The War of the Worldviews

Not long after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the first lady of Ukraine, Olena Zelenska, was interviewed by the BBC. During that interview, Mrs. Zelenska made a statement which struck me at the time as being profoundly insightful, and it has remained with me ever since. Her statement was that “this is a war of worldviews”.

What did she mean by that?

Well, first of all, what do we mean by a ‘worldview’?

Simply put, this is how we see the world in which we live, and this could be broken down into our beliefs and attitudes in relation to religion, politics, art, culture, nationalism or patriotism, globalism, science, and specific issues such as climate change, migration, human rights, and so forth.

The conflicting worldviews of the Russians and the Ukrainians has brought them to the place where Russia feels the need to attack Ukraine in order to satisfy its need to bring its neighbour into subjection, while Ukraine feels the need to resist this subjugation and fight back in order to assert and retain its sovereign independence.

This is a graphic example of how conflicting worldviews can develop into destructive combat.

A similar, though more subtle, conflict of worldviews is ongoing today in our western democratic cultures, and one of its major protagonists is what is generally known as ‘LIBERAL SECULAR HUMANISM’.

As I understand it: a HUMANIST is one who sees humanity as being of central importance; a SECULAR humanist sees humanity as being more than competent to make their own way through life without the need for any guidance or interference from a higher power of any kind (should such a thing even exist); and a LIBERAL secular humanist believes that each person should be free to decide for themselves what is right or wrong, true or false, acceptable or unacceptable, and to act accordingly.

It seems to me that in the liberal secular humanist worldview, marriage is an institution which was devised by society at some time in the past to help to maintain the social order, but which many today see as being outdated and obsolete. Others might see it as being beneficial to society in some ways, but to be greatly in need of reform. Others can take it or leave it, and see it perhaps as no more than a quaint tradition.

For the secular humanist, the redefinition of marriage to bring it into line with modern cultural trends is a no-brainer. It makes perfect sense, and why should anyone object to it? The only cause there could be for such an objection is the intransigence and bigotry of the objector who, like a dinosaur (to use Nick Clegg’s epithet), is a relic of a bygone age, and one who is resistant to change and unwilling to move with the times.

One of the key moral drivers of secular humanism is HUMAN RIGHTS, and this is perfectly understandable. Even the American Constitution upholds the three inalienable rights of LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.

During the run-up to same-sex marriage being legalised in the Republic of Ireland, one mother said, “I have three sons: two of them can get married; one of them can’t.” She, of course, meant that the third son was gay and would want to be married to another man rather than a woman.

In secular humanism, it is not only acceptable but is a moral necessity that the right of any person to be married to the partner of their choice should be upheld, whoever, and of whichever sex, that partner might be.

Those who hold to the secular humanist worldview have this in common with everyone else – they believe that they are right and that those who disagree with them are wrong.

There are, of course, many worldviews other than secular humanism, but I will be focusing on only one of them – the Christian worldview. There are two reasons for this: firstly, because I myself am a Christian; secondly, because the Christian worldview was the one that was universally held to be true in Britain and Ireland until recent generations, and our moral and cultural traditions are founded upon and steeped in the principles of that worldview.

The lynch-pin of the Christian worldview is the one true and living God, Who is the Creator of all, the Sustainer of all, the Redeemer of all, and the Judge of all, Who created man in His own image and set him on the earth to both enjoy it and care for it.

A major differentiator between these two worldviews relates to the origins of the universe as a whole, life in general, and human life in particular.

For the secular humanist, the universe came into being as the result of a quirk of the laws of physics. What I mean by that is that, before the Big Bang, whatever it was that existed at that time came into such a state that, according to the laws of physics, the Big Bang was the inevitable outcome. And, once the Big Bang had been initiated, everything that has taken place in the universe from that moment has been predetermined, in the most minute detail, by the principle of cause and effect in a closed system.

According to this worldview, the concept of ‘purpose’ in relation to the universe is a nonsense. The universe has no purpose; it just is, because the Big Bang happened when it did and in the way that it did.

For the Christian, the universe exists because Almighty God decided, or, if you like, purposed, that it should. It came about not by accident, but by design. It was created for a reason. It has a purpose, as does everything that exists within it.

Life, for the secular humanist, is also just a quirk of the laws of physics. Certain conditions arose upon the earth at a certain time, which initiated the process which resulted in the formation of the DNA molecule, with the capacity to reproduce itself. It might have happened differently, but it didn’t. It just so happens that it happened this way. By another quirk of the laws of physics, a structure was formed around the DNA, which became the first living cell, which also was able to divide and reproduce itself.

Another quirk of the laws of physics initiated the process known as ‘evolution’, which eventually, after a few billion years, produced human beings.

So, the secular humanist traces his ancestry through the primates back through innumerable tiny evolutionary steps until we come to that first living cell, which just happened to come into being because that’s the way the science works. There is no design. There is no meaning. There is no purpose. It just is.

For the Christian, life is the direct result of God’s creative purpose. He Himself is the source of all life, and He created the vegetation, the fish, the birds, the reptiles, the mammals, and the men. However, there was something special about the men, as we read in the first chapter of the first book of the Bible:

For the Christian, mankind is not the outcome of an undirected process of evolution, but the culmination and the pinnacle of God’s creative purposes upon the earth. Every human being that has ever lived, male or female, of whatever colour, of whatever ethnic origin, has been made in the image of Almighty God, with the potential to become a son or a daughter of His and to enjoy an eternity of fellowship with Him.

Interestingly, the Bible has very little to say about human rights, although there is one passage which speaks of a right that God does give us:

However, God is not so much concerned about our RIGHTS as He is about our RIGHTEOUSNESS – that is to say, He wants us to be as much concerned about the welfare of those around us as we are about getting what we want for ourselves.

The key focus of Christian morality is not on RIGHTS but on LOVE.

Jesus told us that the two most important commandments in the Bible are these: to love God and to love your neighbour. This means thinking firstly about what would honour God and secondly about what would be of benefit to those who would be affected by our behaviour.

There are two basic problems with a rights-based morality. Number one, it tends to promote self-interest; and number two, it can give rise to a conflict of interests, where the rights of one party impinges on, or even over-rides, the rights of another party.

The best, and most tragic, example of this is the issue of abortion. In every case of abortion, there are two people who are intimately involved – the mother and the child. For whatever reason, the mother has decided that she does not want to go through with the pregnancy. She may want to be a mother, but not the mother of this child. What is to be done?

Under the liberal secular humanist rights-based moral code, the woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body, and the unborn child has no rights at all, not even the most basic human right to life.

Under the Christian love-based moral code, both the mother and her child are created in the image of God and are equally important in God’s eyes, and whatever decisions are being made in relation to them must be made on that basis. This belief was enshrined in the eighth amendment to the constitution of the Irish Republic, which was, tragically, repealed in 2018 in the name of women’s reproductive rights.

This, of course, is a major subject on its own, and I am simply using it here to illustrate the weakness of a rights-based morality.

However, Jesus said that the most important consideration for us is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength”. In practice, this primarily means two things: firstly to HONOUR God in everything that we think, say, and do; and secondly to be OBEDIENT to God in all that we think, say, and do.

How are we to obey God unless we know what He requires of us?

Well, we can easily find out what He requires of us, because it’s written for us in the Bible. This is why Christians will always refer to the Bible for guidance in understanding how to live, how to treat other people, and how to deal with difficult situations. It’s not a matter of blindly following a set of rules and regulations, but it is a matter of recognising the wisdom of the One who created us and the world in which we live, and who knows better than anyone else what is best for us in every circumstance.

If upholding individual human rights is central for the secular humanist, then honouring God and obeying His will is central for the Christian. Unfortunately, the two are not always the same, and so we have this conflict of morality.

But someone will argue, “surely there are many Christians who are in agreement with same-sex marriage, and many Christian denominations which perform same-sex weddings”.

This is indeed true, and was put forward by the representative of the Equalities Commission for Northern Ireland during the Asher’s cake case. So, who’s got it right: the Christians who support same-sex marriage or the Christians who don’t? And, why is there a disagreement in the first place?

To answer that, let’s ask another question: what is a Christian? Is it someone who was born and brought up in a Christian culture, goes to church on Sunday, has their name on the membership roll of a congregation, says grace before their meals, and tries to abide by the Ten Commandments?

These all have their place, but being a Christian goes a little deeper than that.

The term ‘Christian’ appears only three times in the New Testament. The first of these is in Luke’s history of the early church, ‘The Acts of the Apostles’:

By this we know that the Biblical definition of a Christian is a DISCIPLE. So, what is a disciple?

Our English word ‘disciple’ comes from the Latin verb ‘discere’, which means ‘to learn’. So a disciple is a LEARNER, someone who is learning from someone else. In the case of Christians, obviously, they are learning from Christ.

So, if Christians are learners, they are obviously not know-it-alls, and there will also, obviously, be matters on which they do not all see eye-to-eye, because they are all still involved in the learning process.

However, it is universally held among Christians that the Bible is the Word of God and the foundation of all of our understanding of God’s will and God’s ways, so any dispute or disagreement on matters of doctrine or morality must be referred to the Bible. That is what I am undertaking in this set of articles. If anyone does not agree with what I write, they may put forward their own case, but I will take it seriously only if they are basing it upon the teaching of the Scriptures rather than upon some human tradition or cultural norm.

Before we go any further, I think it important to make another point. There has been a tendency to conflate two distinct but related issues, namely the definition of marriage and the acceptability or otherwise of homosexuality.

I will be dealing with these two matters separately.

Those who do not agree with same-sex marriage are often deemed to be bigots, homophobic, or guilty of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, as we saw in the Asher’s case, where even Appeal Court judges were committing this error of judgement!

However, not everyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage has a problem with homosexuality. I will give two examples, both of which were broadcast in television interviews.

The first is of a young man who is bisexual. He explained that he had been engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships and found that the two types of relationship have different dynamics, marriage being appropriate for the one, but not for the other.

The second is of an older man who objected to marriage being redefined, not because he wanted it to remain as it was, but because he believed that it should be abolished altogether! He even said something along the lines of, “I’m no supporter of same-sex marriage. Does that make me a bigot?”

There would seem to be a tendency among secular humanists to think that Christians are simply hard-hearted intransigent bigots because they won’t move with the times and flow with the liberal culture. This is not the case, but in order to allay this misconception it is necessary to explain the Christian understanding of this fundamentally important question concerning love, sex, and marriage. That is what I will endeavour to do in these articles, beginning with the most basic of these questions: what is the purpose of sex?