In 1970, Francis Schaeffer, one of the formative influences on the World Journalism Institute, wrote a short essay entitled, The Mark of a Christian, in which he offers what he calls “the final apologetic” for Christianity in the post-Christian age. Schaeffer’s final apologetic is this:
“that just because a man is a man, he is to be love by an observable love at all costs.”
The Bible points us to the knife-edge living in a fallen world for the Christian: live a life of holiness and a life of love. There is no such thing as licentious love, or heartless holiness. One cannot live an authentic Christian life without both holiness and love, because Christ lived both.
What does this mean – to live a life of holiness and love at the same time — to live Christianly — in our post-modern, post-Christian world? More specifically for us, what does it mean for the journalist of faith to live Christianly in the midst of our post-modern, post-Christian world.
In some respects, being a journalist who is a Christian is no different than just being a Christian. However, as journalists, we do project to a public audience what our private worldview is, and so we must be self-conscious about our worldview.
If it is true that journalists write the first, rough draft of history then it is critical for us Christians to be epistemologically self-conscious. Why is that? The reason is that historians have an advantage over journalists because historians select an event or person to investigate, after the fact. This historical selection is possible because writing history starts with a known goal. The historian then looks back from that goal to see how the goal was reached through world events. So the historical investigation always has guidelines and an intellectual gyroscope directing the content and interpretation of the historian’s information.
That historical intellectual gyroscope, cognitive guideline, is missing for the journalist because the journalist is writing contemporary, instant narrative. So the journalist is excluded from using a historical event or personage to guide the story. Both the historian and the journalist deal with facts, but the historian can wait for hindsight before fact selections are made. The journalist cannot wait because fact selections are made daily, under the pressure of deadlines and competition.
Since the journalist cannot see the final consequences of a reported event – story selection, framing, sources, and content must be guided by the journalist’s interpretive framework (i.e., worldview). It is the journalist’s worldview which guides the reporter. This is why a journalist’s presuppositions (or worldview or interpretive framework or set patterns of thought) are critical to a story. Worldview governs the journalistic process. That’s why the institute has the Francis Schaeffer Chair of Cultural Apologetics (Nancy Pearcey) – to introduce a Christian worldview to our journalism students – because an understanding of one’s worldview is foundational for an honest performance of one’s calling as a journalist.
Having stated the importance of a journalist’s worldview, I want to suggest three necessary “marks” of a worldview for a journalist who is a Christian (to paraphrase Schaeffer). These necessities are the essential, and therefore, must be the self-conscious underpinnings of a mindset of a journalist who is a Christian:
1) The anthropological mark of a journalist who is a Christian
2) The epistemological mark of a journalist who is a Christian
3) The metaphysical mark of a journalist who is a Christian.
——————————————————————————–
1) The Anthropological Mark
A) Moral beings
B) Finite beings
C) Fallen beings
Anthropology is the study of human essence and it is the fundamental idea for the Christian.[1] The journalist who is a Christian, anthropologically understands that every human is created in God’s image. This anthropological understanding has huge consequences.
A) We are a uniquely valuable beings.
Because of Christian anthropology, Schaeffer argued that are there “no little people,” no insignificant people. So, the journalist who is a Christian approaches each interview, each news source, each meeting, each event, each assignment with an understanding that every human and every fact in the story has significance. The Christian journalist is treat all aspects of a story with integrity, which means fairness, accuracy, verifiability, carefulness and honesty — to the best of his/her ability.
B) We are moral beings
Every human carries within the human soul the “sensus dietatus” – the innate awareness or “sense” of his/her creator God (Rom. 1:2021, 32; Eccles. 3:11). Augustine (the North African 5th century scholar and Christian, 354-430) argued that every human has the capacity to “rightly blame and praise many things in the conduct of men.” In our daily activities, we humans understand praise and blame because we already, innately, recognize praiseworthy and blameworthy conduct because we have this innate “sensus dietatus” in our soul. The age old debate over universal social and political rights can best be explained in this anthropological light (Lev. 4 and 5).
C) We are finite beings
We humans are creatures and not the Creator. We are made in a moment of time and space, so we are finite and limited beings (Gen. 1:26; 9:6; Prov. 3:3-4).
D) We are fallen beings
Christian anthropology also teaches that while we humans are unique image-bearers of a loving and personal and creator God, we are fundamentally corrupt and immoral because of Adam (Rom. 5:12). And so our “sensus dietatus” is clouded and polluted by our rebellious and renegade Adamic spirit, and we are unalterably depraved, apart from the work of that same creator God the Father (through Christ the Son).[2] While our polluted nature is not as deep as it could be – we are not beasts in the jungle – our polluted nature is as broad as it can be – everything about us is corrupted, including our physicality, our emotions, and our rationality. The fall helps explain human evil, brutality, corruption and debauchery.[3]
————————————————
2) The Epistemological Mark:
A) Metaphysical objectivity
B) Methodological objectivity
Epistemology is the study of knowledge – how we know what we know.[4]
A) Metaphysical Objectivity
Because of Christian anthropology (i.e., our condition of finiteness and falleness), there is no such thing as metaphysical or ultimate objectivity for us. Why is that? Because every bit of our rationality (i.e., our thinking about comprehensive and true knowledge) is limited by our finite and fallen essence. All human thought is subjective. Every human is biased. Every human is prejudiced. Human interpretation is unavoidable, given Christian anthropology.[5] Thus, there can be no such thing as a neutral or uninterpreted or objective fact. All facts, including scientific facts, are interpreted by a person’s presuppositional perspective (Michael Polanyi or Thomas Kuhn and the paradigm shifts). The same apparent information points (“facts”) can have completely disparate meanings, depending on how the information is viewed.[6]
The Bible speaks of “words hidden in the heart” (Ps. 119:21; Job 22:22, etc.), arguing that the condition of the heart determines the words coming from the mouth. To the journalist of faith that means knowledge is never morally neutral, because sin not only corrupts our wills but also cripples our minds.[7]
Because Christianity teaches that sin has crippled our mind, general revelation which is manifested in the world around us – which is the arena of the journalist – needs to be explained and interpreted. We need all the help we can get, from any quarter we can get it.
So, journalist of faith is to reject metaphysical objectivity as a false and misleading notion.
B) Methodological Objectivity
Journalistically, does that mean that since we can only be biased and subjective in our thinking that we are constrained to report then from only a biased and subjective, a predisposed point of view? That is, since epistemological bias is our only intellectual option, is journalistic bias our only professional option? To a certain extent, I think so. But even though we reject metaphysical objectivity, we journalists are to embrace methodological objectivity as our standard of journalism. What does this mean? For me, methodological objectivity is
*the courageous search for the facts,
*the correct context for the facts,
*the enlightened interpretation of the facts.
Methodologically we can approach journalistic fairness, accuracy, veracity and, yes, objectivity to a large and reliable measure. The Lord of the Universe has so structured reality and the human mind that we can observe reality and report on what we observe, in such a manner that enough truth will emerge from multiple human reports that we can claim that journalistic fairness, accuracy, veracity and limited objectivity can be achieved through “eyewitness” accounts (Deut. 19:15; Matt. 18:16; John 8:17; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19).
Let’s be clear at the outset: The journalist of faith is a rational, reasonable journalist. She is not a mystic. By that I mean the journalist reports and writes that which accords with reason. There are certain set patterns of thought in the human mind which enable us to determine the veracity of propositions.[8] For instance, when I say “A circle is square,” you automatically object that circles cannot be square. If I said “I am speaking in Spanish right now,” you would retort, “That is not true. You are speaking in English.”[9]
To repeat: Absolute objectivity achieved – no; there are simply too many subjective decisions made in any story by the journalist, editors and publisher. But there can be enough objectivity that we can, in humility, claim to present an picture of the verifiable truth of a situation. Gen. 2:15-20, after all, teaches that God has given humans the ability to use language to accurately define reality. We cannot know reality fully, but we can know reality sufficiently to enhance our flourishing as human beings (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
I can think of nothing more gallant or valiant than attempting to get at the facts of a given situation – attempting to relate events as they really are. Nothing is worse for the Christian journalists than to lie about reality (John 8:44). We will fail time and time again to get it right, but the honest attempt to get the facts right is at the core of a Christian view of journalism. Reality, though never full understood because of our finiteness and fallenness, can be described in a useful way. After all, reality is that which, even when you don’t believe in it, doesn’t go away.
Let me give you a Biblical example of this methodological objectivity which is to characterize the journalist who is a Christian. We see an example of radical truth-telling (dokimazo) in the reports of the crucifixion of Jesus. Matthew records the dying Aramaic words of Jesus as “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani” meaning, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46) These last recorded words of Jesus would have been better left unrecorded as far as I am concerned because they have been a problem for the Church for 2000 years. Why? Well, here we have God the Son lamenting His death at the hands of God the Father. God killing God. Why didn’t Matthew and Mark leave well enough alone and omit these troubling words? The reason is: The Holy Spirit-inspired gospel reporters were not afraid of the truth and so they wrote the truth and left the consequences of that truth (of that body of facts) to someone else.
We Christians are never to be afraid of relating the truth of reality because truth will never lead us astray.
————————————————————
3) The Metaphysical Mark:
A) God is in control
B) God is a public God
C) God requires our entire mind
Metaphysics is the study of reality.[10]
A) God is in control
The Christian journalist understands that God, as He reveals Himself in the Bible, is in control of the physical world and human action. There is nothing that escapes His attention or concern. He speaks, and the winds calm down, the waves subside (Mark 4) and death is defeated (John 11). His fingerprints are on everything (Col. 1:16-20).[11] We call this aspect of God’s work, “providence” (Latin =’”forethought”), and it means the entire universe is dependent upon the sustaining power and personal care of its Creator (Col. 1).
Because of this divine care, there is always hope in reality because a personal, loving God is always present and is guiding His creation towards paradise (Jer. 29:11). We do not live in a random, chaotic, purposeless, Kurt Vonnegut universe. Therefore, for the journalist of faith, there is no assignment that she is to despise because God is interested in everything and everyone, and there is a purpose and goal behind everything and everyone. The hand of a gentle, loving and firm God is on the rudder stick of reality. Hope infuses the universe. The Christian journalist must seek to understand that hope in the world.
B) God is a public God
Christianity teaches (Job, etc.) that the physical, created world (general revelation) is the public stage on which are enacted God’s dealings with humankind. God did not and does not act in secret. He acts before a watching, skeptical fallen human society, and God understands this (Acts 26:26). The journalist of faith reports and writes before a watching and skeptical world. Therefore, our reporting and writing should shine light on the hidden and unexplained (Eph. 5:8-13).
C) God requires our entire mind
The Christian who is a journalist is to be careful of an epistemology called “empiricism.”[12] The theory of empiricism denies a reality behind the objects perceived or experienced, behind the sensed object.[13] This widely accepted pragmatic theory of reality asserts that all we know of importance is what we sense. To an empiricist or pragmatist, a metaphysical understanding of the world is nonsense. But empiricism is nothing more than a presupposition which can’t be proven.
Still, the journalist of faith appreciates and uses the empirical theory of reality. We are all Thomases – touching, smelling, tasting, hearing, seeing God’s activities around us. But we understand there is a real world beyond our sensed world. There is an unsensed reality behind the sensed reality of the physical world. There are things going on behind the scene that can illuminate and explain and help the journalist interpret the sensed world (Eph. 6:12).[14] We believe in an “unseen” God who Himself “sees,” and even acts (“rewards”) (Matt. 6:18).[15]
Let’s look at a Biblical example of what a Christian metaphysical understanding of reality does for the journalist:
A) Paul’s report on what happened on the road to Damascus (Acts 9, 23, 26)
Saul, the brilliant and faithful killer of God’s people, is on his way to Damascus in order to persecute the believers in that city. On his way, Saul has an extraordinary experience that literally drives him to the ground. What is his remarkable experience? Well, it depends on who you talk to, on who is telling the story. If you are Saul, it is one story. If you are Saul’s companions, it is another story. Saul sensed one thing. His companions sensed another thing. Saul understood one thing. His companions understood something else. Saul would subsequently base the rest of his life on his understanding and perception of what happened, and his companions, who were not so impressed, would apparently base the rest of their lives on their understanding and perception of what happened. So this event was a turning point in a number of lives.
I would suggest that this Sauline experience (to be known later as the Pauline experience) is the most dramatic illustration of the difference between understanding events as a Christian and understanding events as a non-Christian, because we have reports of this event from a Christian perspective and we have reports of this event from a non-Christian perspective.
Let’s take a quick look at this journalistic report as it is given to us in Acts. In Acts 9 (which is the main report), we read the familiar story that as Saul is traveling to Damascus with his murderous companions, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell on the ground and heard a voice ask a question, “Saul, Saul why do you persecute me?” (vss. 3-4)
This heavenly question begins a brief audible conversation between Saul and this voice that is discernable by his companions. The companions don’t hear distinct words, but they do hear sound, and they are flabbergasted by what they are seeing and hearing. They are “speechless” in their astonishment (vs. 7). They look around, they see no one. They hear no discernible words, just “sound,” and Paul is on the ground having a conversation with an unseen person. Furthermore, this “light” which the companions see has “blinded” Saul, but not them (9:8-9). There is no evidence or testimony that Saul was looking into the sun or anyplace else that his companions were not looking. But only Saul is blinded, and only Saul hears distinct words, and only Saul is having this conversation with an unseen “heavenly” voice. The story concludes with Paul’s companions helping him up, and off they go to Damascus.
In his account of the event to the Jerusalem crowd in Acts 22, Paul tells the crowd that his companions “did not hear with understanding” (akouo) the sound coming from the “sky” (22:9). It was just noise to them. This makes sense because his murderous companions were not offended by the event at the time. We know that Paul’s traveling companions caringly took Saul by the hand (because they apparently believed he had not changed his intent to persecute the hated Christians) and led him to Damascus for medical help since he had been blinded by the “brilliance of the light” (22:11). And the companions apparently stayed with him for three days until he regained his sight (Acts 22:13). Probably much to the shock of his companions, Paul then gives this strange (but now familiar) interpretation of the Damascus road trip on which he claims to talk to the crucified Jesus (vss. 14-21).
Then in Acts 26, Paul is before King Agrippa and is giving his account of the event. We know what the reaction of Paul’s companions is because Festus (Acts 25:34, 12) shouts to Paul after hearing his account:
“I don’t care if you are a Roman citizen; you are out of your mind, Paul. Your great learning is driving you insane” (26:24).
And no Pauline companion who was on the road corroborates Paul’s explanation. There is silence from his companions. He is all alone. No one testifies on his behalf. In fact, when Paul first returned to Jerusalem after days in Damascus, he was told to leave Jerusalem because there are no corroborating witnesses to his report of the Damascus road event (Acts 22:18).
We don’t know what happened to Paul’s companions, but they were probably among those Jews who were confused by Paul in subsequent days and were probably among those Jews who wanted to kill him later in Acts 9:22-23. We do know the companions didn’t “understand” the event and were “baffled” by it. In Acts 23:9 the Pharisees argue before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, that at best it was a “spirit,” maybe an “angel” who spoke to Saul on the Damascus road. Where would the Pharisees get this interpretation, except from Paul’s companions on the road?
What really happened on the road to Damascus? Did Paul have it right or did his companions have it right? Was it a “spirit,” an “angel,” an illusion – or was it the risen Christ. It all depends on who is illuminating the story-teller’s mind.
B) The Thunderous Voice to Jesus (John 12)
Another journalistic report illustrating the metaphysical understanding that truth is behind the sensed event is found In John 12:29. Here John reports that Jesus is in Jerusalem speaking to some Greeks who had requested an audience with Him. Jesus is talking about His death and the need for His glorification, and we read in the middle of His speech:
“Then a voice came from heaven, ‘I have glorified [my name] and I will glorify it again.”
The word “heaven” is the same word used in the Acts 9 Pauline passage (“oupavos”) “air” or “sky.” And what did this “voice” from the “sky” sound like? Jesus distinctly hears words: “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” John, the apostolic eyewitness reporter on the scene, apparently hears the words also for he reports them to us.
But some unbelieving Greeks were there as well and they didn’t hear distinct words. What the Greeks heard was “thunder” or the voice of an “angel” (12:29).
Notice that all parties mentioned in the Johannine report heard something. No one said, “I didn’t hear anything.” But we have 3 different accounts of what happened, and only one is the truth. What’s the difference? One needed to have faith in Jesus to know the truth, that is, to hear the distinct words spoken to Jesus in “thunder” out of the “sky” by His heavenly Father. Echoes of Ps. 81. It all depends on one’s metaphysical understanding, on one’s understanding of reality.
What metaphysical understanding is being taught in the Bible?
1) The necessity for the journalist of faith to look for understanding or reality behind the sensed events.
2) The struggle for the journalist who is a Christian is not only to understand reality using the 5 senses (like everyone else), but also understand reality using the 6th sense – the God-given spiritual insight (Eph. 6:12).
Conclusion:
Let me conclude with the statement that working out these three marks (anthropological, epistemological and metaphysical) in the competitive daily chase for the news is a never ending application and particularly difficult in the post-Christian newsroom because of pervasive skepticism one finds in the profession.
But having said that, let me repeat 3 the three marks:
1) The anthropological application
The anthropological mark of a journalist of faith would inform the journalist that when doing a story all actors are to be treated with radical integrity and respect, even those with whom you disagree. For instance, in doing interviews there is no such thing as “gotcha” interviews or ambush interviews or adversarial interviews. The journalist who is a Christian does not lie in wait for the subject to stumble and then pounce like a jungle animal (Ps. 10, 59; Prov. 12:6). No, the believing journalist seeks to have the subject fully disclose his or her views on a particular point of the story without injection of invective or approval. The model interviewer for the Christian journalist is Jesus,’ who had no room of cynicism in His thinking. Skepticism, perhaps, but not cynicism. We know that cynicism is not a Christian virtue because Jesus, who knew the heart of each person, still loved each person and treated each person with integrity and dignity – even his enemies. So should we.
2) The epistemological application
The epistemological mark of the Christian journalist would inform the journalist that every story has hundred of points at which the bias, prejudice and worldview of the journalist will be expressed. From the story idea itself, to the research path, sources chosen and quotes selected, the shape and timing of the story, the frame of reference and voice of the story, the questions asked, and more. And that is just with the reporter. The editors of the story have the same bias and prejudice problem (John 20:30-31; 21:24-25). It is unavoidable given our finite and fallen condition.
What is the journalist who is a Christian to do in such a pervasively biased and subjective environment? Three suggestions:
A) Be honest is admitting your bias and inability to be completely objective.
B) Be fair, accurate, balanced and careful in your coverage of a story.
C) Be quieting seeking the mind of God on every given story through prayer, counsel and the Bible.
3) The metaphysical application
The metaphysical mark of a journalist who is a Christian would inform the journalist that appearances might not be the entire story. This is the most difficult aspect of being a journalist of faith because in the rush of the chase for the news, the unseen truth and perspective that is reality may not be readily apprehended by the journalist. In a very real sense, the journalist may never see the full unraveling of the string of a story because there may not be time. The full unraveling of a story is the historian’s prerogative. However, just the recognition that your article is a snap shot of time in the framing of a story will be a great step towards the truth of the matter. The unseen hand of a sovereign God at work will probably not be apparent to the temporal scribe. So:
1) Be humble and contingent in your story conclusions because you seldom know what the conclusion will be. Oh, you know what the conclusion of a phase of a story will be: the death of a person, the election of an official, the consummation of a project, the result of official action, the happening of a natural disaster, etc. But you may never really know what part that phase means in the stream of history.
2) Verify, verify, verify. And when you think you understand the story, look for the untold side of that story and follow the rabbit trails. Don’t be satisfied with first impressions and those aspects of the story which confirm your bias and prejudice. The journalist of faith knows reality is far more complex and hidden than we can ever ascertain. Multiple accounts verify and advance the truth (Deut. 19:15; Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; 1 John 5:7-8).
The believing journalist knows that reality has two aspects of every event – human perspective and God’s perspective – and it is impossible without God’s help to understand this (Joseph-Gen. 45:5; 50:20; Asaph-Ps. 76:10; Peter-Acts 2:23; Peter-3:15-18; Peter & John-4:28; Paul-13:27; Paul-Role. 8:28; Paul-Phil. 1:12; Jesus-John 6:27; Jesus-15:16; Jesus-18:11).
My last word: The journalist who is a Christian understands that the divine role of journalism, as in life, is to champion truth, further justice and promote human dignity.
[1] The word, “anthropology” comes from the Greek word “anthropos” meaning “man,” and the Greek word “logy” meaning “study of” or “science.”
[2] Thankfully for all of us, we do not act as bad as we really are due to our fallen nature, because we are prevented from acting so by God’s common, restraining grace.
[3] Augustine argued that the Bible teaches that public life or morality (politics) is under the same rule of God’s moral law as private life or morality. There is a single source of unified truth for both realms, and this truth is absolute and unchangeable because it comes from an absolute and unchangeable God (Mal 3:6; James 1:17). So there is no such thing as “private” morality. This is important to us because the journalist reports on public life and on private life because it all matters to God. Furthermore, all humans innately recognize this truth and know the moral code (i.e., natural law). We may deny and suppress this innate moral code, but in our heart of hearts we know it to be binding because God’s morality is part of our personal intellectual sharing in God’s image (“sensus dietatus” – eternal law). The journalist who is a believer understands this as he/she reports on public and private life. To love God is to love our fellow human (1 John 1:9). To serve and love God and to serve and love our fellow human is to recognize that all individuals have this God-given right to be loved and treated with respect, and therefore should have the opportunity to receive the summons (evangelism) to do what we are all created to do: to love and serve God (Luke 1:74-75). Love is the basis of justice.So, for the journalist who is a Christian, Christian anthropology means that in our reporting on individuals, simply because the individual human is created in the image of God, that individual deserves justice – Schaeffer’s “final apologetic.” Because God is just and eternal, justice is eternal. Justice is not conventional or relative, so it doesn’t differ with each society or groups within a society (Matt. 28:19-20). No, public justice is discovered (grounded) in private anthropology, in the structure of human nature with its relation to a personal, creator God. To repeat: All humans are image bearers of God and thus are to be treated with justice - even those for whom we have a profound dislike. The journalist who is a believer understands that reporting, investigating, criticizing and exposing are only means towards a higher good – the advancement of justice and love for all humans.
[4] The word “epistemology” comes from the Greek word “epistemos” meaning “knowledge.”
[5] All humans use initial affirmations or presuppositions in our thinking, because thinking without presuppositions is impossible. Presuppositions are like the glasses through which we view the world. If the lenses are green, the world has a green tint. If the lenses are red, the world has a rose-colored tint. The lens determines what the eye sees. In the same way, our presuppositions, the ideas (glasses) we use to first view humans, events, and objects in the world, interpret (color) how we understand the world.” A person’s presupposition might be, for instance, that nothing can be true if it isn’t rational or logical, or that nothing can be true if it isn’t sensed or verifiable. That foundational idea or belief will be the launching pad for all subsequent ideas, and it will be the judge for all subsequent ideas.
[6] I.e., through the presuppositional lens of, for instance, theism or the presuppositional lens of atheism. The one lens colors all facts with a Creator tint, the other with a creature tint (Rom. 1:25). The point for us journalists is this: We humans are not neutral witnesses of the world in which we live. We understand the meaning of everything either through a lens of divine revelation – the objectivity of God – (illumined by regenerate belief all provided by God), or through a lens of naturalistic reasoning (darkened by unregenerate unbelief provided by Satan – 2 Cor. 6:14-18). Everything observed in reality is understood in these 2 fundamentally different and sometimes conflicting ways
[7] The Apostle Paul tell us that our sin leads us to deny what we, even in an unbelieving state, know to be true – namely that the creator God exists and has revealed Himself in a general way, and therefore He expects all created humans to acknowledge Him and to love Him (Rom. 1:21,22).
[8] What determines the shape or pattern of these internal thought standards (presuppositions) cannot be explained by us because we are using these very thought patterns to elucidate the explanation. Our internal thought patterns are simply part of our humanity, of being made in the image of God.
[9] Any proposition which claims to be true rests on reason, human rationality. Our reason tests a proposition in two ways: 1) by examining the self-consistency of the proposition,2) by seeing whether the proposition agrees with other knowledge of reality.Self consistency requires that ideas not contradict each other and external agreement requires that a proposition not contradict verifiable historical and scientific knowledge.Any proposition which claims to be true rests on reason, human rationality. Our reason tests a proposition in two ways: 1) by examining the self-consistency of the proposition,2) by seeing whether the proposition agrees with other knowledge of reality.Self consistency requires that ideas not contradict each other and external agreement requires that a proposition not contradict verifiable historical and scientific knowledge.
[10] The word “metaphysics” comes from the Greek preposition “meta” meaning “beside.” And “physics” mean “that which is material.” In short, “metaphysics” is the study of “being,” or what is real.
[11] In Ps. 145, David declares that with prudent foresight God provides for, is kind towards, sustains and governs all creation – every part of creation (Neh. 9:6; Acts 17:25, 28; Heb. 1:3).
[12] “Empiricism” comes from the Greek word “empirikos” which means “to experience” or “to sense.” Philosophically, what this word means is that human knowledge is limited to physical objects of actual perception or sense.
[13] All there is, is what we perceive or experience with our five senses and there is no universal definition of reality behind these particular objects that we sense; Or, if there is a reality behind these experienced objects, we can’t really know that unsensed reality. Or, if there is a reality behind perceived objects, that reality is not important for public discussion – it is a private matter.
[14] As a verse in that great Church anthem “God Moves in a Mysterious Way,” states, “Blind unbelief is sure to err, and scan God’s work in vain. God is His own interpreter, and He will make it plain.”
[15] As the LORD said in Ps. 81:7, “I answered you out of a thundercloud,” and as John Calvin commented, “God, it is true, was not seen by the Israelites face to face; but the thunder was an evident indication of His secret presence among them.”30
