- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (12/28)
- Next Post »A La Carte (12/29)
The New Paganism
- 12/28/09
- 19
Today, the second to last day of my vacation, I offer this little reflection on Bruce Waltke’s Old Testament Theology. It is a massive book and more than a little intimidating, but still very much worth the read.
After six introductory chapters, Waltke turns to Old Testament theology proper in a chapter entitled “The Gift of the Cosmos” and here, as we might expect, he discusses God’s work as creator. He argues here that it is critically important that we read the opening chapters of Genesis properly, acknowledging the author’s intended literary genre. Though he eventually argues that this section is meant to be read as “ancient near eastern cosmogony,” which in turns leads to supporting his views on theistic evolution (a view I do not support) I found something very useful in this section. He explains how a wrong reading of the creation account leads to further and deeper problems. He shows how culture’s refusal to acknowledge the creator necessarily leads to the anti-God worldview so apparent in society around us. “Christians now live on a mission field with worldviews that besiege the message of ethical monotheism.” He says that this new paganism has six faces, each of which proceeds from the one before it.
1. The common worldview of the Western world since the time of the enlightenment has been materialism. This philosophy says that matter and its motions constitute the entire universe. Everything in the universe has to be regarded as due to material causes.
2. There is an implication to materialism. Since everything is material, ideally and theoretically, everything is subject to empiricism. Here he quotes Alan Reynolds who says, “empiricism, which insists that all knowledge is based on observation, experimentation, and verification, has led to belief in a self-sufficient universe that can be understood on its own terms, without any need of the transcendent or of God.”
3. Together materialism and empiricism entail a belief in an inherent coherence within nature between cause and effect. This, in turn, has led to belief in determinism, which understands reality as mechanical and without inherent value. Life’s origins and the nature of humanity have natural rather than divine causation.
4. Secularism is a political or social philosophy that embraces each of these “-isms”—materialism, empiricism and determinism. It embraces natural causation and and rejects religious faith and worship in the public square. Nature, society, and government become instruments dedicating only to fulfilling our material desires which masquerade as “rights.” This is fast becoming the dominant worldview among Western intellectual elites.
5. Secular humanism is a system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity are predominant. This leads to a kind of intense pragmatism that calculates everything in terms of its benefit to humanity. There is no acknowledgment of God and his rule of the created order.
6. Post-modernism or New Ageism marks what is really a return to old-fashioned paganism, though with a distinctly modern twist to it. New Ageism takes distinctives of Eastern religion and distorts them with Western concepts. Post-modernism replaces the objective reality of God as revealed in special revelation with subjective deifications of individual expressions of spirituality. Waltke says, “it rejects the notion of a revealed moral code and instead tests truth by its therapeutic value.” In this worldviews there are no better or worse cultures but merely differences between them.
When you see these six faces of the new paganism you see how important it is that we get Genesis right! The irony, I suppose, is that I am not at all convinced that Waltke is correct in his views on creation. Still, he acknowledges the Creator, of course, and acknowledging God as He reveals Himself in the Bible is a safeguard against the post-modern, secular humanistic viewpoint that pervades society. Those in our society who refuse to admit the existence of this God are soon left with materialism and from there empiricism and all that these -isms entail.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (19)
Peter Jones of Westminster Seminary California has been sounding the "neo-pagan" alarm for some time. His ministry, truthxchange.com, is committed to identifying and providing a response to the new paganism.
I was thinking how In Genesis, after the flood, Shem lived another 500 years. Noah lived 350 years. And I believe Abram was born 295 years after the flood. I wonder did Abram know Shem, or even Noah?
And with such men alive on Earth, and for sure they must have been telling the facts of the flood to the people, of how God destroyed the Earth, you would think paganism would have been less prominent.
It all goes back to mankind being dead, and yet alive. Unless God quickens a dead sinner, he will be a pagan.
Thanks for the post. Very thought provoking.
If Waltke is a theistic evolutionist, then I submit that he’s just as beholden to the six faces of the “new paganism” (which aren’t new at all) as a non-theistic evolutionist would be. Theistic evolution is nothing more than the old darwinism with some kind of an imagined god thrown in with a role that’s ill-defined at best. It’s an on-the-fence position that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible being solely responsible for ex-nihilo creation of the biological kinds, but instead imagines their origins through purely mechanistic, random evolutionary processes. I couldn’t agree more, Tim, that a “wrong reading of the creation account leads to further and deeper problems,” and “how important it is that we get Genesis right!” But the position of theistic evolution is, I firmly believe, a wrong reading of the creation account that fails miserably to get Genesis right.
I used to wonder why some pastors spend so much time establishing and defending the biblical basics of creation, fall, and redemption, especially from Gen 1-3. Going wrong at the beginning means going wrong at the end. Waltke's discussion, if not his conclusions, helps us see why.
How about another "-ism," feminism? I work with a number of people who are neo-pagan in a more classical sense, they adhere to Wicca and other resurgent Celtic/Druidic beliefs. One thing I have noticed is the increased desire for female deities. One woman I spoke with about Christianity exclaimed, "I could never do without my goddesses! How can I believe in something that ignores the divine female?" Further evidence of the need to get Genesis right.
The church, especially in the west, has sadly been influenced by all of these - the first one especially. Though we wouldn't overtly say that 'things' constitute the sum total of the universe - we often live as if they do.
Dick:
I appreciate your concern to rightly interpret the Genesis account, and I completely . However, I think you have misrepresented the "theistic evolutionist" position. I'm not speaking for Waltke here, I don't know what his position is and I have not read his book. Your critique of theistic evolutionism may apply to some (perhaps even to Waltke, but from what Mr. Challies wrote here I doubt it). There are Christians who believe that God providentially superintends the evolutionary process. That is to say, in their view God created utilizing evolution as his "tool." In their view, evolution is not just a mechanistic, random process, but one that is guided by the invisible and providential hand of God. God calls the world into existence ex-nihilo and guides its development utilizing evolutionary processes.
This view may be problematic (and need to be rejected!) for a number of other reasons, but there are Christians that hold to it without denying God created the world ex nihilo or denying that God is a providential God.
That's a very interesting--and logical progression. His comment that secularism is gaining traction as the prevalent Western minset reminds me of Hunter Baker's "The End of Secularism." Ever read it.
So true. I appreciate the way you've laid out these six steps. It really highlights the progression well. It's so obvious through this that the reasoning against God is circular: if the supernatural doesn't exist, then God (and the supernatural) doesn't exist.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
Can anyone recommend any bite-sized introductions to Waltke - preferrably readable online (or audio or video)?
The new paganism is still the old problem of humanity as described in Romans 1:18-21. Setting aside the various views of godly creation scholars as to long vs short etc, all Christian worldviews present God as being Creator. Waltke presents a neat package but that's all it is. There is nothing new under the sun.
It was God who gave them over to denying Him - children of Adam. It wasn't from a 'miss-reading' of Genesis as such that has lead to this neo-paganism. Man has been the God denier from the beginning. What could be know about God through creation has now been shut off from man. Man needs the illuminating Spirit of God through Christ and His word before man can worship the creator rather than the creature.
"18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."
Josiah:
Thank you for your response to my comment, and the gracious tone of your writing. Perhaps I can offer some additional thoughts for what they’re worth.
Certainly we can’t deny that God could providentially superintend the evolutionary process beyond the original creation, within the created kinds, to guide the further development of living forms (what is sometimes known as adaptation or microevolution). But within the original creation of the kinds, we encounter what I believe to be a major problem.
Evolution requires natural selection, and that requires the deaths of the “less fit” in favor of the survival of the “more fit.” Scripture teaches that death came into the world because of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21 & 22). So if we say that God created the original kinds as described in Genesis 1 by utilizing evolution as His “tool,” aren’t we saying that He used a product of sin to do His creating? And wouldn’t that conflict with His five-fold declaration that His creation was good - and in the final analysis, very good?
Dick
I couldn't agree with you more on this issue.Getting Genesis right is indeed very important and at best "theistic evolution" is incompatible with proper hermeneutics. You mentioned one reason why this is, but I will mention one other reason.In order to have a consistent hermeneutic we must seek to understand what words mean consistently and in context through out Scripture.For instance in Genesis chapter one the Hebrew word "Yom" is used meaning "day". There are times in Scripture where this word is used to convey a period of time greater than a 24 hour period. However, no where in Scripture where the word "Yom" is used when it follows a numeral do we find a meaning other than a 24 hour period of time.With that in mind, this should give the reader a clue into the age of the Earth.Macro evolution required millions of years; which is not compatible with proper hermeneutics.I am not saying anyone who believes in theistic evolution is not a Christian. I am just saying that a Christian who holds to theistic evolution is inconsistent in their hermeneutics.
Post-modernism "rejects the notion of a revealed moral code and instead tests truth by its therapeutic value.” Perhaps this explains the latest 'ism' - environmentalism - what greater therapeutic value? Man has now come to believe himself the savior of the (earthly) material world - and anyone who does not believe as 'evil'.
I see an increasing aspect of pride through the progression of the six 'isms', each building on the former - that reject the notion of God, our Creator - established in Genesis - attempting to place man at the center - through reason.
Ps 2:4 - the LORD in heaven laughs...
Dick:
Thanks for your helpful response!Blessings to you.
Dick and Tom and Challies, you might find it helpful to read Vern Poythress on this subject. See chapters 7-10 of his book *Redeeming Science*=>http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/NAllPoythressRedeemingScience20061017.pdf
Tanner,I have read one article of Waltke's and I would like to recommend it. Though it is not online. If you have access to a Library they likely have a consortium which might be able to obtain the book for you. The book is "Israel's Apostacy and Restoration" by A. Gileadi, Waltke did an essay in it called "The Phenomenon of Conditionality within Unconditional Covenants". I thought it was an excellent article.
Dick mentioned death as being across all animals. I wonder about that.... seems to me that all the design features of sharks, snakes, spiders, etc etc were meant to produce death of another species. I think you'll find that the death that came through the fall was spiritual death. Not even Adam and Eve's physical death ensued the eating of the tree of knowledge. Have a think about it guys... http://www.answersincreation.org/death.htm
DR and related commentors,I see your point, clearly if Adam was kept from eating the tree of life it was because he could die. The reader can consider that line of reasoning without further comment here.Though I am not sure about carnivorous animals, it seems almost like the discussion of pain before the fall which goes along these lines: Where there onions before the fall? Then there must have been pain and crying. When he said "I will magnify her pain in childbirth" what does that mean for pain before the fall? Which obviously God created man with nociceptors and lacrimal ducts with the intention we would feel pain and cry. Which brings me to the question of what did God make in anticipation of the fall? I do not know.
However, the main issue with theistic evolution is this, death produces life. Though God could use that channel I do not know why and why he would leave no evidence of it (transitional forms ect.) I do not know why either. I like the reasoning that in Ex 20 when he said "I made everything in 6 days" he intended Moses to understand it this way. (This evades the genre of Genesis 1-3 by going to prose). This message is already too long. Hopefully that added something to the discussion!