Why All Preachers Should Be Concerned About Humanism[1]
Robert L. Waggoner
While all Christians should be concerned
about humanism, preachers should be especially concerned because preachers are
leaders in proclaiming Christian truths in a world that has quickly become
humanistic. If preachers are not concerned, then we surely cannot expect other
Christians to be concerned.
I. Humanism
is THE major modern philosophical enemy of Christianity. Even so, many
preachers (and certainly most professed Christians) do not see humanism for the
gigantic enemy it really is.
A. Its scope is wide. It
encompasses many other philosophical forms, e.g. scientism, secularism,
naturalism, materialism, statism, feminism, hedonism, etc. Modern humanism may
be considered as an umbrella under which other philosophies may be at least
partially found. We may be more or less aware of these philosophies, but we
need to see them as all united together and re-enforcing one another under the
banner of modern humanism. Many may see limited portions of realities caused by
one or more of these unchristian philosophies, but a thorough knowledge of
humanism improves one’s ability to see the reality produced by their union.
B. Its social consequences are
severe. Like trees, philosophies can be known by their fruits. Humanism
produces bad fruit. Its social symptoms include such things as divorce,
abortion, suicide, drug abuse, sexual permissiveness, homosexuality,
pornography, wife battering, child abuse, etc. Preachers teach against these
evils. However, it is as impossible to remove these unwholesome social symptoms
from our culture without acknowledging the correlation between a philosophy and
its consequences, as it is for a physician to treat medically the underlying
causes of physical symptoms. The strength of humanism, in producing its
terrible consequences, may be likened to a rope wherein each strand may be
likened to a different philosophy. Each philosophy is itself strong, but when
they are all intertwined together in the rope of humanism, their strength is
greatly magnified.
C. Its reach is extensive. It
penetrates into every sphere of life. There is no area of human life - whether
the home, church, civil government, school, industry, commerce, foreign
affairs, etc. - which is not effected by it. It destroys some families and
weakens others, though sexual permissiveness, abortion, divorce, homosexuality,
pornography, etc. Humanism in our culture is now probably the major
hindrance to church growth. It has produced totalitarian government
bureaucracies in this nation. It is taught, in one form or another, in all our
public schools. And it is the dominant operating philosophy in industry,
commerce, foreign affairs, etc. Humanism has influenced us all, whether or not
we know it. Only by an understanding of the philosophy will we comprehend what
it is doing, and how we can rid ourselves of it in every sphere of our lives.
II. Since humanism now dominates
cultural values in our world, preachers must turn people away from humanism to
Christianity, if we would change our world. (Humanism has turned the Christian
world upside down - a reversal of Acts 17:6. This indicates the weakness of
Christianity in our world. That must be changed!)
A. To defeat Christianity’s
philosophical enemies, preachers must first understand them.
1. In times past, we have viewed
denominationalism as our greatest threat. We have therefore studied its errors
and refuted them. In quest for truth, we have debated more, and have published
more debate books, than any other professed Christian group in the world.
Denominational heresies have indeed been major threats to genuine Christian
faith, and, to a lesser degree, still are. But the major modern philosophical
enemy of Christianity is no longer denominationalism. It is humanism.
2. Some preachers and church
leaders are now informing themselves about humanism, but by far the majority of
Christian people hardly recognize its existence. And among preachers, few have
a comprehensive understanding of its beliefs and its workings. The reason is
simple. Preachers are not trained to understand it.
3. It would be incorrect to say
that humanism, as an unchristian philosophy, is not taught in our Christian
universities and schools of preaching, because it is taught. However, it is
generally taught only incidentally. A Christian psychology teacher may teach
about humanism as it relates to psychology. It may be discussed in a Christian
Apologetics or a Christian Evidence course, especially as it relates to the
theory of evolution. Teachers may or may not teach against humanism in various
subject areas, depending upon their own personal knowledge of it. When they do,
it is often very little. Even so, to the best of my knowledge, only a small
minority of Christian universities or schools of preaching among us has an
entire course in its curriculum devoted to an understanding of humanism and its
unchristian implications for society. That must change!
B. To demonstrate the
superiority of Christianity and to make Christian values relevant in a
humanistic world, preachers must (1) understand the conflicting beliefs of
Christianity and humanism, (2) recognize their respective social implications,
and (3) encourage Christian influence in society. A few examples, to illustrate
contrasting values and their implications, are as follows:
1. Were all things created? or did they
evolve? If all things were created, then there is a higher power by which
all creation is governed. If all things evolve, then there is no higher power,
and man, as the highest form of evolutionary existence, must be self-governing.
Most preachers are aware of the philosophical foundations of these conflicting
points of view, although some seek to compromise them. While most see the
conflict, many do not understand the cultural implications that come from these
conflicting perspectives.
2. Are morals and truths absolute? or are
they relative? If there is a God, then His standard of morality and truth
are absolute. If there is no God, then all things happen by chance, and all
morals and truths are relative. If there is no God, then any human conduct that
is perceived beneficial may be declared moral. If there is no God, then any
statement that is perceived beneficial may be declared truthful.
3. Is man basically good? basically bad? or
neither? Humanists believe that man is basically good. If man is basically
good, then whatever man does is basically good. This view does not admit the
existence of sin. The Bible teaches that man is neither basically good nor bad,
but basically free to choose to do either good or bad. The Christian belief
requires a standard of conduct to which all men are accountable, and by which
all men’s behavior may be judged to be either good or bad.
4. Is man only physical? or is
man both physical and spiritual? Humanist contend that man is only physical and only
temporal. Christians believe that human beings are not only physical but also
spiritual. Man has an eternal God-given spirit that returns to God at death to
await God’s judgment for its eternal destiny in either heaven or hell.
5. Is God the judge of all
things? or is man? Humanists say that “man is the measure of all things.” They do not
believe in human accountability to God. They believe human beings can do
whatever is permissible among humankind. Christians believe that everyone is
accountable to God for all human conduct. Accountability to God demands
performance in accordance with God’s standard of morality. Such accountability
means better human conduct because it expects to be rewarded for righteousness
and punished for wickedness.
6. Is knowledge derived from God?
or from man? Humanists
say that mankind can acquire knowledge only from nature through natural
observation. Christians say that human beings can acquire knowledge not only
from nature but also from God though His revelation of Himself to mankind, now
available though the Bible. If humanity can know nothing except from nature,
then humanity can know nothing of God’s love, providence or will for mankind.
7. Should the basic unit of society be the
family? or the individual? Humanists
believe that individuals should be free to experience a full range of civil
liberties. Their emphasis on individual rights, means that individuals should
not be shackled by lifelong marital commitments, makes individuals the basic
unit in society, and produces selfishness and irresponsibility. On the other
hand, Christian belief in lifelong marital commitments emphasizes individual
responsibilities, produces unselfishness, and makes the family the basic unit
in society.
8. Should civil governments be under God? or
independent of God? Christians contend that God has sanctioned three
institutions - the home, the church, and the state – and that all are subject
to God’s authority. Humanists contend that God is not relevant to man, and that
therefore the state is the highest governing authority over all human conduct,
including governance of the home and the church. On the other hand, since
Christians contend the state is subject to God’s ordinances, shouldn’t
Christians participate in civil governance?
9. Are all things religious? or
are some things secular? By ‘secular’ humanists mean ‘non-religious.’ Humanists consider things
secular - such as politics, commerce, civil governments, environmental
concerns, etc., things not directly related to church, salvation, personal
holiness, etc. - as matters which religion cannot address. Christians, however,
believe that religion must address every area of life (Colossians 3:17).
Humanist want Christians to believe that “secular” is a neutral category
between Christian and non-Christian, but there is no neutral category. Nor is
there a legitimate categorical distinction between the “religious” and the
“secular.”
Our world is now dominated by humanism because many Christians, unaware
of humanistic values, have allowed it. However energetic Christians may be in
opposing humanism, humanism will not be defeated (1) until more Christians are
better informed about it, and (2) until most professed Christians rid
themselves of some specific humanistic beliefs which most hold, to some degree,
often unknowingly.
[1]© Copyright by Robert L. Waggoner, 1990. Revised, 2000. Permission is granted to reproduce and distribute this document for non-commercial educational purposes when unaltered provided that copyright data and author’s name are given.