A Profession Not Worth a Button

“The doctrine of the Trinity! That is the substance, that is the ground and fundamental of all, for by this doctrine and this only the man is made a Christian and he that has not this doctrine, his profession is not worth a button.” —John Bunyan

Objection: “Everyone’s profession has worth.”

Argument #1: Self-Defeating

Without any qualifications being made, the objection is self-defeating. If Bunyan’s profession has worth, then you cannot speak against it. If you do speak against it, then not everyone’s profession has worth.

Argument #2: What Is Really Being Said

What such an objection is really saying though is that everyone else’s profession has worth. All other professions are true. The historic Christian profession claiming the exclusivity of Christ is not. 

Or, put another way, it is to say that all professions that do not claim to be exclusive have value. The problem is that Christianity is not the only exclusive religion. Judaism and Islam are also exclusivistic, as well as many expressions of Hinduism and Buddhism. This means the statement that “everyone’s profession has worth,” speaks contrary to the majority report of at least three of the world’s major religions. This cuts a huge chunk out of “everyone.” So what is really being said turns out to be not much of anything.

Argument #3: Pluralism is Exclusive

Again, making the claim that all professions have value, the religious pluralist not only stands contrary to historic Christianity, but against Judaism, Islam, and many expressions of Buddhism and Hinduism. Religious pluralism fails in its aim. Rather than welcoming in, it too excludes most other world religions and judges them for their exclusivity claims.

Argument #4: Both Statements Are Judgment Statements

An implication, and more often an outspoken accusation, is that in claiming the exclusivity Christ, Christians are being judgmental. But the objection itself is a judgmental statement. 

“You’re being judgmental!”

“Hmm…didn’t you just judge me?”

Again, the objection cuts off its own legs. Both Bunyan’s claim and the objection are judgment statements. The Christian is perfectly fine with others making judgment statements. The question is, which judgment is true? What standard is being used? This is a conversation I welcome. It is the one I’m trying to have.

Argument #5: Which Is Really More Arrogant?

An implication of the former implication is the charge of arrogance. “You’re being judgmental, ergo, you’re arrogant.” But consider that Christians make their profession in subjecting themselves to a standard outside themselves. Those who say all professions have value do so based on their own subjective thoughts and observations. The stance of a Christian is one of submission to an outside authority. The stance of a religious pluralist is to act like a god declaring truth, namely, the truth that all professions have value, save those that make exclusivity claims. Religious pluralism is judgmental, and it makes this judgment as a judge. It assumes a position of authority.

Argument #6: Argument, Truth, and Tolerance

G.K. Chesterton once said that we quarrel because we have forgotten how to argue. There was a time when two men who disagree could sit down at a table and argue, knowing that the other guy had their best interest in mind. This was because both of them came to the table believing that truth was something outside themselves. Because this was so, at best, the two men could admit that the other guy, in arguing for truth, was seeking what was best for the other and for humanity. This is true tolerance.

But today, many say all professions have worth. Truth is thought to be subjective. “If it makes you happy… If you believe it…” So if ever there is an argument, I’m no longer attacking ideas. I am attacking you. It is not that we are both going after truth. Instead, we are going after one another. Counterintuitively we must then say that all opinions have value. We must never object. This is the tyranny of pluralism. It silences all other voices. All debate and argument is ended. This is the intolerance of those who preach tolerance.

Argument #7: All Professions?

But, no one really believes that all professions have value.

Did Hitler’s professions concerning the Aryan race and the Jews have value?

Did Jim Jones’ profession have value?

Did the profession of the Jihadists who slammed jets into the Twin Towers have value?

Did the profession of worshippers of Molech who sacrificed their children have value?

Did the profession of Stalin’s communist Russia and Mao’s communist China have value?

Does the profession of your bank have value when they fail to register your last deposit?

Argument #8: Why?

“If they want to believe it, if it makes them happy, why speak against it?” 

When your child wants to put a toy in the light socket, why stop them? The answer is love. If the child says they believe that electricity won’t kill them because they’re Thor, the parent still insists. Lies harm.

To allow a soul to walk through this world believing a lie isn’t kind. If Christianity is true, to be indifferent to people’s profession isn’t kind. You may argue that Christianity’s claims are false. You can claim that all souls will go to heaven. But when you do so, you are making a truth claim. And then you must answer upon what standard you make such a claim? At this point we are in agreement. Not all professions are of equal value. True ones are. Which are true?

What one cannot say is that all professions have value, because that statement is self-refuting. Jesus said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” As Lewis famously observed, “You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”*

Of course you could argue that Jesus never said that. But should you do so, you’ve discounted many a profession as not being worth a button. You’ve made a truth claim. And upon what standard?


*Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. HarperOne, 2001.

The Strife of “Unity” and the Unity of Striving (Philippians 1:27–28)

“Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God.” —Philippians 1:27–28

There is a kind of striving that is to be done in unity and it is the very kind of striving that is conducive to unity. If there isn’t the kind of striving Paul refers to in Philippians 1:27, there will be strife. C.S. Lewis said, “You cant get second things by putting them first; you can get second things only by putting first things first.” If we make avoiding strife primary, strife is exactly what we’ll get; but if we strive, there will be little strife.

“Striving” paradoxically modifies “standing firm” here. “Standing firm” has a defensive connotation, whereas “striving” has an offensive one. Defending the gospel is like defending a howitzer. We are to stand firm in and for the gospel, knowing that it is the gospel that advances (Philippians 1:12). Striving must happen because the gospel is primary. Christ is primary. Strife within the church happens when the gospel is demoted. 

This is why so many calls for love, unity, and peace fall flat, even within the church. Unity is something that is, and it is in Christ, in the Spirit, in the gospel (cf. Ephesians 4:1–6). If a church makes unity her god, she’ll tear them apart. If unity is primary, you can’t expect the Spirit of unity to get on board, because the unity He has created is found in Christ our Head.

Men need doctrine for there to be unity, doctrine for which they both stand and strive. Jude admonishes us to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Paul commanded Timothy to “guard the deposit entrusted to you” (1 Timothy 6:20). He says this again in 2 Timothy 1:14 adding, “By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you” (emphasis mine). We can count on the Spirit in whom we have unity to be with us if we stand firm in, strive for, and guard the gospel. Forfeit the gospel and whatever unity we may enjoy, know there is nothing of the Holy Spirit in it and it is sure to backfire.

Unity is not primary; it is secondary. Unity isn’t the root; it is a fruit. This is not unity at all costs. It is a unity that is costly. This is not a unity that ends all opposition. This is a unity that stands up against opposition. Too many saints are after a unity in which everyone likes us, instead of a unity that will stand up against everyone hating us. Unity with this world is enmity against God. So, if you want the saints to get along, get them in the fight.

The Don: Bulverism Anyone?

In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it Bulverism. Someday I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father – who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third – ‘Oh you say that because you are a man.’ ‘At that moment’, E. Bulver assures us, ‘there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism our age will thrust you to the wall.’ That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century. —C.S. Lewis, “Bulverism” in C.S. Lewis Essay Collection & Other Short Pieces (HarperCollins Publishers, 2000), p. 587

The Don: Humble Science

milky-way-1023340_1280.jpg

‘But he [Joseph] came to believe in the Virgin Birth afterwards, didn’t he?’

‘Quite. But he didn’t do so because he was under any illusion as to where babies came from in the ordinary course of nature. He believed in the Virgin Birth as something super-natural. He knew nature works in fixed, regular ways: but he also believed that there existed something beyond nature which could interfere with her workings—from outside, so to speak.’

‘But modern science has shown there’s no such thing. ‘

‘Really,’ said I. ‘Which of the sciences?’

‘Oh, well, that’s a matter of detail,’ said my friend. ‘I cant give you chapter and verse from memory.’

“But, don’t you see.’ said”I, ‘that science never could show anything of the sort?’

‘Why on earth not?’

Because science studies nature. And the question is whether anything besides nature exists—anything “outside”. How could you find that out by studying simply nature?’

——C.S. Lewis, “Religion and Science” in C.S. Lewis Essay Collection & Other Short Pieces (HarperCollins Publishers, 2000), pp. 143–144

The Don: “I See Macbeth, but Where’s Shakespeare?”

sunrise-1756274_1280.jpg

“The Russians, I am told, report that they have not found God in outer space…

Looking for God—or Heaven—by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare’s plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters or Stratford as one of the places. Shakespeare is in one sense present at every moment in every play. But he is never present in the same way as FalstafFor Lady Macbeth. Nor is he diffused through the play like a gas.

If there were an idiot who thought plays existed on their own, without an author (not to mention actors, producer, manager, stage-hands and what not), our belief in Shakespeare would not be much affected by his saying, quite truly, that he had studied all the plays and never found Shakespeare in them.” —C.S. Lewis, “The Seeing Eye”

The Don: Waking from the Myth of Scientific Cosmology

classroom-1209820_1280.jpg

I was taught at school, when I had done a sum, to “prove my answer”. The proof or verification of my Christian answer to the cosmic sum is this. When I accept Theology I may find difficulties, at this point or that, in harmonizing it with some particular truths which are imbedded in the mythical cosmology derived from science. But I can get in, or allow for, science as a whole. Granted that Reason is prior to matter and that the light of the primal Reason illuminates finite minds, I can understand how men should come by observation and inference, to know a lot about the universe they live in. If, on the other hand, I swallow the scientific cosmology as a whole, then not only can I not fit in Christianity, but I cannot even fit in science. If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on bio-chemistry, and bio-chemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees. And this is to me the final test. This is how I distinguish dreaming and waking. When I am awake I can, in some degree, account for and study my dream. The dragon that pursued me last night can be fitted into my waking world. I know that there are such things as dreams: I know that I had eaten an indigestible dinner: I know that a man of my reading might be expected to dream of dragons. But while in the nightmare I could not have fitted in my waking experience. The waking world is judged more real because it can thus contain the dreaming world: the dreaming world is judged less real because it cannot contain the waking one. For the same reason I am certain that in passing from the scientific point of view to the theological, I have passed from dream to waking. Christian theology can fit in science, art, morality, and the sub-Christian religions. The scientific point of view cannot fit in any of these things, not even science itself. I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else. —C.S. Lewis, “Is Theology Poetry”

The Threat in the Trenches (Psalm 11)

In the LORD I take refuge;
how can you say to my soul,
     “Flee like a bird to your mountain,
for behold, the wicked bend the bow;
     they have fitted their arrow to the string
     to shoot in the dark at the upright in heart;
if the foundations are destroyed,
     what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:1–3 ESV)

Often the enemy uses a big boom so that friendly fire becomes the greatest threat. The hazard posed by the wicked outside the walls isn’t as dangerous as the advice from those inside them. The fool in the trench is often more deadly than the distinguished sniper across the line.

When the secularists, evolutionists, humanists, and materialists ridicule the Bible, our dukes are up. When our friends give advice, our guard is down and our ears are open. Professing Christians tell us that inerrancy and inspiration are indefensible. They must be abandoned for higher ground. Likewise, marriage, gender, penal substitutionary atonement, and even truth itself are “advised” against for the sake of the faith and the perpetuity of the church. What faith is left to defend by the time we’ve retreated to their higher ground?

The church is a mighty ironclad. She has long been bombarded by pagan shells. Faithless cowards hear modern clangs and think them louder than the ancient arsenal. They panic telling us to jump ship, unaware of the shark infested waters we sail in.

David receives advice from those concerned about him and the kingdom. Dealing with the facts as presented their counsel seems reasonable and logical. The problem is that it fails to take in the fact—God. The counsel given in vv. 1–3 is as godless as the taunts of the wicked. In contrast, David exclaims.

The LORD is in his holy temple;
     the LORD’s throne is in heaven;
     his eyes see, his eyelids test the children of man.

When we’re advised to abandon the Bible or it’s truths because of some new threat, nothing has changed. God still reigns. It is in the eternal, omnipotent, immutable God that we take refuge. “How can they say to us…?”

The Apologist: Evolution a Theory with Many Unroofs

[E]ven if I were still and agnostic, as once I was, I would not accept the concept of evolution from the molecule to man in unbroken line. My rejection of this does not turn upon my being Christian, but comes rather because I think this concept is weak and certainly has not been proven (in any sense of the word proven). It is a theory with may unproofs.  —Francis Schaeffer, No Final Conflict

The Apologist: Proof of God’s Existence as Inescapable as Yourself

Each time one man communicates with another, whether he knows it or not, even if he is the greatest blasphemer that ever lived or the atheist swearing at God, even when he swears, even when he says, “There is no God”—he bears testimony to what God is. God has left himself a witness that cannot be removed. —Francis Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time

The Apologist: There Are Only a Few Possible Answers and Only One Intelligent Answer

Man is shut up to relatively few answers. I think we often fail to understand that the deeper we go into study at this point, the simpler the alternatives become. In almost any profound question, the number of final possibilities is very few indeed. Here there are four: (1) Once there was absolutely nothing and now there is something, (2) Everything began with an impersonal something, (3) Everything began with a personal something, and (4) There is and always has been a dualism. —Francis Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time