All Truth God's Truth????

Can't argue with a word you said. Right on.

THE PROBLEM OF OVERLAPPING DISCIPLINES

One of your favorite books: Gary Chapman’s book: The five love languages, would this be an example of some observations in psychology are helpful? Dr. Chapman has an M.A. in anthropology from Wheaton College & Wake Forest University, respectively.

Question #1 - Aren’t books like these and people like Dr. Dobson advocating the “all truth is God’s truth” principle, which you have rightly pointed out from Arthur F. Holmes book?

Think about this, Arthur F. Holmes was the Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Wheaton College from 1951-1994. There are a lot of students out there doing ministry with the mindset of Arthur F. Holmes, “all truth is God’s truth”.

The problem comes when people like me (Mr. Ordinary) hears things on Moody Radio Station, or pick up a book in a Christian book store, or attend a Christian College where integration of Christianity and Psychology is taught. Everywhere in Christianity people are throwing their “all truths” into God’s Truth.

Many now believe that most pastors are not qualified to counsel because they are not trained in the discipline of psychology. The church has been weakened by the “all truth” psychology practices because those in the ministry now need this extra biblical supplement and those in the ministry who have biblical training only are not qualified to speak on the matter at all.

Question #2 – How are we to respond to those who are overlapping the disciplines in ministry?

What I hear Pastor James saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is not that "secular" disciplines overlap in ministry, but that they are overemphasized, particularly to the point where the Truth of scripture is supplanted or threatened by the "truth" of some extra-biblical ideology. Darwin is an obvious example of the latter, but with regard to the former, let's not forget that the only reason we English speakers have access to God's Word in our own language is that "secular disciplines" were employed in translating it for us. No extra-biblical truth (i.e. linguistics, etc.)... no Bible from which to learn Biblical Truth.

OVERLAPPING DISCIPLINES

Is there anything wrong with the church using skills learned in marketing, psychology, etc to get the gospel out (doing it's God's way)? Everyone needs Jesus (not that Jesus is a product to be sold or a service to be used) and creating a campaign based on a target audience's (a selected few) needs, and exposing them to the gospel (not to trying to sell them the gospel, but presenting Jesus to them and allowing the Holy Spirit to do the rest).

Isn't that the Mars Hill experience that we see in the Bible? Paul knew that they need Jesus and he reached out to connect with them with something culturally that they could understand.

Is it really that important how someone does that as long as the gospel isn't watered down and God's truth is proclaimed?

Isn't it to the church's advantage to use those skills to communicate the gospel?

Don't overlapping disciplines provide more insight to God's truth rathering hendering it?

Pastor James said, "To attribute the erroneous thinking of man to God is to make Him liable for our imperfect observation and analysis. . . . Maybe better to say, "All that is true, is God's truth."

Seems this IS the better way of stating it - all that is true is God's truth. But, as you correctly point out, it is not all God's Word, which is the Truth up to which all other "truth" must be held to discern whether it is True. This, I think, is directly related to the "overlapping disciplines" problem.

One problem with using other disciplines (like marketing or psychology) to reach the lost with the message of the Gospel is that, when we hold those discplines (or those aspects of them we are seeking to use) up to the light of Holy Scripture (which we MUST do), we recognize that many of these "overlapping disciplines" contain heretical views about God, man, or both.

The self-esteem movement is a perfect example of this. Not only has it been detrimental to those who have been taught to esteem themselves (what incentive is there to improve if you're already perfect?), but it is absolutely contrary to what the Bible says about people.

Romans 3 tells us,

"As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

We know that Scripture is true, so self-esteem (in this example) MUST be false.

That's just one example of how conceptual disciplines (as opposed to practical aids, like microphones and web sites) have been overlapped with spiritual truth to introduce heretical views (of man, in this case) that have become, regretably, widely accepted.

Further, the overlapping disciplines problem places man's "knowledge" on an equal (overlapping) par with God's Will, revealed to us in Scripture. This may not be evident in its first incarnation (I'm sure it seemed quite "loving" to teach people to love themselves . . . at first), but is very difficult to untangle the truth from error down the line. Once a heretical concept is mixed in with the truth for long enough, it starts to have the appearance of truth. 2 Peter 2:1 says, "They will secretly introduce destructive heresies . . ."

God has given us all we need to fulfill the Great Commission - His Word and the Holy Spirit. I have no problem using modern technology (like this site) or musical styles or what have you, as long as it is consistent with Scripture and as long as the full counsel of God is preached without heresy. It's not the style or medium (the tool) that concerns me, but that the MESSAGE is 100% Biblical Truth. The problem with involving other conceptual disciplines is that we have to be SO on-guard to prevent any minor heresy in those concepts from sneaking into our message, poisoning the well, when He has already provided evangelistic methods directly in Scripture.

OVERLAPPING OF DICSIPLINES

Friends, Amy brings up a very good point. When the dam has been open who can stop the flow of water which comes in.

Everyday on Christian radio, in this very city, Psychology continues to dominate the air waves. Endorsement after endorsement, interview after interview psychology is the answer.

There are many churches in our own area where one might on any given sunday hear a message from the pulpit that sound more like a psychology 101 class rather then the hearing of God's Word.

I thank God for Harvest because they have not opened that door. At Harvest a high view of the Scripture still remains.

May God keep us from the sycretism of Christianity & Psychology in Harvest Bible Chapel or any of its church plants. May the Word of God evermore be the banner which we raise as our authority and answer for life and life's questions.

Amy & DF,

Two words for you, from a loving brother in Christ: Slippery Slope.

Matt:

In the context of this current thread, I'm finding your very brief comment (two words) rather cryptic. Could you please elaborate?

In so doing, I ask to you please bear in mind that the "slippery slope" argument is a classic logical fallacy. The "slippery slope" argument does not address the position of the presenter; it argues that a caricature of the presenter's position (or a supposed natural outcome of the position) is problematic.

If, rather than asserting that I'm ON a slippery slope, you are suggesting that I have committed the "slippery slope" fallacy (from my statement regarding "untangling truth from error"), I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that I am NOT suggesting a slippery slope. My point was NOT that a drop of heresy becomes bad only when it is magnified down the line. The heretical drop is, itself, problematic, regardless of what it grows into (or if it never grows).

I agree with Amy's assessment that there needs to be clarity and distinction between God's word and the ideologies of some discipline.

However, I disagree that every assessment of someone's self-esteem problem, or any other problem for that matter, can be traced to sin and has a biblical response. In some cases that may be a valid statement; however, you can't speak authoritatively to say every situation a person is facing is because of sin. Medical conditions may be the leading cause why someone is suffering.

There is a strange tension between a biblical answer and a psychiatric answer. I think that is a slippery slope.

"God has given us all we need to fulfill the Great Commission - His Word and the Holy Spirit" is a great statement to reach the lost; however, the bible doesn't teach a doctor how to care for someone's medical or mental condition.

This is Harvest's present take on Counseling and their believe about psychology etc..

Counseling Philosophy
The Lord changes lives and accomplishes His purposes directly through reading and applying the Scriptures, meditating on the truths of the Scriptures, and prayer. The Lord also uses those who minister His Word as they encourage, exhort, admonish, edify, implore, reprove, rebuke, and console others toward godliness. God needs no new or unique insight into the human condition in order to change lives, regardless of whether that insight is gained through psychology or some other tool of human origin. Problems that are approached by integrating the Scriptures with psychological theories tend to deceive individuals into diminishing the God of the Scriptures and into believing that He has not provided and cannot provide sufficient truth, insight, and wisdom that will change their lives—Colossians 2:8-10.

When psychology and other social sciences step beyond observing human behavior and seek to explain the causes of human behavior, they enter spiritual territory. Only the God of the Scriptures can explain causes and offer solutions that lead to godliness and a fruitful, joyful life. God has given us everything we need for life and godliness—2 Peter 1:3. He changes us as we discipline ourselves through obedience to the Word of God in the power of the Holy Spirit—1 Timothy 4:7; 2 Peter 1:5-11.

Each Christian's passion should be to become more like Christ and fulfill the Great Commandment to love the Lord with the entire heart, soul, mind, and strength—Romans 8:29; 1 John 3:2, Deuteronomy 6:5; Mark 12:30; Matthew 22:37-38.

The Christian who learns and applies the Word becomes mature and, in turn, can help others mature—2 Timothy 2:2.

James,
First time to comment. I attended and served at Harvest (high school ministry) while I was studying at Moody. Since then, I've finished my M.Div. and am now pastoring a church near Dayton, OH. After all that study, I thank God so much for my 3 years at Harvest and your teaching ministry in my life. Sitting under your teaching and watching Harvest do church taught me as much or more than any class. I only hope that I can serve God as a pastor as faithfully and well as you. So all that to say, I feel rather inferior commenting on your blog, because I view you as a ministry hero.

But I do want to jump in, since I am 25 and really care about reaching my generation with the good news of Jesus. And this comment, along with your post on Acts 17, have hit on areas centrally connected to how I am trying to help re-structure my church around being biblically centered while culturally accessible and evangelistically oriented.

It seems we must distinguish between messages/services that use cultural blips as starting points versus those who us those cultural elements as the main takeaway from the message/service. For example, a song or movie clip could be used to show the dominant cultural view about some topic which could then lead to a biblical message that shows, from God's Word, the truth about how believers should view said topic. Or also, secular sources that line up with God's Word could function as real-life examples of a principle from God's Word in action (think the coach from the movie 'Radio' as a real-life demonstration of what it means to consider others better than yourself).

However, I think you made your point well that we must never allow truth from another realm to supercede our love from biblical Truth. Put in another way, we can draw general revelation that accords with Scripture from our culture, but we must always show that the Truth we teach comes from special, not general, revelation. If we move away from the Bible, we move away from God's intended source of power for living.

In that sense, I found it fascinating to preach Acts 17 at my church. We saw how Paul began by being pained by the idolatry. However, he worked through his message on Mars Hill by first showing points from Epicurean and Stoic philosophy that agreed with the Gospel message (such as God's aseity and his role as universal creator). Amazingly, he manages to ground these points of agreement in a biblical-theological storyline of history. Yet then, rather than stopping at general revelation and points of agreement where everyone could be happy, he moves on to challenge his audience about points of disagreement where they needed to get it right biblically by showing a key point of disagreement with both groups. To the Epicureans, he shows that God is truly involved in human affairs. To the Stoics, he shows that God is not some pantheistic life force living in rocks and metal. And he grounds this logic in their own secular poets, almost as if chiding them for not having realized the truth that was right in front of their faces. Following that, he confronts them with the gospel and calls them to repent. (By the way, I am big time indebted to D. A. Carson for all these insights).

So where does all that leave us? I draw the application that we must not be afraid to engage secular sources in our ministry, both to show where they agree and disagree with Scripture. Secondly, we must ground our call to faith and repentance in God's message, not secular sources (in that sense showing a movie clip that demonstrates a true principle but fails to engage God's Word won't really help much ... it's like reading a self-help book to the congregation). Thirdly, we must be bold, not shrinking away from teaching that will bring cross-driven offense.

So to finish, the quote 'all truth is God's truth' really misses the point altogether. I could talk about the truth of how to fly fish properly all day, and nobody would care and people would leave unchanged. What matters is teaching relevantly from the Bible in a way that calls unbelievers to repent and follow Jesus for a lifetime and in a way that calls believers to get off their backsides and live out their faith in a way that will bring them joy and give glory to God. And that comes, not by worrying about the lowest common denominator of truth, but by focusing on the highest callings from the text.

Cornelius:

I'm sorry if I was unclear - I wasn't saying that there are no methods outside of the Bible to help people with medical conditions.

What I was saying is that the mantra of "self-esteem" (which was the example Pastor James used and with which I agree) is patently unbiblical. The Biblical view of man is quite lowly (particularly by comparison with our Awesome God!). We must humble ourselves before Him, which requires seeing ourselves as the sinful, fallen creatures we are, and fall on our faces before God in repentance and faith in order to receive the gift of salvation.

Cornelius, one thing from your post is confusing to me and I wonder whether you might help me understand where you're coming from on it. You say, "I disagree that every assessment of someone's self-esteem problem, or any other problem for that matter, can be traced to sin." I understand what you are saying you disagree with (I think), but I looked and don't see where anyone before you said that someone's problems can always be traced to sin? (I even did a word search for "sin" and yours was the first mention of it on the page).

That said, all types of ills (mental, physical, emotional, spiritual) can be traced to sin generally (i.e., the Fall). Sin and evil and sickness and death entered the world then. However, if you mean to say that someone was implying that evil things happening to individuals are always a result of the individual's own sin, I believe Jesus put that one to rest when he answered his disciples' question regarding who sinned to cause a man's blindness:

"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life." (John 9:3).

A whole host of problems comes into play when we overgeneralize and draw lines in the sand when there ought be none.

A person is guilty of the slippery slope fallacy when he/she argues that "small cause A" automatically, unequivocally, without fail, leads to "extreme effect B", without definitively proving one's conclusion to be correct.

I'm not condemning your critique of pop-psychology and its overshadowing (and sometimes downright supplanting) of biblical truth. I share this critique. I reject, however, the extreme position that any and all answers to any questions psychology addresses can be found in scripture. Pastor James preached against faith healers, one reason being that they cause people to neglect getting medical attention they need. Well, many psychological problems have physiological causes (chemical imbalances, etc.) that need to be addressed. We need to view the Bible as the platform on which all other knowledge is employed, not as our only source of specifics. Bruce Demarest in Satisfy Your Soul presents a compelling case for the integration of biblical and secular counseling principles. I highly recommend it to anyone who's interested in connecting to the heart of God in more tangible, consistent ways.

For the record, let's all agree from here on out (so it doesn't have to keep being said) that all "secular" principles must align, or at least not contradict, scripture, whenever people such as myself advocate their use.

If it makes you feel any better, know that I share your conviction that far too many psychologists (probably a large majority) have the wrong solutions to the problems people are facing, even Christian ones at times. Self esteem does become the scapegoat all too often, and people like Joel Oelsteen and Bruce Wilkinson aren't helping reverse this trend. In my view, counseling practice needs to be much, much more wholistic. Americans have problems... BIG problems... and many of them. I would say most of us have psychological issues that need dealing with. Something you don't hear too often that you should is that there are many practical, down-to-earth measures one can take to reduce the sources of anxiety, tension, confusion, depression, etc, that involve neither medication nor weekly pep talks. It's called getting a disciplined life, setting priorities, only taking on as much as one can handle, taking time to relax and enjoy oneself as well as to exercise, and spending time each day in silence-- just to name a few.

Sorry for the long response. I promise to keep it short and sweet from here on out.

Can we be friends? ;-)

This is my scond time posting ever on a blog, so forgive my mistakes and blame it on inexperience, please. I'v been reading the post on Acts 17 and the one on "all truth God's truth" and felt I needed to comment. I've been a Christian for 50 years, so I suppose you could say I'm "mature". I am what was once well know as a fundamentalist, meaning I believe the fundamentals of God's word. This has since become a bad word in today's definition in many Christian circles. Till about 10 years ago there were many places my husband and I could go to hear God's word faithfully preached. That is no longer the case. There are very few that teach,preach or live the word of God. Suddenly a church had to be "seeker sensitive", Study the purpose driven life movement, and now become emergent. I suppose the Lord didn't have it down right for almost 2000 years and needed new programs. I decided to look into these so called ways of "doing church" and came away sick in my soul. I guess I just want to say, don't get so caught up in new so called relevant ways of building the church. God said He would build it and He will. Be faithful in your part. Study the word, use it to witness and He will work through you. I suppose this sounds dated and old fashioned, but it's worked for hundred's of years and I believe God will continue to use it. I would say one more thing before I close. Make sure you try the spirits by the word of God.There are many false teachings our there. I would recommend a book to you that has helped me alot. "This little church stayed home" by Gary Gilley. I want to thank you Pastor James for being so faithful to the work you've been called to do. I have many of your tapes and have been greatly encouraged by them. The Lord bless you. Carol

Pastor James,

After reading these comments, it sounds like you are mostly preaching to the choir here. We're all asserting different aspects of what you're getting at--different sides of the elephant--yet we seem to be missing one another almost entirely. Could I make a humble plea to you?

It's obvious that many people are unaware of the overall cultural shifts that have taken place in Western society over the last hundred years, and especially the last 40 to 50. Your "blog fans" could really benefit from an explanation of a "post-Christian society", and in particular, the one in which we live. Any fruitful dialogue about impacting society must consider seriously the context in which ministry happens--and the context in which we live is a post-Christian context. That has massive implications for matters of ecclesiology and mission, because the world we live in today is not simply an extension of the world in which my grandparents, and even parents, lived. We aren't playing with the same deck of cards anymore. The rumblings of 50s and 60s deconstruction have become ubiquitous...mainstream...systemic.

Christ may have promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the survival of His Church, at least in remnant form, but He made no promises that she would thrive apart from our active participation with Him in the Matthew 28 mission. Europe is irrefutable proof of this. Europe did not go to pot because of secular intellectuals operating in their own little academic enclaves. This happened because the Church in Europe, which was (and still is, for the most part) highly institutionalized and static, failed to proclaim and embody its message in a bold and relevant manner. While they dug their heels in and sang "We Will Not Be Moved", previously faithful parishoners simply shrugged their shoulders, rolled their eyes, and moved on to things that "mattered". The "world" drew them away from Christ, not because Christ was insufficient (for to claim this would be blasphemy), but because the Spirit of Christ--a spirit who is creative, responsive, impulsive, and infinitely relevant--became absent from His Church. We know this story all too well. The Catholic Church "had the Truth", and all they had to do was keep proclaiming it and guarding it from blemishment. They had this down to a science, no doubt. They held no regard for relevance--their masses were in a language foreign to many, both verbally and in the elaborate nature of the ceremonies. Since the 4th century, they maintained hegemony because of their political clout, so they had no need to adjust to shifting cultural trends. They simply dictated culture--they were culture. To digress was to receive a death sentence on your head.

No longer is the Gospel a political force, privy to the priviledges of imperial power. The 'cultural constant' is now gone, and is eroding at an ever-increasing pace. It is up to us to create and maintain culture which honors Christ and builds up His Church. The reason the Church didn't need to make much ado about contextualization in mission is that Church culture was inherent in society. This is simply and dramatically no longer the case.

Any references to the "good old days" of "old time religion" are not only naive, but will increasingly, by default, become silenced by the uproar of Christian voices leading the Church into the coming age.

Harvest Bible Chapel is relevant... not postmodern by any stretch of the imagination, but nonetheless, is contextualizing the Gospel very well for the suburban context in which it ministers. We are doing it. And it's not happening by accident. People at the top, somewhere down the line, made decisions about what Harvest would look like, sound like, feel like... how it would present itself to the world. And they decided that it wasn't going to involve pipe organs, preaching from the "swallow's nest pulpit" (as H.W. Beecher called it), singing out of hymnals, or following a strict, formal liturgy. These are not insignificant or casual decisions. They were, and are, made out of a recognition that the Gospel must be presented in a cogent manner to those who need to hear it and experience it. Now I'm nowhere close to saying that this has been the driving force, or even a predominant force in the goals and fruits of Harvest's ministry. But it has obviously been a factor.

A lot of misunderstanding has come about due to the use of loaded terms such as "seeker-sensitive", "relevant", and "purpose-driven". Insofar as these terms place mankind at the center of the Gospel, I say "To hell with them." But as they address the imperative for the attention and sensitivity to cultural barriers to the Gospel, I say "Come on with it."

Down with the outright denial of all attention to cultural context; up with a more balanced, nuanced dialogue about the role of contextualization in ministry.

Grace,

What are the implications of this distinction for evangelizing postmoderns.

READ 1 CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 2

1. PAUL DOESN'T TRUST IN METHODOLOGY FOR THE CONVERSION OF SINNERS AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF BELIEVERS.
Paul says in verse one and two that he did not come proclaiming Christ using the "all truths" of this world instead he has determined to know nothing among them except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

2. PAUL DOES NOT LEAN ON HIS OWN STRENGTH.
Paul comes in humility, the vehical which the Holy Spirit uses to deliever "God's Truth".

3. PAUL DOES NOT USE THE TRUTH'S OF MEN BECAUSE HE TRUSTS IN THE POWER OF THE WORD OF GOD.
Again, Paul reminds his reader that his message (the Gospel) and his preaching was not in persuasive words of wisdom ("all truth), but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to every on one who believes..

4. PAUL UNDERSTANDS THAT GOD'S TRUTH CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD APART FROM THE WORD OF GOD BEING QUICKENED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD.
The mysteries of God cannot be observed or heard through the "all truths" of men. They are only understood and believe through the Holy Spirit revealing the Word of God ("God's truth") to us.
Luke 24:45 The He (Jesus) opened their minds to understand the Scriptures..
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ.
John 3:3 Truly, Truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God>

5. THE NATURAL MAN CANNOT ACCEPT THE THINGS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD.
Why?, because they are foolishness to him, and he ca
6. THE NATURAL MAN CANNOT UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THEY ARE ONLY UNDERSTOOD THROUGH BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD.

CONCLUSION
Have we, in our proclaiming Christ believed and understood that we have this treasure in "jars of clay" so that the surpassing greatness of the power may be of God and not from ourselves. Since we have this message and His power in us, why is it that we feel the need to use the "all truths" of this world as instruments in bringing the world to Christ?

Matt,

For some of us who have been christians for more than double your age we have been through a personal historical view of contextualization.

Growing up in Catholism, is funny to see people going back to darkly lit places with candles, relics of symbolism, and mysticism.

The Jesus movement passed through my generation. Many jumped on that cultural change. Of coarse, that was a backlash or a response to the rebellion of the sixties.

Yes, in our generation we saw churches like the church of Christ go from Acapella music only to a present day "seeker sensative church" with every instrument possible.

How about the Amish...Here is a group I've seen that resisted change to the point of no change.

I've gone through churches where worship was more important then the Word and I've seen churches with the Word only.

Yes, I've seen changes that were good and changes that were bad. But, ever since I went to a little place called Chipulukusu, Zambia where the homes are made out of mud and there is no such thing as electicity, water, or many times even food. And where the life expectancy is 34.7 and one out of every ten is an orphan because of AIDS, Malaria, Starvation, or the lack of medical attention...It was here that I preached the Gospel (without any cultural relevance)that I realized that what people really needed was the Word of God. That first night that I preached I saw a hunger for God's Word like I've never seen in the eyes of the people here in the United States. Many people came to know him that night and the folliwng days and nights we were there.

Culturally, I did not connect with them, stylistically we had nothing in common. But it was The Holy Spirit empowering the Word of God, and manifestation of the presence of God that made this connection happen, we connected. It was God meeting them, not my creativity, my ability to convince, not even trying to meet them on things which we commonly thought to be true.

Matt, I long for the days where God's presence is so powerfully working in the preaching of the Word that 1000's, tens of 1,000's come to know the Lord reguardless of being cultrually sensative.

Let us be seeking after God to come dwell among us with such a demonstration of power as in the day that Jonah preached to Ninevah (no contextualization here), or the day of Pentecost, or in many of the Revivals of the past.

The reason why the x-generation have turned away from the baby boomer generation generation evangelical is because those who knew the secrets of God's power and presence turned away from Him and as a result they were left with form rather then the manifest presence of God among His people.

If our generation has failed its not because we were not culturally relevant, its because we are backslidden and have failed to realize that the Glory has departed.

WHERE HAVE WE FAILED:

1.We have failed in being faithful to His Word.

2.We have failed because we have lost our first love.

2.We have failed to recognize our sins.

3. When we prospered we sought vain-glory rather then His Glory.

4. We trusted in our "all truths" rather then "God's truth".

5. Prayer became a way to meet our fleshly desires, rather then a way to be changed by God.

No, Matt we don't need contextualization, we need to get right with God, so that the His Word might go forth with Power.

WE NEED A DOWNPOUR!

A debate that doesn't follow the rules (point-counterpoint) isn't worth having. A dialogue, however, is. And that's what this conversation could be, if it did not take on the tone of a debate. Unfortunately, we have the tone of a debate without the guiding criteria of a debate. My apologies for my part of this.

Surely the WORD is the most influential work that has been given to us that we can attribute to the generation of all the fields of study mentioned. The founding fathers of each field was typically a man of faith? HIS WORD is the LIGHT of the world!