World Philosophy vs. Kingdom Theology

All human beings are subjected to the thinking of the world. How can we help it? After all, the earth is our current residence, and everything we do is done in the presence of the world. We are constantly forming into the person we will become based on a combination of social conditioning and spiritual formation, with one or the other being more prominent or even being the exclusive developmental influence. Children are developing into the adults they will become; husbands and wives are developing into the partners and parents they will become; citizens are forming their political, moral, and legal positions on living together with others, and everyone is developing a concept of the things they believe are true. The world has influence over all these areas, even for those who choose to be exclusively involved in spiritual formation efforts.

WORLD PHILOSOPHY’S PERSPECTIVE

For the most part, the world considers its mouthpiece to be that of philosophy, which also accepts responsibility for ethics. Not the science of philosophy, but the condition of thinking that is open-minded and creative. You could say that through its mouthpiece, philosophy, the world defines reality and morality for all who rely on it. The Philosophy Foundation defines the concept of philosophy as being relative to how one thinks:

Philosophy is a way of thinking about certain subjects such as ethics, thought, existence, time, meaning, and value. That 'way of thinking' involves 4 Rs: responsiveness, reflection, reason, and re-evaluation. The aim is to deepen understanding. The hope is that by doing philosophy, we learn to think better, to act more wisely, and thereby help to improve the quality of all our lives.
https://www.philosophy-foundation.org/what-is-philosophy

According to this definition, which sounds pretty good on the surface, philosophy explains how we should treat each other, how we should think, explains existence, somehow defines time, has a handle on purpose, and establishes value. This last one is most interesting because the philosophical process of identifying value is, according to American philosopher Thomas Nagel, done by “thinking hard about thinking, and separating out the sound thinking from the erroneous thinking.” On whose value is the bad thinking defined? I have seen it said that “philosophy is something that you can do,” which indicates that anyone can think about thinking. If everyone thinks up truth, how can anyone trust philosophical truth.

Speaking of truth, I was curious about how the world understands philosophy’s ability to interact with truth. I have discovered that AI seems to be a good source of understanding how the world sees things, so I asked it if philosophy can coexist with theology. Its response was:

Yes, philosophy and theology can coexist and often do, even within the same individual's worldview. While they share some common ground, they differ in their primary approaches and methods. Philosophy uses reason and logic to explore the nature of reality, knowledge, and existence, while theology examines religious beliefs, doctrines, and practices. They can inform and challenge each other, with philosophy providing tools for theological inquiry and theology offering insights into fundamental questions that philosophy grapples with.

This starts out rather problematic as it immediately identifies worldview as being related to philosophy. I have explained in the past that the term worldview is used to indicate a personal perspective on one’s place in, and expectations of, the world. I asked AI to explain worldview, and it responded with:

A worldview is a comprehensive perspective through which individuals interpret and understand the world around them. It encompasses a person's beliefs, values, and assumptions about life, including questions about existence, morality, and knowledge. Essentially, a worldview shapes how one perceives reality and influences decision-making.

Without getting too deep into AI’s position on worldview, let’s just notice that it explains that reality is in the mind of the individual. That one’s mind develops a concept of reality and applies that concept to all incoming information. Reality for such a person is based on who they choose to be, the moral source(s) they accept, their personal values, and the unknowns of life. In short, worldview is a subjective construct of one’s mind, driven by what they need the world to be to suit their will. The world offers plenty of options to choose from for creating personal reality.

Now, getting back to the compatibility of philosophy and theology. AI explained that the cooperation between the two principles happens within one’s mind (worldview), literally identifying that both are responsible for thinking. To make it worse, AI identifies that it is philosophy’s responsibility to challenge theology. It also identifies that philosophy is the study of reality, while theology is only relative to “religious beliefs, doctrines, and practices.” That, without philosophy, there is no examination of reality. Furthermore, it believes that within theology, there is no reason or logic.

It is easy to imagine that philosophy conflicts with theology, especially when you realize that philosophy even conflicts with philosophy. In his note TO THE READER in the book The Story of Philosophy, Will Durant wrote:

“The author believes epistemology has kidnapped modern philosophy, and will nigh ruined it; he hopes for the time when the study of the knowledge-process will be recognized as the business of the science of psychology, and when philosophy will again be understood as the synthetic interpretations of all experiences rather than the analytic description of the mode and process of experience itself. Analysis belongs to science, and gives us knowledge; philosophy must provide a synthesis of wisdom.

Epistemology is a word meaning: “how do we know this thing is true?” What Will Durant wants is for philosophy to let philosophy exist without any controls; he wants philosophy to exist without the hindrance of truth. He explains that he prefers that analysis, which reasons based on all preexisting knowledge, be eliminated from philosophy. He prefers it to be replaced with synthetic reasoning, which ignores any constraints that are based on concrete truth. This is to say that Durant wants philosophy to be able to say a thing is true, even when it cannot be true.

His thinking is not without any usefulness in science. Science makes no advances if everything is perfect, and no improvement is possible. Durant is suggesting in his statement that Epistemology is not flexible and cannot give way to expanded knowledge except in science. That in reasoning, Epistemology does not allow for abstract thought and therefore stalls the expansion of knowledge. But, if science leaves philosophy alone to do as it will, anything that is thought of can be proclaimed as true. Likewise, any existing truth can be abandoned and even identified as the enemy of the free expression of truth. It is very easy to see that Immanuel Kant, the developer of free-play that later became known as worldview, was an influence on Durant.

In response to Durant’s book. A college student wrote:

By general understanding, religion is composed of a set of morals, rules, principles, and ethics that serve to guide one’s way of living. Philosophy, on the other hand, is a bigger domain of discipline that tackles many concepts, like metaphysics, the search for the ultimate truth, knowledge, and life itself. Religion [has] many boundaries and keeps you restricted in aspects like what is good or bad, wrong or right, truth or false; but philosophy does not do any such thing, it enables a person to think freely. Also, many philosophies are contradictory to the religious beliefs. In religion a person has to live a particular way of life; but philosophy helps a person to think freely and guides them to live even a better life without any conditions. Therefore, religion and philosophy are always in conflict.

To learn about the conflict between philosophy and theology, I went to the world’s primary source of information – the internet.

I set out to find on the internet a few examples of the world’s philosophies on life to see if any seemingly logical perspectives conflict with the theology of kingdom perspectives. I looked for things that we all might appreciate as relevant to our lives. I searched for parenting, self-care, relationships, and morality. I intentionally stayed away from hot-button issues and only looked for items that might give off only subtle hints of conflict with the kingdom perspective, or that may even seem compatible with it. I did not have to dive deep into the internet to locate such ideologies. Here is an example of what I found for each area of evaluation:

1.  Parenting

In a 2023 blog promoting her book, author Elizabeth Cripps, who has a Master's and a Ph.D. in philosophy, and is a moral philosopher and a Senior Lecturer in Political Theory, as well as a researcher and lecturer on climate justice, wrote the following:

“Good parenting” doesn’t mean what we think it does.

In societies like the US or the UK, we think we’re being “good parents” if we focus most of our time and money on our own kids, and we tend to do that in a very individualistic, consumer-orientated way. We buy them toys and worry about their career prospects; some parents pay school fees, buy their kids cars, throw them expensive parties, or take them on luxury holidays. We think we’re doing the best for our children by piling up stuff and money and opportunities for them. But that’s a mistake. While we’re focusing on them in this one, narrow way, we’re neglecting them in a much bigger way—and we have an incredible opportunity, right now, to change that.

It helps to think about it like this. What must we do for our kids because they are our children? (In other words, what do we owe them?) Most philosophers would say we should take care of them as children and help them to cultivate the tools they’ll need to lead full lives as adults. These would be things like education, healthy bodies, and resilient minds. But, as things stand, our children won’t have a world fit to live a full life in. They face climate change, antibiotic resistance, and future pandemics as bad as or worse than the one we are still emerging from, not to mention continued institutionalized racism, sexism, and horrific injustice.

As parents, if we don’t try to change this, we make a mockery of everything else we do to prepare our children for their adult lives. More simply put, truly loving our kids means protecting their future if we can. As things stand, we’re reading bedtime stories in a house that’s burning down.

Credit:https://nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/parenting-earth-philosophers-guide-right-kids-everyone-else-bookbite/42130/

Do you feel better about parenting? Do you feel encouraged about the future for which you are training-up your children? Can you see the value of making your priorities in raising your children tied to climate change? Let's face it, if the climate change lobby is right, there will not be much of a planet for our children to live on, right?

2.   Self-Care

 In our counseling ministry, we find it necessary to help people understand that they must take care of themselves so they will have the ability to act when God calls them into action. The following is a likely well-intentioned excerpt from a blog written by a psychologist named Jeremy Goldwin:

Embracing your individuality means being true to yourself and expressing your authentic self in all sorts of different ways. That could be through your personal style, your interests and hobbies, your talents and skills, or anything else that makes you stand out from the crowd.

Let’s take a moment to talk about what individuality isn’t. It isn’t an excuse to be selfish and put your needs above everyone else (because healthy relationships involve a balance of give and take), and it also doesn’t mean that you’re any better or worse than someone else; since we’re all unique that means it’s completely impossible to compare yourself to others because your life experiences and perspectives will never be identical (even identical twins cannot ever be completely identical!). 

So, with all of that in mind, now let’s talk about…

Why individuality matters

And it matters because embracing your individuality and learning how to be true to yourself plays a huge role in your personal growth and self-discovery; after all, if you don’t know who you are (and who you are not) then how can you be the best version of yourself? Plus, learning to recognize and value your individuality can help you to build deeper and more meaningful connections with other people. Every single person I admire or that I find myself drawn to is someone who isn’t afraid to let their individuality shine through; it’s the thing that makes us special, and it sets us apart from everything else and everyone else!

Being an individual means being uniquely you — embracing your unique qualities, values, and beliefs, and expressing them confidently and authentically. It means having the freedom to make your own choices and pursue your own goals, while also being accountable for your actions and how they impact others.

You don’t have to conform to anyone else’s standards or expectations; you can set your own standards for living, and that means you can make your own life choices and define success on your own terms. Embracing your individuality can be a source of strength and inspiration, helping you to feel much more confident and more comfortable in your own skin. It’s about self-love, self-acceptance and self-compassion all rolled into one; like Lady Gaga said in her song Born This Way, “Don’t hide yourself in regret, just love yourself, and you’re set…” Credit: 
https://ltamh.com/2023/03/12/individuality/

Doesn’t this all sound great! It would be very difficult not to find this article an excellent guide to appreciating oneself and becoming satisfied with your worldview and perspective on how you perceive yourself. Even I acknowledge the importance of self-care.

3.   Relationships

This next example was written by Lauria Adams, who has a master’s degree in psychology. This is an excerpt of a women’s lifestyle blog post that discusses the differences between long-term and life partner relationships. After she evaluates long-term relationships, which are those relationships that are never established as permanent, Adams has this to say about life partners:

What is Considered a Life Partner? A life partner is someone with whom you share a deep emotional and often legal connection, typically characterized by a long-term commitment, mutual respect, and a shared vision for the future.

 Unlike more casual or short-term relationships, a relationship with a life partner carries a sense of permanence and is rooted in mutual growth—both individually and as a couple.

Life partners often share similar values and life goals, making it easier to navigate major life decisions, from buying a house to starting a family or planning retirement. Emotional and intellectual compatibility is usually high, making for a fulfilling and supportive relationship.

Commitment to personal and mutual growth is also a hallmark of life partners. They’re the person you turn to in a crisis, who support your goals unconditionally and encourage you to be your best self. They’re not just there for the good times; they stand by you through challenges and hardships.

The term “life partner” can apply to married couples but is not exclusive to them. People in committed, long-term relationships can also regard each other as life partners without a legal or religious ceremony. The essence of being life partners lies more in the commitment and intentionality of the relationship than in its legal status.

 Sounds reasonable, right? It seems to cover most of the conditions that lead to a harmonious relationship. It is great because there is no burden laid on the reader regarding any absolutes, which makes this explanation easy to accept.

4.   Morality 

I wanted to include morality in my internet search to see what types of information might be easily discoverable. Early in my search, it was no surprise that moral elasticity came up, which stimulates some interesting philosophical curiosities. Nevertheless, it did not fit with the conversation about those philosophies that creep into our lives, rather accidentally, because they sound reasonable. As I was about to move on from moral elasticity, I found this article on [moral] acceptance.

It is written by an apparently agnostic chemist who is now, according to his explanation of himself, “a writer, columnist, speaker & kindness scientist.” I would accuse him of having become a modern-day philosopher, which he would likely appreciate, although I might not intend it as a compliment. He seems to have an international following of people who like listening to him on a wide range of subjects. He has a lot to say about religion and religious practices, however, he appears to have no religious profession and claims no particular faith. His post on the subject of acceptance epitomizes today’s concept of “open-minded” moral elasticity.

The following is an excerpt from one of his 2024 blog posts:

Understanding Acceptance

What it means: Acceptance is about acknowledging reality as it is, without resisting or denying it. It’s about saying, “This is what is happening right now.”

What it doesn’t mean: Acceptance doesn’t necessarily mean you approve of the situation or that you don’t want things to change. It simply means you see things as they are happening now without letting your emotions distort your perception.

Resistance is futile

If you can’t change something right now, then resisting it will cost a lot of energy and peace. When you stop resisting something, it can significantly reduce any stress and anxiety you feel and will free up some headspace. It will help you feel more present and help you think more clearly and creatively. 

The extra headspace might help you see something from a different perspective, which is sometimes what’s needed.

If you want a situation to change, then being present and thinking clearly is what you want, not feeling bogged down in frustration and anxiety that comes because you’re resisting it.
https://drdavidhamilton.com/the-power-of-acceptance-its-not-about-giving-up/ 

Does this post not release you of any responsibility to make any decisions about any philosophy or moral position that may interact with your moral environment? It seems a bit liberating, doesn’t it? I mean, live and let live, right? This is the epitome of the “it's all good” philosophy on life, and what is wrong with that?

All four of these examples of internet influence can be seen differently by those who read them. For some, each of these informational offerings may seem reasonable, and you may have a hard time finding flaws. For others, you may have immediately found flaws as you read through them.

THE KINGDOM PERSPECTIVE

Now let’s ask the Bible whether philosophy and theology are compatible.

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ

In short, Paul tells us, in no uncertain terms, that we are only to be captivated by those things of Jesus Christ. But let's look for a while at this passage to see what else it says. By telling us to “see to it” or “beware” as it is translated in the King James Version, Paul indicates that the philosophies of the world should be identifiable by us. In the years of this letter, philosophy was considered by the Colossians as the study of wisdom. However, this philosophical discipline was rather flexible and very often speculative. Paul was likely aware that the proclamation that philosophy was the study of wisdom made little difference to his expectations.

Paul must have been aware that there were influences such as Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, Jewish mysticism and, of course, locally derived religions. Theologians are not sure which of these influences were more pervasive, but any of them were available at that time. Regardless, Paul had reason to be concerned as these philosophical teachings seemed intelligently created and fit well with previous influences. Imagine how much contrast there must have been at that time between the things they believed for may years and the truth of Christianity. Paul knew many people might regress away from Christ because the philosophies of “human tradition” offered pleasing and comfortable realities.

Does this sound familiar? Where most of the philosophical teachings of Paul’s time would have been based on one or many combinations of religious ideologies, but like today, the world lured man with more than just the deceptions of false religions.

1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 

 Paul had plenty of experience with how philosophy affected the church by the time he wrote this letter to Timothy. Timothy was a young pastor in Ephesus, who was dealing with those who sought to influence the Christians of his church. Paul tells Timothy to trust only that which was given to him for the teaching of others. Paul is likely concerned that this young pastor might be influenced by the philosophical teachings of man. This trust is not about the losing of the message, but the trust one has in the given truth. That the given truth is complete and is worthy of one’s trust. That nothing needs to be added to it, and nothing can be invalidated by the “profane and vain babblings” of these philosophers.

Paul also refers to knowledge as science, which brings us to a dilemma: Is science automatically corrupt as a specifically philosophical evaluator of knowledge, or is science only corrupted when philosophical evaluation attempts to control the validation of truth? The answer we can glean from 1 Timothy 6:20, is that science is a valid effort to understand that which is created and is from time-to-time corrupted by philosophy? In response to Paul’s accusation that philosophers oppose the trusted teachings, The Matthew Henry Commentary says: 

Some who have been very proud of their learning, their science, which is falsely so called, have by that been debauched in their principles and been drawn away from the faith of Christ, which is a good reason why we should keep to the plain word of the gospel, and resolve to live and die by that.

Henry is saying that if it opposes the truth of the trusted teachings, which is the contents of today’s Holy Bible, science is not science at all, but is philosophy and is to be avoided. Knowledge that attempts to offer anything that contravenes the trusted word given to us by the Apostles, is a lie. Science that embraces the Word of God is the only valid science. If anyone attempts to force these lies on us or attempts to manipulate us with clever presentations or philosophical questioning, avoid that person and their corrupt science. 

Titus 3:9 (KJV) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 

Titus is on the island of Crete, which was formerly under Greek rule, but is at this time under Roman rule. In Crete, there were thriving communities that included many Jews, and of course, the primary heritage was Grecian. This created a mix of Jewish Judaism, Greek polytheism, and the emerging Christian church. It is believed that Titus’ biggest challenge to being dedicated to the Apostles' teaching was the Judaizers. Judaizers are known Jewish converts to Christianity and possibly some gentile Christians who had previously converted to Judaism, who wanted to merge the old and new Covenants, functionally creating a fringe religion.

Paul is concerned that members of the Christian church might not act dignified in light of the controversies created by the Judaizers and other contentious influences. He may have been more concerned about the church’s witness than losing members because of these influencers, although there must have been some confusion for it to get his attention. Nevertheless, Paul establishes a system for the church to deal with those who are causing trouble with their philosophies and religious corruption. He says give them a chance to repent and then send them down the road.

Titus 3:10-11As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. 

So, this covers those who aim to harm the church through religious division, but what about those who are simply set on confusing Christians and the lost alike? As far as the church goes, there is no real intention of destroying it, although doing so would be a bonus. They really just want the thinking of the world to infiltrate the church. The world knows that if philosophers can cause the church to look like the world, people will become less and less committed to the church. Without a clear distinction between the church and the world, there is no clear advantage to attending church. Also, since the church is representative of the people of the Kingdom of God, those who are not saved will not find an interest in joining the kingdom. If the morality of the church is affected by worldly philosophy, philosophy wins on all fronts.

The truth of it is that the enemy is the devil. He is the one who is the agent of division and is out to confuse the church and destroy the kingdom’s witness. There is really nothing that we can do to eliminate the enemy and his quest to harm the church and the people of the kingdom through philosophy. The people of philosophy will exist on earth until Jesus returns and separates out the lost from the saved. All we can do is our best to remain steadfastly connected to truth and work diligently to help the lost learn of the Truth.

What about the question of compatibility? If it is the will of God that His people will be set apart, there can be no inclusion of philosophical perspectives in the church or within His kingdom. God wants Christians to look different than the average people of the world.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 

Of course, the “Him” in this passage is Christ, the holy nation is that of the Jews, and the royal priesthood is that of the elect people of Christ. As such, Peter was speaking of those Jews who had received Jesus Christ as their King and in doing so became “peculiar” people - people unlike other people. On the subject of 1 Peter 2:9, John Wesley wrote: 

But ye - Who believe in Christ Are - In a higher sense than ever the Jews were. A chosen or elect race, a royal priesthood - "Kings and priests unto God," (Rev 1:6). As princes, ye have power with God, and victory over sin, the world, and the devil: as priests, ye are consecrated to God, for offering spiritual sacrifices. Ye Christians are as one holy nation, under Christ your King. A purchased people - Who are his peculiar property. That ye may show forth - By your whole behaviour, to all mankind. The virtues - The excellent glory, the mercy, wisdom, and power of Him, Christ, who hath called you out of the darkness of ignorance, error, sin, and misery.

 Wesley and Peter are identifying a race of people who are to be set apart and not subject to the ignorance, error, sin, and misery of the world. In short, we are clearly expected not to allow the philosophy of the world to taint our Christian perspective, or what I call the kingdom perspective. Peter doubles down on the differences between the kingdom perspective and the influences of the world, in 1 Peter 2:11-12: 

1 Peter 2:11-12 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. 

Peter identifies that Christians are living in a home not of their own and are aliens in the kingdom of the world. Their new native home is with Jesus, and the kingdom of which they now belong is the Kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is encamped in the world, literally in conflict with the ruler of the world. While here, were are not to allow the philosophies of the world to affect how we glorify the Lord. We are not to be such a people who can be accused of being evildoers, but should be obvious doers of good.

God has a plan for those who are of the philosophy of the world.

1 Corinthians 1:20Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Corinthians 3:19 ESV

For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,”

Paul is asking, where is the know-it-all, the keeper of justice, and the philosopher? The debater of the age is the person who desires to overcome truth by applying human reasoning. God planned to provide what man needs to know about God and Truth. God provided the Bible, which is our theology, and tells us to avoid the things of the debater because He is jealous for us. By providing the Truth, God shows everyone that the things of philosophy are foolish, and that philosophers are fools. A fool does not believe in God, His Truth, or His kingdom.

Paul is explaining that this worldly wisdom or philosophy is the world going up against God. Paul reminds us of Job 5:13, where it is said that the cunning of the philosopher will end up ensnaring him, and it will be God who will look down on them. That, the pitfall they are trying to get people to fall into, will eventually trap them, and God will judge them.

Philosophy and theology are not compatible, and God gives us all we need to identify folly and develop quality theology. If you ever notice philosophy agreeing with theology, true theology, watch what follows. It will likely be a lie cloaked by truth to get you to compromise just enough to stray from the kingdom toward the world.

Pray about everything and listen only to the One Who tells the Truth with every word.