All of us evaluate new concepts through the lens of a particular paradigm (or worldview) that we probably take for granted most of the time.  The paradigm consists of the assumptions about values, cosmology, and all of the other basic truths that form our outlook on the world.

For the most part, we build paradigms subconsciously, largely by osmosis from our environment.  If you’re an American, for instance, you probably believe that a democratic form of government is superior to a dictatorship.  You believe that people should be treated equitably, and you assume that equitable treatment, in most situations, means rewarding people according to a meritocratic system rather than giving special favors to people based simply on their social status or family position.  If asked, you could probably build a reasoned defense of these views, but most of the time, you don’t think you need to do so, because these views are so deeply ingrained in your mind that you take them for granted.

The same is true when it comes to reasoning about God.  Whether or not we believe in the existence of a God, all of us approach the subject of God through a particular paradigm that we may not even be aware of.  But identifying our paradigm at the outset of our investigation of Christian apologetics is important, because our paradigm is likely to determine the outcome of the investigation.  In order to avoid prejudicing our search, we need to identify our assumptions and values and be honest about them as we approach our investigation of evidence for Christian truth-claims.

So, to get started, here’s a quick quiz to identify your paradigm when it comes to thinking about God:

Q1: True or False: If there’s a God who is perfectly good and all-powerful, this God would never permit innocent children to suffer.

Q2: True or False: I believe that while all people make mistakes, most people are basically good.

Q3: True or False: If there’s a God who is perfectly good, God’s primary purpose in creating the world was to ensure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of creatures – especially humans.

Q4: True or False: If God is fair, God would have to give everyone on earth an equal opportunity to know God.

Q5: True or False: I believe that my reason has not been corrupted by sin, whether original or otherwise.

Q6: True or False: Ultimately, the only way to know whether the Bible is from God and that Christianity is true is to test the Bible by the standard of one’s own reason and scientific and historical evidence.  If the Bible doesn’t match what we know about science, history, and ethics, we have no logical reason to accept the Bible.

Q7: True or False: If the Bible contradicts what I know about human rights and what is right and wrong, that part of the Bible must be incorrect.

Q8: True or False: The existence of God – and the truth of Christianity – cannot be proven or disproven, so no one should force their beliefs about these things on others.

If you have a Reformed evangelical paradigm, you will answer “false” to all of these questions.  But this is not the way that most Americans will respond.  Many Americans – including millions of Christians – would answer “true” to most or all of these questions, especially questions 1-5.

Moral Therapeutic Deism: If you answered “true” to the first five questions, but “false” to questions 6-8, you are probably a Christian with a view of life that the sociologist Christian Smith called “moral therapeutic deism.”  Prior to the late seventeenth century, most Christians in the Western world did not question the idea of original sin or the right of God to send unredeemed sinners to hell.  But in the late 1600s, a number of thinkers, including John Locke, began questioning the justice of original sin, and by the end of the eighteenth century, many intellectuals had jettisoned some of the core doctrines of Christianity and had begun calling themselves “deists” or “rational Christians.”  In its pure form, deism included a rejection of all Christian revelation.  Most Americans never adopted deism in its pure form, but they did imbibe deistic philosophy’s confidence in unaided human reason and its rejection of the idea of original sin.  Today very few Americans, Canadians, or Europeans call themselves “deists,” but a majority have adopted assumptions about God and human nature that the deists would have recognized – and that orthodox Christians prior to the eighteenth century would not.

Rationalism: If you answered “true” to questions 5 and 6, you have a rationalist paradigm.  Christians with a rationalist paradigm – and I was one of them for a while – have full confidence in human reason, and they believe that if, in their view, Christian apologetic arguments do not hold up, they should reject Christianity.  Some of these rationalist Christians therefore lose their faith as soon as they decide that skeptical arguments are more persuasive.  And nearly all atheists who write defenses of atheism are rationalists, and pride themselves on being so; they have full confidence in reason as the only path to truth, just as the eighteenth-century deists did.

Rights-based moralism: If you answered “true” to question 7, you will probably be inclined to judge the Bible by your beliefs about gender, gay rights, and other contemporary rights claims, and you will find it very easy to dismiss Christianity, at least in its conservative form, if it violates your beliefs about human rights.

Pluralism and subjectivism: If you answered “true” to question 8, you are probably a pluralist when it comes to religion, and you would also like to see it confined mainly to the private sphere.  Religion, in your mind, belongs in the realm of other-worldly “faith.”  It might be socially beneficial, and it might be deeply meaningful for many people, but it shouldn’t be subjected to rational examination, and it certainly should not be imposed on other people.

What difference do these paradigms make, and why should it matter whether how we answer these questions?  These paradigms matter, because none of the paradigms listed above is a historically Christian worldview.  Thus, if you examine Christian truth-claims from the viewpoint of one of these popular paradigms, you’ll probably find that Christian truth-claims don’t match your values – and thus, you’ll decide that Christianity isn’t true.  After all, children really do suffer in this world.  Large numbers of people are unhappy.  And one can certainly find Bible verses that contradict widely accepted modern ethical values.  So, if you begin your examination of Christianity from within the parameters of one of these paradigms, I can tell you in advance how your search will turn out: You won’t be persuaded by the arguments for Christianity.

If you want to give Christian truth-claims a fair consideration, you may have to examine not only the claims themselves, but also the paradigm that you’re using to examine them.  In the next article, I want to examine what a biblical paradigm might look like, and why it might be radically different from the paradigm that you might be currently using.  If you’re curious about what this paradigm might be, I hope that you’ll join me for this exploration.