Christian Physicalism: The Progressive Deconstruction of Christianity

American Christianity is in crisis. God has become irrelevant, and we as evangelicals have inherited practical atheism. Many evangelicals do not seek God in daily life, living in their own strength, wisdom, and power.[1] Cultural influences and unbiblical evangelical traditions have morphed into two responses: a generation fleeing an unauthentic church or a post-evangelical migration that seeks to rewrite Christianity altogether. Evangelicals initially dismissed the movement, but their influence has grown immensely.[2] The church is struggling. As our remaining congregants embrace consumerism, we are no longer salt or light nor equipping the Christians who remain on engaging a post-truth culture.[3]  For example, the average church member is probably not familiar with the terms Christian Physicalist or the Emergent Church. The Emergent Church, a post-evangelical movement, seeks to reform the traditional church by seriously questioning or denying the essentials of Christianity.[4] Emergents aim for relevancy and accommodating the scientific community and current culture.[5] A core doctrine of Emergents is physicalism, the belief that humans do not have souls as their essence[6], as souls "threaten the accuracy of the scientific picture of the world."[7]  Christian physicalism rejects body-soul unity, denying human nature, in its essence, unifies both body and soul.[8] These errant theologies are redefining church doctrines in the name of Christ.[9]

In top Christian seminaries, philosophers like Nancey Murphy and pastors Brian McLaren and Rob Bell mold the next generation's minds by proclaiming souls as unessential to humanity. Emergent Christianity declares absolute truth and supernatural doctrines as anti-science and unrealistic. These leaders strongly influence both academics and the church, creating a progressive Christianity interpreting Scripture according to its whims.[10] A physicalist Christian theology rejects the soul, leaving the believer a fabricated God molded by interpretation: deconstructing Christianity's doctrinal foundation as well as objective truth. The loss of absolute truth is deeply problematic for the church and the followers of this errant worldview.[11] We will review why body-soul unity wholly accounts for scientific and philosophical evidence for the biblical explanation of human essence and why a Christian physicalist worldview is heretical at best.[12]

The Body-Soul Debate

      The traditional doctrine of body-soul unity accurately describes the scientific and philosophical presuppositions involved in what it means to be a human being. The body-soul view posits body and soul are distinct[13], and the soul can exist alone aided by God.[14] Body-soul unity is how Scripture defines humanity's design.[15] Gen. 2:7 presents humans with two separate components—formed earth and a living soul —material and immaterial ingredients.[16] John W. Cooper, Professor of Philosophical Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary, puts it this way, "The biblical worldview includes more than God plus the physical universe."[17] In light of this, Cooper lays out the weakness of the physicalist argument: "Physicalism, materialism, and emergentism do not fit the holism of Genesis 2 very well because, although they distinguish spirit and matter, they hold that spirit is generated by matter, which denies that there are two irreducible original principles." In contrast, Scripture clearly shows Spirit is not caused by matter; humanity did not have a soul but became a soul; it is generated by the breath (Hebrew ruah: Spirit) of God.[18]

Nevertheless, body-soul unity provides permanent and legitimate evidence for human makeup. Neuroscience does not conflict[19] with long-established views of body-soul unity.[20] Even key Christian physicalist Nancey Murphy admits current neurological evidence does not rule out dualism.[21] Despite the admittance, Murphy embraces the materialist view; the brain generates personality[22] and mental activities; the soul is irrelevant.[23] Murphy asserts: "All recent advances in the neurobiological understanding of cognition, emotion, and action…are the product of a physicalist understanding of human nature…we can say that science provides as much evidence as could be desired for the physicalist thesis."[24] Murphy works hard to reconcile her personal belief in God with her belief that science answers all of life's questions. However, Christians who put science first and biblical truth second make God available only when they need him.[25] As C.S. Lewis warns in his writings, a person can carry both a naturalist viewpoint and belief in God: "Naturalism, without ceasing to be itself, could admit a certain kind of God…Naturalism cannot accept…the idea of a God who stands outside Nature and made it."[26] Lewis exposes a naturalist viewpoint that comes with great caution: this God is nothing like the God of the Bible. Murphy fails to address the muddiness of such a belief.

In a section titled, "So what does the Bible say?" Murphy honestly comes to terms her position is not "unequivocally…. the position of the Bible."[27] Murphy points out the New Testament contradicts her viewpoint; she denies Scripture to hold to her personal, subjective views. Wheaton professor Jerry Root explains, "Subjectivism projects onto reality whatever it wants. It feels no obligation to ontological imperatives. It chooses whatever it desires and rationalizes and justifies whatever choices it makes. In this way, subjectivism seeks to adjust reality to itself, rather than adjust the scoliosis of its own soul to reality."[28] Murphy recognizes she is moving into subjective territory because her position is not clear from biblical text:[29] However, Murphy does not address how quantum theory completely deconstructs her argument. Philosopher Bruce L. Gordon lays out how problematic Murphy's thesis is from a scientific perspective:

Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory, in fact, dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world…The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible… Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism.[30]

Gordon rightly concludes science points us to phenomena that do not begin from a material base.[31] Thus, the view that physical science is the only way to explain anything or obtain proper knowledge is scientifically and philosophically presumptuous.[32]

Philosophical Concerns in the Body-Soul Debate

      The Christian physicalist denies science and makes philosophical claims that create an entirely different deity from the God of the Bible. For example, Pastor Brian McLaren and progressive Christians place a high value on loving the physical reality around us. By loving people, loving ourselves, and loving creation, we are empowered to know and love God. To note, when McLaren uses the word love, he refers to neural mechanisms governing a variety of neurotransmitter drives.[33] Any account of love as immaterial or supernatural or even divine is unacceptable for McLaren from a physicalist perspective. So how do McLaren's views contradict Scripture? 

McLaren's earthly version of God is devoid of divine providence, interaction, and miracles. R. Scott Smith, Professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola, points out, "these deeply naturalistic beliefs create a God who is unable to communicate with us, and as physical beings alone, we are unable to receive communication back." Like McLaren, progressive leader Tony Jones wrongly concludes we are unable to communicate directly with God. He mistakenly places all control of God's character on the shoulders of the interpreter. In Jones's book Postmodern Youth Ministry, he illustrates how the progressive Emergent Church entices younger generations. Young congregants want to serve a God without the constraints of absolute truth, biblical accountability, or authority: "Don't tell me how to apply this Bible passage to my life.  You do not know anything about my life.  Just tell me what it really means. I'll decide how to apply it."[34] A chilling statement. What are the impacts of soulless Christians, a distant God, and our ability to "define evil, right and wrong" on the church?[35] A church that worships the doctrine of subjectivity lives life according to their desires[36] instead of God's will.[37]

How should church leaders respond to the denigration of the human soul within the church? First, church leaders recognize naturalistic distortions and cultural influences in the church and get back to the true Gospel of Christ. Then, as R. Scott Smith explains, we must point to the beauty of a transcendent personal God who reveals himself through a body-soul unity foundation. In doing so, we will "live in deep unity with the heart and mind of Jesus, which will lead" our churches to "truly love, serve, build up, and care for one another."[38]

The Implausibility of a Christian Physicalist

The Christian physicalist puts themselves in a tricky position. In addition to taking away a personal, transcendent God, many foundational Emergent doctrines reject vital Christian teachings, such as God as Creator, immaterial beings, death, and the resurrection of Christ.  

In his book, A New Kind of Christian, McLaren argues creation should be free and open, without souls, which he affirms restricts an evolutionary view of ourselves—in his position, having a soul prohibits change, as he sees souls as static and unchanging.[39]  McLaren's approach is panentheistic, a combination of theism and pantheism[40]; he posits Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and everyone else have interpretations of God, with none having complete access to truth.[41] McLaren's viewpoint completely contradicts Christian theology. Christianity holds God created everything (Genesis 1:1, Nehemiah 9:6, Revelation 4:11) and is separate from his creation (Psalm 139:7–10). He is not in everything, as asserted by pantheism.[42] The goal of pantheism is to master ignorance of divinity within and recognize you are God[43], direct opposition to the Christian claim: God is the only God (Isaiah 45:5), and Jesus is the only way to God (John 14:6, 1 Tim. 2:5).

Considering these disparities, who is God to the physicalist? Who is Jesus? Is he supernatural or merely human? How do physicalists reconcile God, angels, demons, and a direct refusal of an immaterial soul? Christian physicalists can interpret whatever they want in response to these issues. For example, McLaren presumes demons do not exist and were wrongly created by the less educated throughout history.[44] Other physicalists agree angels, demons, and God can be supernatural, but the supernatural is off-limits to a human being.[45] It is strange immaterial objects are deemed okay, but God is incapable of endowing human beings with an immaterial soul.

The belief everything must exist physically and affirming the existence of a God a physicalist cannot physically experience is a complete contradiction.[46] The massive inconsistencies of a physicalist faith is a critical issue for many scholars, especially when noting the supernatural is core to the very hope of Christianity. The entire faith rests on one supernatural event: the resurrection of Christ. Physicalism directly denies Scripture to what happens to the body at death. Nothing is left for God to sustain when systems cease functioning if the soul or person is identical with or dependent on neural processes. Thus, physicalists must believe in an immediate resurrection of the body or complete non-existence between death and the final resurrection. Both conflict with the scriptural account of Christ's death and resurrection.[47] If Christ was only a human body, how did he go to an immaterial place in the days between his death and resurrection?[48] As R. Scott Smith explains in his book, Authentically Emergent, when physicalist Tony Jones says, "God really died," the statement's implications cannot be true. "Did God, the Second Person of the Trinity, die, i.e., cease to exist? Certainly not."[49] The physicalist's unclear counterargument on the resurrection of Christ is not a unified response. The answers range from second incarnations to theories on science yet discovered: most concede the resurrection is a complex mystery.[50] Nevertheless, the resurrection is the core tenet on which Christianity hinges. The inability and difficulty in accounting for Christ's promises that the soul and body are two different entities (Matthew 10:28) assume even Christ did not understand the essence of humanity the way a physicalist sees it.

Overall, biblical text overwhelmingly supports body-soul unity (1 Samuel 28, 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, Philippians 1:20-22, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, Luke 23:43, Matthew 14:26; Mark 6:49, Matthew 10:28). It is challenging to align the above passages with physicalism, as physicalists offer subjective interpretations instead of the Bible's confident truth.[51] Albert Mohler warns on the danger of the shifting narrative of fundamental doctrines by physicalists: 'We will either affirm that every word of the Bible is true, trustworthy, and authoritative, or we will create our own Bible according to our own preferences. Put bluntly, if Jesus...[is] not telling the same story; we have no idea what the true story is."[52] The physicalist works hard to change the Bible and the message of the Gospel to a new story. Changing Scripture is deeply problematic for Christianity because it suggests we can redefine the Bible to mean whatever we want it to.

In exploring the worldview of a Christian physicalist, we begin to question how it takes on a nominal reference to a follower of Christ as it rejects vital doctrines. The physicalist places all basis of knowledge on facts and the natural alone.[53] After examination, we can see how the view is self-defeating, theologically void, and scientifically unsound.[54] The philosophical and theological implications of the Emergent Church go unanswered; a physicalist can only rely on neurons to explain the complexity of human ethics, free will, the nature of consciousness or self.[55] Physicalism offers a counterfeit Christian theology that rejects the soul, providing the believer a God who is molded to interpretation, thereby deconstructing Christianity's doctrinal foundation as well as absolute truth.[56] As evangelicals, we must respond to naturalistic influences in the church and get back to the true Gospel of Christ. As R. Scott Smith pleads, "Evangelicals and Emergents (must) repent from their naturalistic ways. We must acknowledge, confess, and repent of these idolatrous mindsets and patterns that make God practically irrelevant and elevate ourselves over him…God is not dead: he is alive…and willing to pour out his Spirit...on humble, obedient sons and daughters of our King."[57] In prayerful humility, we can experience the transformative power and presence of the Lord manifested in the body of Christ. The Body of Christ and the watching world is desperate for a profoundly authentic Christianity, free of the distortions of evangelicalism and progressives, giving us what we need most: the love of Christ.[58]

 

[1] R. Scott. Smith, “Scott Smith - The Effect of Naturalism on the Church: Lecture and Q&A,” Biola Apologetics, May 8, 2018, Accessed June 12, 2021, video, 22:20, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiZBWI-cpaU.

[2] Smith, “Scott Smith.”

[3] R. Scott. Smith, Authentically Emergent: In Search of a Truly Progressive Christianity (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2018), 89.

[4] Douglas Brown, “The Emerging Church: The New Worldly Church,” Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, May-June 2008, Accessed May 28, 2021,  https://faith.edu/faith-news/the-emerging-church-the-new-worldly-church/.

[5] Brown, “The Emerging Church.”

[6] R. Scott. Smith, “Are Emergents Rejecting the Soul’s Existence?,” Knowing & Doing, Winter 2009, Accessed June 12, 2021, https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/408.

[7] William Seager, “Why Physicalism?,” University of Toronto Scarborough, Jan. 1, 2014, Accessed May 19, 2021, https://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~seager/whyphys.pdf.

[8] Michael Shackleton, “The Unity of the Body and Soul,” The Southern Cross. Nov. 3, 2017, Accessed May 19, 2021, https://www.scross.co.za/2017/11/the-unity-of-the-body-and-soul/.

[9] Mark Schofield, “Redefining Christ and Christianity,” Progressive Christianity, Apr. 15, 2012, Accessed May 14, 2021, https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/redefining-christ-and-christianity-what-can-progressive-christianity-tell-us-about-modern-religion-secularisation-and-the-future-of-spirituality/.

[10] Steve Kim, “Authentically Emergent: An Interview with Dr. R. Scott Smith,” Apologetics Canada, Oct. 11, 2018, Accessed May 14, 2021, Podcast, 25:44, https://apologeticscanada.com/2018/10/11/authentically-emergent-an-interview-with-dr-r-scott-smith.

[11] Nat Crawford, “Ep. 29 An Interview with Scott Smith: The Problem with the Progressive Church,” Back to the Bible, Jan. 22, 2021, YouTube video, 26:38, Accessed May 14, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pJhegj9JXM.

[12] Mohler, Albert, “We have seen all this before: Rob Bell and the (Re)Emergence of Liberal Theology,” Albert Mohler, March 16, 2011, Accessed May 20, 2021, https://albertmohler.com/2011/03/16/we-have-seen-all-this-before-rob-bell-and-the-reemergence-of-liberal-theology.

[13] John W. Cooper, “The Current Body-Soul Debate: A Case for Dualistic Holism,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, July 2009, Accessed May 21, 2021, https://equip.sbts.edu/publications/journals/journal-of-theology/sbjt-132-summer-2009/the-current-body-soul-debate-a-case-for-dualistic-holism/.

[14] Cooper, “The Current,” 32.

[15] Cooper, “The Current,” 34.

[16] Cooper, “The Current,” 38.

[17] Cooper, “The Current,” 35.

[18] Elmer Towns, “Man’s Body and Soul (and Spirit?),” Bible Sprout, Accessed June 11, 2021, https://www.biblesprout.com/articles/bible/creation/soul-vs-spirit/.

[19] Andrea Lavazza and Howard Robinson (eds.), “Contemporary Dualism: A Defense,” Routledge, 2014, 292. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/contemporary-dualism-a-defense/ (Accessed May 29, 2021). “Consciousness is a real phenomenon that requires a real physical basis assumed to be in the CNS; but no physical basis is found in the Central Nervous System, so an intermediate thing-like entity (symbols, information, etc.) is postulated by scientists. But the intermediate entity is only an epistemic entity that makes no difference in the physical world and hence cannot provide the physical basis of consciousness.”

[20] Cooper, “The Current,” 34.

[21] R. Keith Loftin and Thomas H. McCall. Christian Physicalism?: Philosophical Theological Criticisms (Boulder: Lexington Books, 2018), 240, Apple Books.

[22] Cooper, “The Current,” 33.

[23] Smith, Authentically Emergent, 87.

[24] Nancey C. Murphy, Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 114, Kindle.

[25] Murphy, Bodies and Souls, 1.

[26] C. S. Lewis, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (London: Collins, 2012), 308, Kindle.

[27] Murphy, Bodies and Souls, 15.

[28] Jerry Root, “C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Subjectivism,” C.S. Lewis Institute, May 20, 2013, Accessed May 19, 2021, https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/CS_Lewis_and_the_Case_Against_Subjectivism_page1.

[29] Murphy, Bodies and Souls, 15.

[30] Bruce L. Gordon, “Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism,” North American Mission Board, Mar. 30 2016, Accessed May 20, 2021, https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/why-quantum-theory-does-not-support-materialism/.  

[31] Loftin and McCall, Christian Physicalism, 395.

[32] Kim, “Authentically Emergent.”

[33] Helen Fisher, "Lust, Attraction, and Attachment in Mammalian Reproduction," Human Nature: An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective, 9, 1998, no. 1: 23-52.

[34] Tony Jones, Postmodern Youth Ministry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 37.

[35] Smith, Authentically Emergent, 195.

[36] Smith, Authentically Emergent, 195.

[37] 1 Peter 4:2

[38] Smith, Authentically Emergent, 195.

[39] Smith, Authentically Emergent, 33.

[40] "What is panentheism?," Got Questions, Accessed June 4, 2021, https://www.gotquestions.org/panentheism.html.

[41] R. Scott. Smith, “Why are Progressive Christians attracted to Universalism? How a Distorted View of God Distorts Our View of Good,” Credo Magazine, Jan. 3, 2020, Accessed May 15, 2021, https://credomag.com/2020/01/why-are-progressive-christians-attracted-to-universalism-how-a-distorted-view-of-god-distorts-our-view-of-good/.

[42] Jack Zavada, “What Is Pantheism? Why Christianity Refutes Pantheism,” Learn Religions, June 25, 2019, Accessed May 26, 2021, https://www.learnreligions.com/what-is-pantheism-700690.

[43] Zavada, “What is Pantheism?”

[44] Brian McLaren, “My first knowledge of you wasn’t in a positive light. Q & R about demons,” Brian McLaren, April 25, 2011, Accessed May 18, 2021, (https://brianmclaren.net/my-first-knowledge-of-you-wasnt-in-a-positive-light-q-r-about-demons/.

[45] Loftin and McCall, Christian Physicalism, 189.

[46] William F. Varicella, “Could a Classical Theist be a Physicalist?,” Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers, Volume 15, Issue 2, April 1, 1998, Accessed May 18, 2021, https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1683&context=faithandphilosophy.

[47] Varicella, “Could be a Classical.” 

[48] Luke 23:42-43, 46, Ephesians 4:8-10, 1 Peter 3:18-32

[49] Smith, Authentically Emergent, 113.

[50] Loftin and McCall, Christian Physicalism, 130.

[51] Jacobus Erasmus, “Should Christians Reject the Soul For Biblical Reasons?,” Cross Examined, Dec. 10, 2017, Accessed May 20, 2021, (https://crossexamined.org/christians-reject-soul-biblical-reasons/.

[52] Mohler, “We Have Seen All This Before.”

[53] Daniel Stoljar, "Physicalism," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2017 Edition, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Accessed 14 May 2021, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/physicalism.

[54] Loftin and McCall, Christian Physicalism, 371.

[55] Loftin and McCall, Christian Physicalism, 68.

[56] Mark Schofield, “Redefining Christ and Christianity.”

[57] Smith, Authentically Emergent, 200.

[58] Smith, Authentically Emergent, 200.