An atheist, a pantheist, and a theist were all transported back in time and found huddling around the empty tomb of Jesus on the first Easter Sunday in early first-century Jerusalem. After all the chaos of the previous week culminating in the criminal-like execution of the man who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, the tomb he was buried in was now inexplicably vacated and the body could not be found. Hoping to offer an explanation for this extraordinary event, the atheist noted that science might be able to provide an answer. Perhaps, he said, scientific laws should be expanded to include the possibility that under certain unique atmospheric, astronomic, and biological conditions, corpses can immaterialize leaving no trace of their whereabouts. The pantheist, on the other hand, piped in that a more likely explanation was that Jesus became one with the All and his physical body had been just an illusion in the first place. Upon his apparent death, that illusion was no longer necessary as he had completed his cycle of samsara and was now in blissful union with the Cosmos. The theist, however, interjected that Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, had fulfilled Old Testament prophecy concerning Himself, and vindicated His claim by rising from the dead. This, the theist declared, was neither a scientific anomaly nor a cosmic reunion with the All. The empty tomb was sure proof of the miraculous, physical resurrection of God the Son.
As absurd as the above illustration may seem, it demonstrates that the examination and interpretation of unique and extraordinary events can be deeply affected by one’s worldview. To the Christian, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of his faith. However, it is not a strong enough apologetic to simply prove that the tomb was empty that Sunday morning. Why was it empty? Is the person who rejects belief in the existence of God likely to interpret the empty tomb as proof of God? Perhaps, but more likely he will squeeze the event into his naturalistic worldview that does not include God. What about the person who believes that all is God and God is all? Is he likely to interpret the event as proof that the God of the Jews is the true God instead of Brahman? Again, it is certainly possible for an event such as a physical resurrection to profoundly affect one’s foundational belief system. Nevertheless, it is more instinctive for unbelievers to distort the true nature of this remarkable event based upon their erroneous and presupposed worldview. Thus, an effective Christian apologetic should follow a two-step approach that first establishes theism as the correct worldview then, secondly, demonstrates the veracity of particular Christian evidences, such as the empty tomb. The aim of this paper is to establish the first step, the theistic worldview.
A worldview may be defined as “any ideology, philosophy, theology, movement, or religion that provides an overarching approach to understanding God, the world, and man’s relations to God and the world” (Noebel, 8). Moreover, a worldview can be likened to an “intellectual lens through which we see the world. If someone looks through a red-colored lens, the world looks red to him. If another individual looks through a blue-colored lens, the world will look blue to her” (Geisler, Bocchino, 19-20). Philosopher Ronald Nash adds that “worldviews contain a least five clusters of beliefs, namely, beliefs about God, metaphysics (ultimate reality), epistemology (knowledge), ethics, and human nature” (Nash, 14). Thus, a worldview may be summarized as that interpretive “lens” through which each individual, consciously or not, seeks to understand the existence and nature of God, the universe, and man. Each person’s worldview, even if highly unrefined and uncritically held, becomes the filter through which the sense data of the external world is received and assimilated by his mind. As in the illustration of the red and blue lenses that block out all colors except their own, two different worldviews allow two different people to come to two different conclusions when considering common data, such as the empty tomb of Christ or the historicity of miracles in general.
According to Dr. Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino, there are seven possible worldviews: theism, atheism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, polytheism, and finite godism (Geisler and Bocchino 57). Theism, which is foundational to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is the view that the universe had a supernatural First Cause who is uncaused, one, personal, moral, and infinite in all His attributes including power and intelligence. This God is both beyond the universe and manifests Himself in the universe. Atheism, the pillar of both secular and Marxist humanism, teaches that no God exists either beyond the universe or in it. Thus the universe, which is either eternal or randomly came to be, is all there is and man is its ultimate authority. Pantheism, as in many Eastern religions and the New Age, holds that creator and creation are one and the same; God is the world and the world is God (Geisler and Bocchino, 58-60). For the purposes of simplification, theism, atheism, and pantheism, to the near exclusion of the other four, will be the most widely discussed views in this paper as together they dominate worldview thinking.
Only the worldview of theism provides the necessary framework by which to properly interpret particular evidences for the Christian faith such as the historicity of the gospel accounts and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Any theological controversies regarding the doctrines of the Word of God or the Son of God become completely irrelevant apart from the existence of the theistic God. If there is no God, then of course there is no Word of God or Son of God. In such a case any debate about alleged Christian “evidences” would amount to mere triviality, akin to quarreling over how Santa Clause manages to complete all his deliveries on time. All the atheist or pantheist has to do is prove his non-theistic worldview and he has effectively eliminated the only legitimate worldview upon which Christianity can be based. If, on the other hand, theism as a worldview can be reasonably established, then the antagonist or skeptic cannot automatically dismiss as irrelevant the individual evidences that substantiate the Christian faith. Thus, Christianity in particular is dependent upon theism in general and a theistic worldview is logically prior to a Christian worldview.
Additionally, since Christianity is a religion birthed within a specific historical context and as such is dependent upon the historical method for its defense, a certain level of historical objectivity must be attainable for Christianity to be considered a reasonable faith. Yet, as Geisler points out, true historical objectivity cannot be attained apart from a theistic worldview (Geisler, 6). Consequently, theism must be established prior to an examination of historical evidences such as the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To reiterate, Christian apologetics should follow a two-step method that establishes the theistic worldview primarily and Christian evidences secondarily and thus, the importance of worldviews cannot be overstated.
Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, “History, Objectivity of,” (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 327.
Geisler, Norman and Peter Bocchino, Unshakable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions About the Christian Faith (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001).
Nash, Ronald H. Life’s Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999).
Noebel, David. Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of Our Day and the Search for Truth (Eugene: Harvest House, 1999).