firmeza histórica. La implicación de que los escritos de Pablo son ajenos a los hechos reales de la vida de Jesús es absurda, especialmente en lo que se refiere a la crucifixión y la resurrección. Alusiones de Pablo a la cruz son numerosas (por ejemplo, 1 Corintios 1:17-18, 2:23, Gálatas 3:01).

Hay otros aspectos de la vida de Cristo, también, de los que Pablo demuestra conocimiento: 2 Corintios 8:09, “…a pesar de que, siendo rico, por vosotros se hizo pobre” es una clara alusión a la forma de vida de Jesús -por ejemplo, Lucas 9:58, “El Hijo del hombre no tiene dónde recostar la cabeza.” 1 Timoteo 6:13 menciona el juicio de Jesús ante Poncio Pilato. Y, por supuesto, el pasaje de Corintios 11 muestra el conocimiento de los acontecimientos del Jueves Santo -la institución de la Eucaristía y de la traición.

El argumento del principio, sin embargo, muestra más de la familiaridad de Pablo con varios eventos en la vida de Jesús. Un examen detallado nos da evidencia no despreciable para la familiaridad de Pablo y la familiaridad de sus lectores con al menos uno de los evangelios sinópticos -muy probablemente Lucas y Mateo probablemente también. Esta conclusión sería muy inconveniente de hecho, para la “sabiduría” popular incluso entre los estudiosos del Nuevo Testamento, y aún más para los apologistas del ateísmo, como Dawkins.

Notas

Los ejemplos de este artículo provienen de Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, Las Epístolas de San Pablo a los Corintios, 5ª ed. (London: John Murray, 1882)

 

​Traducido por José Giménez Chilavert

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2mJaycn

/by
Conceptualizando las dos naturalezas de Jesús

Conceptualizando las dos naturalezas de Jesús

By Max Andrews

Reduplicated preaching is the means to understanding the relationship between the natures of Jesus Christ. When Scripture attributes human qualities to Jesus they must be based on his human nature. Likewise, when Scripture attributes divine qualities to Jesus they must be based on his divine nature.

With this insight, we might be able to solve the problem of the predicates of the Person. The predicate property of the Person is one with respect to nature (i.e. ignorance with humanity and omniscience with divinity — hunger and fatigue with humanity, need with divinity).

But now there is a problem. Once we apply this to Jesus, such predicates as omniscience and ignorance, and sinlessness and humanity seem to be incompatible. A problem with limitations is posed. Is this irremediable? I don’t think so.

Additional Qualifier – We can posit that the divine aspects of Jesus were largely subliminal during his humiliation (his ministry before death). What reasons are there to support this qualifier? In fact, this qualifies Jesus’ humanity even further.

Psychoanalysis has confirmed the existence of a subconscious. This is evident in schizophrenia and in hypnosis. With schizophrenia there is one conscious that is awake and one (or more) that is not, however, the subliminal subconscious can still become a reality. There is one that controls and governs the conscious. With hypnosis, one can be hypnotized and instructed not to look at, for example, a table. If you were instructed to walk to the door, and the table was between you and the door, you would walk around the table, even though you cannot literally see it, you still have the knowledge that it exists in your subconscious.

During the incarnation, the Logos allowed only certain aspects of consciousness into the person of Christ that were compatible with normal human experience. This gives much more light to the genuineness of his temptation, the anointing and filling of the Spirit, the Spirit drawing him into the wilderness, his prayer to the Father (these are not just samples). Jesus, at 3 years old, would not have been contemplating Newton’s infinitesimal calculus or quantum mechanics; he was a genuine Jewish boy growing in wisdom and stature.

So in essence it was a self-limitation of humanity with simultaneous practical divinity in one Person. This is different from Kenotic Christology in that He does not give up certain attributes and no longer possess them. In this view, He still retains all the human and divine aspects of voluntary limitation.

 

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2nir4jz

Translated by Jorge Gil Calderon

/by