In order to continue this post series, I find that it is necessary to stop for a moment to talk about what I mean by Postmodernity. It is a slippery concept, one that is often misunderstood and vilified to the point that most people do not know what in the world it really is.1 I can say this for certain, because I have and do both. After years of trying to first vilify and then trying to understand what exactly this postmodernity stuff is all about, this is what I have come to and how I have come to use the term in my writing.
In the most basic sense of the term, postmodernity is the system of thought, the way of constructing the world, that succeeds modernism. Remember, modernism demanded from its adherents that there be one final and comprehensive way of viewing and constructing the world to which everyone must adhere. When this cracks, multiple ways of viewing and constructing the world emerge from its ashes, thus Postmodernism is the sum of the systems of viewing the world that emerge after the cracking of modernisms hegemony. Not only is postmodernism the sum of the systems, it is also the collection of the ways in which people deal with the emergence of a plethora of acknowledged (after all, there have been these competing systems forever, postmodernism merely gives them a voice, rather than dismissing them after the first discrepancy) of systems as they interact with one another.
A Series of Cities, each with a Hill to Shine From
Think about a set of cities that all are controlled by a central capital. The central city administers and controls all functions of daily life not only for the cities, but for the people within the cities. This is modernism. Now imagine that all of the cities throw off the rule of the central city and rule themselves. This is postmodernism.
No longer does one ask what the central authority says must be done, must be followed, must be thought and impose it on the lives of Others. Instead there is an acknowledgment of a basic fact of existence - that each city sees the world in a different way. To force23 them to be like Us is an act of tyranny of the central authority on the lives of Others. Remember, there are some things in this world that are not verifiable. I know math, I know how many apples are in my fridge. However, I can’t show that God exists objectively, I can’t demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that my version of Jesus existed in history without making leaps of faith.
Replacing the above are questions about competing narratives.4 You are now free to choose the city you live in. Will I move to the Mormon city or the Baptist city? I dunno, what is their narrative like? Does it make sense? These are the sorts of questions that are asked. The cities’ narratives compete with one another for the membership of the citizens of the state.
The Denial of Truth?
Is there a denial of truth here? Not at all! That is the central conservative critique of postmodernism, is it not? Isn’t there one way that things actually are? Is there not one and only one reality? I think that there is. I don’t think that there is a necessary denial of truth in postmodernism, at least the way I use the term.5 Instead, there is a shifting of the questions that are being asked.
This is where the idea that all postmoderns deny truth comes from. When you are talking about the collection of cities and are wanting to talk about their truth claims, you can only talk semi-objectively about what each city thinks the truth is, not about if each city actually has the truth. Once you start doing that, then you are really speaking about the set of truth claims that the city that you are in proposes. Note that all of this is independent of the actual “truth” that is out there.6 Any time that someone says anything, they are saying it from their position in time, space, culture, and community. Objectivity, as a concept, is dead.
The Payoff
I see postmodernity, not as a vile beast that threatens the Kingdom of God (or the Realm of the Child of True Humanity lol), but as a better way of viewing the world and its communities,7 something that allows me to disagree with these other communities without writing them off as useless. Postmodernity allows me to love them as fellow images of God, the whole while without abandoning the tenets of my religion as it has been revealed to me by God.
Now, a great many people have defined and used postmodernism in a great many ways. It is a malleable concept, one constructed by people for their uses. I am sure some of you consider yourself postmodernist and would describe it in different terms; others might point to other postmoderns and their absolute denial of truth to refute the above - just remember that not all elements of this set are the same.
Finally, the way I am using this term, there is no “Philosophy of Despair,” as Travis so polemically put it, to call it such is to demonstrate one’s misunderstanding of it.
I’ll try to address the what narratives are and why they are so important in my next post.
- to think of something similar, consider the idea of America. Now think of the nastiest thing that America’s opponents say about it, that we are violent, that we only care about material possessions, etc. Now, these things are true of America and not true of America at the same time, that is, they are true for segments of the population and not true for other segments of the population. Thus, postmodernity, like America is an accurate, but imprecise term [↩]
- i.e. write them off as useless, invaluable on the sole basis of their not sharing our worldview [↩]
- through active or passive cohesion [↩]
- By narrative, I mean their story of life - a collection of their worldview, their sacred texts, their stories that give their lives meaning, their practices and pastimes [↩]
- which is not to say that other people configure postmodernism and construct a narrative that denies absolute truth I am saying that I can use the category of postmodernism in a way that is consistent with what is revealed to us in the Bible [↩]
- By this, I mean how existence actually is [↩]
- from a descriptive, not a prescriptive standpoint [↩]
43 Comments
Honzo,
Man, I really enjoyed this. I look forward to your continued thoughts.
I don’t know if you are really asking any questions and if you are seeking to debate this issue or if you are just trying to put your thoughts on paper about this topic. So if my questions are missing the mark…just let me know
Here are some questions:
1. “No longer does one ask what the central authority says must be done”. Is this really true? Obviously people don’t want to talk about the “central authority” but at some level, at some point this question has to be asked. Doesn’t it? Doesn’t the extra questions that you talked about (what is the narrative, and does it make sense) lead to the central question about authority? I know people want to spend more time on this extra questions, but in the end…don’t they lead to the central authority issues (God). If someone honestly seeks the truth behind these extra questions (like Socrates) won’t they come to the same conclusions?
2. Your second paragraph on “the denial of truth” needs to be better explained to someone who is slow like me. Examples might be nice. Are you saying that since I am not a Muslim I cannot convey to others what they believe (and if it is right/wrong)? Because, from my point-of-view, I Christian, am supposed to be against Islam? But, in this case, if I am going to be intellectually honest, I must look at both sides of the equation before coming to a decision, correct? Which eventually leads to the Central truth (our God). I know I am looking at this from the hindsight. Or perhaps your trying to say that we shouldn’t be dogmatic in our teaching of other “cities.”
3. “Objectivity as a concept is dead.” I don’t think I fully accept this. In many realms of reality we accept this as true. If my fridge breaks, we all accept this truth (the truth that the fridge can’t keep things cold and is therefore broken). How does the laws of nature play into this. Is gravity not objective?
I never read your first post…maybe some of the issues I am asking are not relevant to your new post.
Casey,
I’ll let Honzo handle the first two, but let me add to 3. A PoMo (like myself) would respond that the concept of a "fridge" is a modernist concept (in an utterly descriptive, non-polemical use of the term). That is, the idea of a mechanism powered by electricity that serves to make life easier by preserving food longer is something that is culturally bound. A truth claim like "My fridge is broken" only makes sense in a culture that has the concept of a ‘fridge’. A person from a culture with no concept of a fridge or of electricity not only wouldn’t understand what you meant, s/he would not possess the cognitive schema to process the basic truth value of your statement. In a very real way, you would be speaking gibberish to him/her. Whether or not the fridge is actually functioning or not, you are not communicating Truth in that culture.
A better example may be Indian philosophy. This system of thought is frustratingly non-linear. They care little for cause and effect. They cherish contradiction. They use concepts that we Westerners literally have no cognitive schema to evaluate. Even the concept of ‘religion’ in the Indian world makes little sense; one of the biggest debates in Eastern Religious Studies is whether Hinduism should even be considered a religion. From a Western standpoint, they pray, they make idols, they believe in god(s) and they even have something we call a ritual that looks like the Eucharist meal. So we call it ‘religion’ and then, since it’s not Christianity, we label it ‘false’. But Indians do not conceive of ‘god’ the way we do, or of ‘human’ or of the relationship between them the same way. So when we try to engage Indians using our schema of what counts as ‘truthful’, we will often be unsuccessful because we are forcing them to think they way we do (which they can’t/won’t unless we Westernize/Americanize everything… oh wait…).
The ‘objective’ Truth that God exists (and honestly… i have never met ONE person who is objective about that question) is irrelevant if we can’t communicate that concept in a way that makes sense to everyone. This requires us to think very subjectively about God.
To anticipate Honzo, we have the best story. Period. We just have to earn how to be better storytellers.
Jr.
I don’t know if I fully agree with your stuff. I am not advocating any side, cause I don’t know enough, I just see some issues that need to be worked out before I agree with you.
I understand your deconstructing my “fridge.”
I also, understand your western/eastern issues.
“objective truth that God exists”–I did not mean to make this claim, if I did (just saying) (that’s in Jr’s post)
I appreciate your thoughts (and Honzo’s) in helping us to aid in evangelism (by not westernizing others…but I don’t think this issue is anything new, Christians have debated over the years how to witness to others; either by becoming like them or them to us). And I have taking enough preaching classes to know the “value” of storytelling, so I not against any of this.
Here is my difficulty (you boys, probably know more about this than I):
Obviously, someone in a different culture wouldn’t understand the exact statement, “the fridge is broken,” but I don’t see how this is relevant. Consider this:
Are other cultures unable to understand this truth
or do they need to be taught the basics before they understand the truth (which makes the truth still truth).
Example, in 7th grade I knew nothing of geometry, but after I was taught I am able to communicate to others at a different level (the level of geometry).
Obviously, different cultures might not know “electricity” or “fridges” but they are capable of knowing these things (and they do know “cold” and “broken”)
And what difference does it make if they understand this “truth (the fridge is broken)” anyways? Does their lack of knowledge disprove the truth? Isn’t my fridge still broken? Talk about sour milk.
casey
JR and Casey,
Good point-counter-point.
Henry,
I can’t wait to read your post on the PoMo idea of story/narrative. I hope you will branch into metanarrative as well.
Hey Henry, I read through your post thought about it read it again, and thought about it and now I am going to explain why I think you are missing the mark on this one. The mark I think you are missing is the compatability of a Christian or rather Biblical view of truth with that of what is in vogue called postmodernity. Because I love Francis Schaeffer I will sort of work backwards to show how your conclusion that Schaeffer’s “line of despair” fails to address the Pomo view of truth is really unfounded and how actually in your post make Schaeffer’s point more than argue against it.
You stated:
Now I am not against criticizing men I admire, but I would like the criticisms to be warranted. What Schaeffer is addressin in the line of despair is a point in history of philosophy where the pursuit of truth in an objective universally applicable sense was given up. Schaeffer cites Hegel in particular who abandoned the thesis followed antithesis model and really argued in a Pomo fashion. It is an abandoning of a search for a universal objective truth, that is what it means to be below the line of despair, an abandoning of true truth (truth as objective) and relegating in to the subjective mainly.
Oddly you yourself state that to be the case:
I don’t know how you can say this and say Schaeffer’s line of dispair doesn’t apply, what you just said above is what it means to be under the line of dispair. Therefore, I would think that you just don’t care for the idea that your view of truth is being labelled as leading to despair, you think Pomo though is rather cool, even the word, Postmodern just sounds so suave kind of like hegemonic.
Furthermore Schaeffer makes it clear that those under the line of depair obviously aren’t content to remain in an jumbled subjectivity so they make existential leaps that are irrational. They leap irrationally to concepts like God, meaning, ethics, and derive some semblance of purpose and worldview. Yet again this is what you say you are doing and Pomo philosophy teaches:
This is comming from being under the line of despair and giving up on any hope of true truth, one makes leaps of faith into non-reason. In this case you have “Jesus” in the upper story giving up on any rational objective view.
So again you might not like it but how you just wrote off objectivity is what Schaeffer meant by the line of despair, you are under it. So I think your backhand against Schaeffer is unfounded and really in your article you only define what Pomo’s believe almost identically as Schaeffer defines the line of despair, they are one in the same.
Moving to some other statements you write:
I frankly find this sad. Is it Pomo thought and a rejection of true truth that allows you to love others Henry? How about the fact that Biblically all people are made in God’s image and we are commanded by God to love our neighbor? I think that’s a better leg to stand on than this whimsical notion that we are “all in this together and need to learn from eachother”, echoeing the likes of Pearl Buck.
Needless to say I don’t see any “payoff” here.
As far as learning from other views, yes I can say we do have much to learn. That which we are to learn is only a reinforcement of the Biblical witness though, for instance I can learn from a Muslim how blinding sin can make someone, or a Buddhist how hard the natural man will work to placate his sin debt etc, and how merciful God is toward people who should be consumed for their rejection and hatred of Christ as Lord. I think those are the kinds of doctrinal lessons I have to learn from non-Christians, it is a reinforcement of what is already revealed in the bible not any addition.
There is much to say because I think almost everything you are saying here is incompatable with a Biblical view of truth, but I will take up one last statement:
I guess my question simply is this: One day will Buddha bow the knee to Christ? Will Muhammad one day be seen kneeling before king Jesus? Or Joseph Smith will he be seen bowing the knee before Christ? Krishna? The point is you can’t accept this narrative city talk and Pomo thought as a whole and the true truth Lordship of Christ, that is to serve two masters.
Bob,
I agree with you that from a modernist perspective, PoMo leads only to despair.
But if you don’t think like a modernist, it doesn’t have to. I don’t have to prove conclusively that God exists (a modern concern). I know that God exists because I relate to God all the time. Similarly, I don’t have to prove to someone that Honzo exists. I just saw him yesterday. If someone doubts, I don’t whip out a long, complex proof of the moral necessity of Honzo’s existance, or some sort of watchmaker argument. Rather, I would say, "Let me call him. Or, let’s go hang out at his house!" I would tell stories about times we’ve interacted and invite the doubter to become a part of Honzo and my story.
PoMos don’t have to worry about who has the better, more compelling narrative. We know ours is true, and we know at whose feet all will bow in the last day. But we also understand that insisting on that point has led thousands of our brothers and sisters to kill and destroy, rather than ‘love our neighbors as ourselves’. In fact, in the Modern era Christians don’t look very much like Jesus. Why don’t we try something else?
Modernity hasn’t been kind to the Church. Why do we insist on inviting her back to our bed? We would do better to be faithful to our Christ instead.
Looks like there are a couple of objections to respond to!
Casey, I’ll address yours first, and I think there will be some overlap onto some of the problems Puritan Bob has.
Number One: There is no central authority anymore. Each community has their own set of ways of looking at the world and life’s central questions. That is all I am saying here. It is ludicrous to think that everyone
shouldwill ever see everything the same. It is really a matter of surveying the world’s cultural landscape and trying to respond to how it works. This is a completely different question than asking how everyone should think. This way of thinking says that we have the best story, but asks how we should deal with others that have a different story.You are right to point out that it should follow that if various people with equal facilities of mind and resources seek out the answers to certain questions with truly open and honest minds, then they should come to similar answers. However, this assumes that humans have access to and the ability to verify all of the data needed to answer the questions. I suggest that there are questions where we don’t have all of the data or we can’t verify the data. Questions such as where the universe came from, how life arose, if the miracles of the Bible happened, etc… There is evidence that suggests that all of these things are plausible, but not conclusive. We just don’t have the data that we would need to verify these things. So, it is possible that our story is completely true, and I think that it is, but I can’t prove it like I prove something in math class (and even in geometry, there are assumptions that cannot be proved, only taken as unproved starting points).
Number Two: What I am saying is that none of the communities deny Truth at all (by Truth I mean how the world is and how it works, what is right, what is wrong [and when] etc…). Everyone thinks the world is constructed in some fashion. Everyone thinks that some action is right, wrong, or amoral. These things are not escapable. Every community’s version of the Truth is encapsulated in their narrative (as I am defining things). What is not being talked about in the post is how well each of the narratives match up with how the world really is in actuality.
I submit that it really does not matter, for our purposes (because everyone thinks that they have the best version of the truth, otherwise they would be thinking differently). Know what I am and what I am not saying here. We think we have the best story about how the world works, right? The Muslim thinks that she has the best story as well. Since we cannot be completely objective (see below), that is, we cannot ever step outside our structures and see things how they really are, all we can deal with is competing truth claims and note that there is a competition here. We really think that we are right. But given that i) we can’t see the world for how it really is and ii) we are competing with others that think they have a more correct view of how the world really is, we need to seek an additional way to reach these people than just spouting bible verses and doing proofs for God’s existence. That is all I am talking about here. (I think I am getting more convoluted as I go on)
Number Three: By being truly objective, I mean that no one can completely step outside the preconceived notions, cultural norms and unprovable assumptions to view the world, or anything for that matter. There reasoning goes like this. In order to make sense of sense perceptions of the world, humans necessarily impose a theoretical structure on the sense perceptions in order to make sense of them. Everything is viewed from this structure, otherwise a person would not be able to make sense of the thing being viewed. I think a more common term for this is worldview, but this idea of structure goes beyond what most people limit to worldview, it is the sum of everything used in creating an understanding of the world or anything contained therein.
Now when ever we go to analyze another person/culture/nation’s structure, or worldview, we necessarily see it through the lens of our own structure/worldview. As a matter of fact, it is the structure that allows us to see the other at all! But since we are always viewing the other through a lens, we cannot really see the other (or anything) 100% clearly. We can try to clean the lens and I think that we can get it awfully clean, but we cannot ever expect to see anything without the aid of our structures. This is where true objectivity dies. It just is not possible. We are not God. That is not to say, however that we cannot understand things in part, that we cannot get to know people and how they view life, the universe and everything. Just that we cannot know everything by reason and observation alone. There must be interaction.
Casey, I hope this helped to clarify what I am saying more. The post as a whole is me trying to flesh out where I stand on this set of issues and why. It is truly my first crack at it, and there is a lot up there that is unsaid and assumed.
Bob,
Firstly, I am not intimate with Shaffer, I don’t presume to know the contours of his arguments, so you have me there. Travis leveled the charge at all “postmoderns” and I was responding to that more than anything else. He made a claim and I was providing example where this line of thinking does not lead to despair. I may be under the line of despair as he has defined it, but I completely reject that there necessarily lurks despair underneath the line. I find it to be the exact opposite!
As a whole, though I think that you misunderstand the way I am framing the argument. I am not talking about the Christianized version of the opponent of Postmodernism, were everything is ok, and everyone has perfectly valid points of view. By no means! I do know that one day every knee will bow and every tounge confess that Jesus the Christ is Lord.
What I am saying is that from a descriptive standpoint, everyone thinks they are right and from our point of view, we have to deal within that framework. Remember, I think that we have the best story among many. What I am not talking about is looking at this prescriptively. When I do address that question, I absolutely think that our story is the only one that leads to life, full on this earth and eternal in the next, that we have have the best way to form a relationship with our creator. So, it is important to make a distinction between the two ways of viewing the landscape; in one, I merely talk about how it looks now and the best way to walk across it to meet my friends on the other side, the other says how the landscape should be. One talk of one does not deny the other.
I am a Christian that lives in a postmodern world. I engage it through that lens, through that reality. There are other stories out there, there is no magic button that I can press to show mine is the perfect one. I must find other ways to tell it.
Lastly, this is my first crack at talking about all of this - so I am perfectly mindful that I may be mistaking things or not being very clear. I appriciate everyone’s help in showing me where I do not make sense.
Hank,
The value of consistent narratives is what I going to be talking about it next, along with some on the metanarrative.
Honzo the Gonzo,
Hey…let me throw some stuff out there and see what you think about it.
I hear the POMO’s talk all the time about how we can’t treat people/ideas/thoughts like we did in the past. Sometimes, I getting the feeling that POMO’s are trying to attack the ‘old ways (modernity).’ And this is what I find silly…
The one thing that I am reading from your post (even so your not really saying it)…is that we need to be HUMBLE when we interact with other. The dogmatic approach of some Modernists have turned you off (aka Reese, maybe!!!). But there is still much that modernity brings to the table.
Humility means that I will admit that I do not have all the answers. Humility means that I recognize that people are different from me and they have different WV’s (Worldviews). Humility means that I try to find common ground with people before I slap them with the dogma jargon.
I think humility is the key. I think we can be objective about our conversations if we continue to strive for humility. I continually need to spend time examining my life and heart in these matters and I need to understand that I might not have all the information and that there is still a possibility of me being wrong. I need to be open enough to accept that I need to change when evidence is presented. I know we have no clean slates. But this process of seeking humility is my backbone for making my claims of faith.
When I hear PoMo’s go off on Modernity, I don’t think it is really an evangelism issue…or a humility issue…because those things are actually spiritual issues not post/modernity issues.
As I see it, the two, Post and modernity are actually different sides of the same coin. Humility, as scriptures commands us to be humble compels me to interact with a Muslism (or any Worldview) differently than the dogmatic approach.
And there is MUCH VALUE is the good side of modernity. Many POMO’s act like those issues you brought up (miracles, creation, reliability of scripture) are stupid to talk about unless you first admit “we have no answers” and “we have to accept it only on faith,” and “I can only talk about what I believe.”
I think these statements are only half-true. I think my humble approach will/should be demonstrated through the process of studying and researching the answers. But I should/must look at what evidence we have. example coming:
Julius Caesar’s Gallic Ways is a book that nobody (i mean nobody) questions as far as reliability and authenticity. The number of copies we have from his writing is 10 (10 copies) and the earliest manuscripts date 1,000 after he wrote them. Compare that to the Scripture (25,000 copies+, and 25-50 years). I know my numbers for the bible might be argued (most liberals might even say 100-200 years-but that is far far far smaller than Gallic War’s 1,000.
What I am trying to say is that we have sufficient evidence that supports our side. It isn’t just a blind leap of faith. Sometimes, I get the idea that POMO’s say it’s just blind faith…but its not. Faith is still required, and I can’t prove 100%. And I know it is not 99% evidence and 1% leap of faith. But our evidence is strong. Sometimes, POMO’s sound like it as to be 0% evidence and 100% blind faith.
I am not trying to argue for modernity…I would never call myself a modernists, but I do thing modernity brings some stuff to the table that we (pomo’s) must understand and accept.
Sorry, but I feel as if you’re wasting your time Honzo.
I don’t say that condescendingly but it really looks, as what Danielson stated, like Stamp Collecting.
A chair is a chair is a chair. We can go on and on about it.
We’re grasping for something that just isn’t knowable.
You want both sides of the fence here and to me it’s just the first step (denial). As much as I’d like for it to be true… it’s not, it’s just not. Postmodernity is simply prepackaging and trying to give the same thing (the reason why we’re here).
Sorry, but it is what it is. We don’t know and never will. From view of things, you’re making progress.
Casey, have you listened to JR’s talk on many of these issues? (http://audio.xanga.com/songoforpheus/0fb091712520/audio.html)
I think you should really give it a listen, because he addresses a great many of the issues you bring up. I highly recommend it. I was going to address specific problematic aspects of your post, but I think JR’s talk would be a much better way to facilitate further overall dialogue on these issues. I hope it helps.
gringo…
could you elaborate a bit more? i’m not sure i understand what you’re saying.
either that or you’re misunderstanding PoMo…
what counts as a chair? does a beanbag? what about a table (if i sit instead of eat on it)? what if it only has three legs? or only two but is attached to the wall? is a bench a species of chair or the other way around? the definition of ‘chair’ is fluid and entirely culturally based - as is all truth, according to some PoMos.
could you be more clear as to the source of your frustration?
I listened to the Jr speech.
I don’t have much to argue against what he said, because I think he is correct. He is talking about evangelism. I already said that I agree with this approach (if you want to call it an approach, I would call it “living out” God’s love).
I don’t think this approach is specifically POMO. I think this approach is specifically Christian. It is a spiritual issue more than a POMO vs MO debate.
I was not trying to argue the evangelism issue, instead I was trying to give some value back to the usefullness apologetics. Even so many POMO’s don’t want to be thumped with the proofs of God (and other such stuff)…they have questions and we have some answers. I am by no means stating that we have all the answers or that Christians are the only ones who possess this secret insight to God. (I actually preached on this topic, I took a day off…and spent it in the woods…trying to find ways that would/could lead me to God-or show his attributes)
Just trying to bring back into the picture some of the value in having apologetics.
Casey,
I think you bring up an excellent critique of a real danger of PoMo scholarship.
Christ teaches us that all things are redeemable. If this is so, mustn’t this include modernity? Absolutely modernism has some (severe) problems, but it is not entirely bad either.
Apologetics are fantastic - we learn more about God and God’s creation, and our role in it, etc. etc. etc.
And we can go too far either direction - too modernist, too PoMo, too anything.
can’t we?
I really enjoy studying, reading, thinking about anything that relates to PoMo.
Jr.
Sadly, usually we always find ourselves going too far with just about everything.
Honzo,
I always want to hear your thoughts (actually, I guess I should say “read” your thoughts).
Jr,
One thing that I value from your speech and your take on these things is that you are trying to root this issues back to Jesus/scripture.
To be more clear in regards to my objections to Christianity? I think I’ve done that enough already.
Postmodernity, I believe, is just the first step to realizing that xianity isn’t true. Making rationalization and justification one after the other.
Xianity just isn’t true. Simple as that.
It’s frustrating to see y’all just go back and forth on something completely useless and baseless… then for those who don’t adhere to it, the fiery depths of hell await.
I will spend my time better from here on out.
All I can say is (final final piece of advice), look for the evidence.
Gringo, what exactly do you mean by “Xianity isn’t true”? Aside from the fact that it’s an incredibly bold statement, I guess I don’t know what you mean by it specifically.
Do you mean that the entire history of Christianity isn’t true? It just never happened? Do you mean that specific truth claims made by Christians aren’t true? Do you mean that Jesus never existed? Was he just mistaken? Are his followers (still) mistaken? Are the personal experiences of the “truth” of Christianity by billions of people over time rendered null and void simply because you say that “Christianity isn’t true”? How is it “useless” or “baseless”? People find tremendous “use” and help in their religious beliefs, and these are the bases upon which a religion is built.
What does “evidence” have to do with religion? A person’s religious experience completely transcends whatever could amount to “evidence,” unless historicism is your religion I suppose. A person merely looks at their own life experiences, the experiences of their fellow adherents, and the combination of the two, for something akin to “evidence” when it comes to Religion.
I fear you may not understand “Christianity” nor “postmodernity,” and this would be where the confusion arises.
Hey JR, nice to talk with you again. I knew that I should have put the qualifier in my comment that by disagreeing with postmodern thought I am automatically thinking like a modernist. I do think this is reductionistic, and don’t see how what I said is modernistic at all. I say this because Christianity and God’s revealed truth (Bible) is my presuppositional starting point, rather than autonomous human reason and then somehow by reason arriving at the Bible as God’s word as “truth”. As such I am in line with thinkers like Calvin and Augustine and hardly in the stream of modernists like say Descartes.
I agree modernism was not friendly to Christianity and in no way advocate for a return to it (not that many geniune believers embraced it’s epistemology). But I find it odd that you speak this way yet seem to share much of the modernist views of scripture from our past conversations particularly around a literal Adam and Eve and creation. I would assert that you arrive at such a conclusion (as I have before) by a modernist mindset elevating autonomous reason above revelation (like the picture on the other post of a fellow pointing to reason rather than revelation
Also, I don’t know how you can be certain every knee will bow to Jesus given what you said. You seem to feel certain because you have a feeling, and have no need to try to persuade others…? This doesn’t really register to me, it doesn’t make any sense.
Also, use of logical arguments for God’s existence aren’t necessarily modernist either. It seems like guys who embrace the spirit of the age (postmodernity) have a very narrow view of history there was modernity and now we are beyond that basking in the glow of post-modernity. So this isn’t an either or situation, I oppose modernistic unbelief and compromise as well as it’s offshoot of post-modern unbelief and compromise, to reject POMO thought doesn’t not necessitate a return to modernism. I would advocate a return to a more thoroughly biblical epistemology and view of truth rather than riding the waves of the spirit of the age.
Honzo,
Again this is my beef with Christians identifying themselves as POMO (I never met an unbeliever who self identified as POMO btw, just Christians who seem to think they are cutting edge), you say:
“There is no central authority anymore.”
Well, in a subjective sense no there isn’t. And if your starting point isn’t God and his revelation then in an objective sense you are right. But if we are believers in God’s revelation I don’t know how you can say such a thing. Because irregardless of whether Chuck down the road gives a rip about God’s word he is still under it, and it is still binding on him and he will be held accountable to it.
So my point is that as Christians rather than making statements like this and embracing some sort of half baked epistemology we should be calling people back to the center which they are rebelling against. Moving on, and this is next quote is why Schaeffer called it the line of dispair, because once you have embraced autonomous reason and then subjectivism you can’t proove anything:
“I suggest that there are questions where we don’t have all of the data or we can’t verify the data. Questions such as where the universe came from, how life arose, if the miracles of the Bible happened, etc…”
Well, Henry I do know where the universe came from God has revealed it in His word, there may be finer points of mechanics but the big picture is clear. Also, I know the miracles happened because the genre of the literature recording them is historical. The issue is really rather simple, either you have had your eyes opened and sit under the word or you are still on the throne autonomously looking over the word deciding which parts comport with what you in your reason deem “acceptable”.
Also under your number two, you assume that man in his reasoning is autonomus. It is up to him to pick and choose which is the best narrative, objectivity is unacheievable by finite agents, therefore there never can be anything close to an objective worldview. Well again this erodes true truth. Sure you can talk about truth, but it is not true truth, that it is objective and binding upon all whether they accept it or not. Man is left with different interpretations to pick and choose from like ice cream.
I need to go, but I will try to pick up later tonight…
Puritan Bob, I don’t think you really understand Postmodernism.
By saying that “there is no central authority anymore,” it is much more of a statement to the subjectivity of human experience. It doesn’t deny the existence of God as an authority. What it denies is aligning “absolute truth” with “our hegemonic conception of God.” There is no centralized human institution that divies out truth. We all experience God differently. We all experience scripture differently. We all experience the Christian Church differently. Our past experiences put us all in very different contexts when we encounter such things, and thus there is no one single absolute truth when it comes to such things. The only “true truth” is the truth we encounter and create as individuals and communities. When we understand and accept this, it causes us to be much more responsible about the truth claims we make as Christians.
And I must highly object to your rather haughty statements on “God’s word.” I, even though I am thoroughly postmodern, believe in miracles both past and present. Yet, saying that the “genre of literature recording them” in scripture is “historical” is simply not correct. While the gospels certainly contain history, they weren’t recorded as such. Our conception of “history” and that contained in antiquity are two drastically different things. Even when we write history today, there are still motives behind it, we are still making an argument…there’s no such thing as pure “history.” History under the guise of “pure history” is what is known as historicism, a tool of veiled attacks and oppression.
I must say I find this sentence rather offensive: “The issue is really rather simple, either you have had your eyes opened and sit under the word or you are still on the throne autonomously looking over the word deciding which parts comport with what you in your reason deem “acceptable”.”
First off, “reason” itself is constructed, and has meant drastically different things throughout the ages. “Reason” is ultimately just a rhetorical device used to assert one’s authority over another. Postmoderns would say that we are the one’s whose eyes have been opened to see the multifaceted nature of God, scripture, and our faith. It seems, rather, that you are the one sitting on the throne who has chosen one specific way of viewing things…and think all should abide by it.
One of the things you seem to be missing about postmodernism, is that “proving” something really doesn’t make much of a difference. Modernist apologetic techniques are simply dead, they no longer resonate with our culture. I can beat a postmodern over the head with “proofs” and “evidence” all I want, but I’ll just come off as self-righteous and overly confident. The only “proving” we should do is by the way we live our lives, and by the way we interact with others. “Spread the gospel at all times, and if necessary use words” as the saying goes. Forming communities that embrace and represent the tremendous love of God will do far more to spread the Kingdom of God than any amount of “proofs.”
Ham:
“And I must highly object to your rather haughty statements on “God’s word.” I, even though I am thoroughly postmodern, believe in miracles both past and present.
I will speak as haughty as possible about the authority of the word of God. And if you believe in miracles what’s the problem? Honzo was leaving these things up in the air of uncertainty. You further state:
“While the gospels certainly contain history, they weren’t recorded as such.”
That sure sounds rather forked. But we can yabber about this for a while I will just point you to the opening of Luke’s gospel, where Luke makes it plain thta he is writing a historical account of the events that took place in the ministry of Christ.
“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
Usually when a book starts by saying things like these we assume it is a historical account.
Overall you make a lot of generalizations, matter of fact statements, get offended at my elevating of God’s revelation, say I don’t understand posmodernism (for if I did surely I would be on board) and seem to actually miss my points. I am going to watch the republican debate on youtube right now and to weed out all of the errors you have wound up in these four paragraphs would take about 30 minutes of writing. So I’ll pass and address Henry’s arguments in the morning.
Bob, Casey, and others,
I just got back from a TA function and my little bro and mother are staying with us tonight, so hopefully I will be able to address people’s concerns, even though CheapHam and JR are doing a better job than I think I can on some of these issues.
Peace.
HMI
Bob,
(unsurprisingly) I have to side with Ham… I am not concerned with your view of scripture as much as I’m concerned with your haughty view of your own ideas.
You are guilty of the same thing of which you accuse Ham - anyone who doesn’t agree with your view of Reason, Scripture, God etc. is automatically wrong - and seemingly dangerously so. Why do you have to be so defensive about Scripture? God doesn’t need your help defending it.
Rob Bell has an excellent chapter (2, ‘Yoke’) in his book Velvet Elvis that addresses a lot of these concerns. As he points out, it’s impossible to rely only on the Scriptures for authority, because the Church decided at some point what to include as Scripture.
And of course we are the same Church that still has the authority and responsibility to rediscover God each new generation. PoMo gives us the opportunity to recapture this power, stolen away by the confines of modernity.
Bob, while I think you have a problematic definition of scripture, I am by no means “offended” that you elevate scripture. I’m offended because you haven’t elevated the “word of God” at all, but your hard-lined definition of what the “word of God” is. I’m offended that you seem to think that because Postmoderns like myself view scripture differently, that we somehow value it less than you.
Now, you’ll likely accuse me of elevating MY view of what scripture is above yours. Fair enough. Here’s the difference though: postmodern views on texts and textuality open up the texts for the exploration of new meanings and new experiences. It achnowledges the power and the place of the reader in the construction of meaning. By the very nature of postmodern reading techniques, they aren’t dogmatic and don’t outright exclude readings before giving them a chance. The modernist view of scripture (which despite your protests, you seem to lean toward heavily) claims that the author had one single intention when writing the text and that is the only possible meaning. For a Postmodern, the authorial intent of a text is truly impossible to ever actually achieve…and with the knowledge that we construct the meaning of a text through our own engagement with it, authorial intent ultimately loses it’s importance.
Of course I don’t think you would suddenly embrace postmodernism if you understood it (many who understand it have not), but I think you would certainly be less hostile toward it and Christians who self-identify with the label. That’s why I’m trying to (hopefully) better explain where we are coming from.
“I fear you may not understand “Christianity” nor “postmodernity,” and this would be where the confusion arises.”
Your version of xianity? Who’s version? Which one specifically will I be enlightened by?
Jesus might’ve have existed… he was probably some sort of historical figure. The rest is pretty much embellished.
Wrapping xianity up in pm theology is only prolonging the inevitable… that it isn’t true. It’s packaging it up differently and expecting a different response or something.
It’s not true. Just as much as pigs don’t fly. They just don’t. We can conjecture, philosophize (sp?), theologize, conversate, discuss, blah blah blah all we want but it won’t take us anywhere.
The irony is to hear one telling me that I’ve made a bold statement. No, quite the contrary. That person allegedly, knows the meaning to life. I am making no such claim.
PM theology is a good step in the right direction… but not quite there yet.
I swore I wouldn’t respond either… we disagree, that’s it. I honestly was expecting to see something different here. Oh well, no worries.
Happy trails.
Hey guys!
So I have read through most of the posts here, and this is a great discussion. There is so much to say I don’t even know where to start. On a different discussion, JR and I got off onto a tangent, and I feel what I said there would be relevant here. Here is what I said:
“This tangent will probably warrant its on comment page :). I recognize the fact that overcoming one’s own preunderstanding is very very difficult, and I know some would say that this is impossible. I however disagree. Unlike many of conservative theologians, I acknowledge the fact that all have some preunderstanding through which they view the words of Scripture. Unlike the liberal theologians, I do believe that we can overcome our preunderstandings, and arrive at the objective truth.
How? Well take me for example. I would say my preunderstanding consists not so much along demonational ties (I grew up in three different churches, one being “non-demonational”), but I am heavly influenced by Western philosophical thought, Reformation theology, some of the Catholic scholastics, and a general attitude of faith seeking understanding. I find that great places to start with extra-Biblical literature would be Aquinas, Augustine, Anslem, Calvin, Luther (some), Bonhoeffer, Barth (some), Schaeffer, and Lewis. Of course all of these giants and their works have tempered my understanding of Scripture. But they do not get to have final say (or authority) over theological truths and the system these truths together build. That is only done by the Word of God.
How is this done? Well this is the “hermeneutical spiral” I mentioned earlier. This term is from Osbourne’s book “The Hermeneutical Spiral.” What he described in 500 pages, I am going to try to do in a couple :). In essence, this spiral is the path that the theologian takes in order to arrive at the ultimate and objective truth that God has given us. The theologian dedutively applies hermeneutical principles and theological descions to the text, while the text inductively informs the theologian of formulative truths.
So what influences theological dogma and truths? Community, experience, tradition, and philosophical outlooks.
What determines theological dogmas and truths? The Word of God alone.”
As an augment to this, I have to say to the postmodern defenders (seems ironic to speak of defending postmodernism or that which claims that nothing is defensible) that I agree with the ontological claims that that they have made (e.g. God does exists, there is an absolute truth, ect.), but their epistemological claims are ambigiuous and equivocal. This is a problem since this debate centers on what is the correct epistemology. So to the postmoderns I ask, how do we come to know this absolute truth or how God exists?
Hey guys!
So I have read through most of the posts here, and this is a great discussion. There is so much to say I don’t even know where to start. On a different discussion, JR and I got off onto a tangent, and I feel what I said there would be relevant here. Here is what I said:
“This tangent will probably warrant its on comment page :). I recognize the fact that overcoming one’s own preunderstanding is very very difficult, and I know some would say that this is impossible. I however disagree. Unlike many of conservative theologians, I acknowledge the fact that all have some preunderstanding through which they view the words of Scripture. Unlike the liberal theologians, I do believe that we can overcome our preunderstandings, and arrive at the objective truth.
How? Well take me for example. I would say my preunderstanding consists not so much along demonational ties (I grew up in three different churches, one being “non-demonational”), but I am heavly influenced by Western philosophical thought, Reformation theology, some of the Catholic scholastics, and a general attitude of faith seeking understanding. I find that great places to start with extra-Biblical literature would be Aquinas, Augustine, Anslem, Calvin, Luther (some), Bonhoeffer, Barth (some), Schaeffer, and Lewis. Of course all of these giants and their works have tempered my understanding of Scripture. But they do not get to have final say (or authority) over theological truths and the system these truths together build. That is only done by the Word of God.
How is this done? Well this is the “hermeneutical spiral” I mentioned earlier. This term is from Osbourne’s book “The Hermeneutical Spiral.” What he described in 500 pages, I am going to try to do in a couple :). In essence, this spiral is the path that the theologian takes in order to arrive at the ultimate and objective truth that God has given us. The theologian dedutively applies hermeneutical principles and theological descions to the text, while the text inductively informs the theologian of formulative truths.
So what influences theological dogma and truths? Community, experience, tradition, and philosophical outlooks.
What determines theological dogmas and truths? The Word of God alone.”
As an augment to this, I say to the postmodern defenders (seems ironic to speak of defending postmodernism or that which claims that nothing is defensible) that I agree with the ontological claims that that they have made (e.g. God does exists, there is an absolute truth, ect.), but their epistemological claims are ambigiuous and equivocal. This is a problem since this debate centers on what is the correct epistemology. So to the postmoderns I ask, how do we come to know this absolute truth or how God exists?
Ok, same line as last night - just got home from a talk / churchish after-event and am dead tired, so maybe I’ll address Travis, Bob, and Casey’s objections. But I know that when I met with JR Friday morning he did a great job anticipating and answering Travis’ question about how we come to know the truth of God (answer: experience and relationally - and everything relational is… therefore subjective).
HM,
You keep throwing my name into the mix of objections. I don’t know if I really have any. Jr has answered and affirmed my trouble with Pomo’s going off on MO’s.
But, maybe there is something you specifically disagreed with me about. If you do…well, then your wrong (ha).
casey
Oh, I just remember you saying that you want to hear my reply - that is why I included your name.
cool
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, I don’t know how bogged down I want to get in the tangential discussion here, I really want to stay on task and reply to the points Honzo has argued for. There is a difference between argument and barefaced assertion, people (perhaps it is the results Postmodernity) simply don’t know how to argue anymore and throw out “I feel”, “my experiences”, “I am offended by your…” as if these are somehow validating to their position. At anyrate JR says something I think worth addressing because I think it encapsulates the heart of the tangents on authority:
Well, that is because I believe I am right. This is the point A and ~A can not both be true. It seems like nobody wants to say the blasphemous phrase “You are wrong” anymore. Anyone like myself who has the impiety to utter such a phrase is the blaphemer against this pluralist deity/view of truth.
So yes, because I believe I am right I believe that people who disagree are wrong. That is the nature of truth you folks seem to be abandoning, you know things like a wise fellow once said like “He who is not against us is for us”. I am all in favor of discusion and argument, and even changing my mind if persuaded but to be dismissive of what I am saying because I happen to think I am right about A and therefore ~A is false seems to me to be the humblest glazing on the cake of arrogance.
That said, this is typically how all the discussions go I have had or witnessed with Emergent and “POMO-Christians”. It ends with people crying about being offended, talking about their feelings and experiences (as though these validated their assertions), whining about being “misunderstood”, and calling the objectors arrogant in their views. After all we know that relative views on truth are far more humble than those who say that there is one truth to which men must submit. After all that must be some sort of outdated “modernist” talk.
Travis, you have stated the actual issue well when you ask:
That really is the problem, and why I think to say “I am a postmodern-Christian” is like saying I am a sober sailor, or a married bachelor. This discussion if they take their epistemology seriously, shouldn’t even be happening. I do think that is why much of this dsicusion has deteriorated to the “I feel”, “My experiences”, “I am offended” kind of rhetoric. That is all we are left with when we abandon true truth, and yes that is being under the line of dispair.
I do also want to throw some stones on my side of the fence and ask why the guys who want to defend Calvinism and the doctrines of Grace incessantly over here aren’t fighting the battle where it’s the hottest over here? As Luther said you can preach the truth with the loudest voice but if you aren’t addressing where it is being attacked you haven’t preached the truth. Being reformed isn’t good enough guys, it’s time to defend the gospel where it is being attacked and on this blog it is by Modernistic higher criticism and Postmodern views of truth.
“but to be dismissive of what I am saying because I happen to think I am right about A and therefore ~A is false seems to me to be the humblest glazing on the cake of arrogance.”
When was anyone being dismissive? As I see it, people have engaged the points you’ve made, and explained in detail why they disagree. You were the first (and most recent) to be dismissive by resorting to name-calling, outright bashing, and unhelpful sarcasm.
Do you honestly think that a person’s experience of God is not validation in any way (even if it is one that should be tempered)? That seems like a very limited view on revelation and God’s interaction with this world.
Travis,
I think I’m seeing the sources of some of the differences here. Postmoderns tend not to see God as a checklist of attributes and facts. Postmodernism by it’s nature views life as much more fluid than modernist structuralism. God is something to be experienced as and individual and in community in a dynamic manner. Yes, Postmoderns are quite aware than many of their epistemological assertions are “ambiguous.” God is not something that can be labeled, systemetized, categorized, and reasoned out. Such actions pedestrianize God into something we can hold at a distance and critique/analyze. It’s this weak “known” God that drives our current culture away from Christianity. People don’t want bullet points of what God is…they want to see and feel God through us. For that to happen, we have to step outside the limits put upon us by past ideaology.
When was anyone being dismissive? As I see it, people have engaged the points you’ve made, and explained in detail why they disagree.”
Well, yes it is being dismissive of somebody’s argument to just say it is arrogant. That’s not engagement, it is again just how one feels. Somebody can be radically arrogant and pomopous in their presentation yet be completely on the spot with the content of what they have presented. So while yes, arrogance DOES matter as far as character formation, yet in the exchange of ideas such charges are really superficial and are an easy way to dismiss something you don’t like.
Also, to answer you question as to “when” I would point to what I actually said. This seems like how Ron Paul who was comming against all the sabar rattling against Iran was asked by the fox moderator “Who are you responding to?!” (trying to make it seem like he was out there). So to answer the question I say read my previous comment again, I gave numerous examples of phrases that have been used in the place of argument to oppose what I have put forward.
“Do you honestly think that a person’s experience of God is not validation in any way (even if it is one that should be tempered)? That seems like a very limited view on revelation and God’s interaction with this world.”
I really don’t know what that even means. Experience, says CS Lewis is like the sea, unpredictable, revelation is like the map, predictable yet useless without setting out to see. You need both. My assertion is that if you leave God to reveal himself in the subjective (sea) experience you are really just going to make a god that feels good to you. We need the objective outside word to stand over our experiences and give us a grid to interpret them through.
To further argue that experience is not revelatory I would simply point to the numerous experiences of “god” by folks involved with heretics, charlatans, and cultic groups. Ex burning in the bosom, kundelini meditation, Benny Hinn goers, and Jonestown folks. All of these by their experience feel like they are in the right place.
Bob -
I think you’re creating (or at least using) a false dichotomy between reason and subjectivity. You seem to believe that PoMos want to throw reason out completely, and that’s not (always) the case. I at least would say that reason plays an important role.
But we have to understand that the Scriptures themselves are subjective. The canon is subjective. Everything we have as believers to use as ‘roadmaps’ (to employ your/Lewis’ metaphor) come to us mediated through cultures.
As for my comment - you missed the point I was making. Of course I expect you to think you’re right (as I hope you expect me to). If I didn’t think I were right, I wouldn’t bother to argue. You dismissed Ham’s point, but did so by committing exactly the same fallacy. This is hypocrisy, not sound argumentation.
Honzo (or the other PoMo’s here),
As I read back through the initial post, something struck me, and may be this will be addressed later, is how can you, as a PoMo, tell people they are guilty of sin/iniquity/transgressing the Law of Yahweh and that they must come to Christ for forgiveness and failure to do so will result in their eternal condemnation? Did not Christ come to call sinners to repentance? So how does this work within the PoMo framework? I am very curious. Most PoMo’s I hear from don’t really acknowledge this theme from Jesus’ words in the Gospels or in the rest of the Bible. It would greatly help me understand the PoMo mind and the culture that it has created within the church.
Hank, during Jesus’ ministry, he came upon a man who was born blind. His disciples asked, “who sinned, this man or his parents?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works migh be revealed in him.” Then, Jesus healed the man. The Pharisees hold a council and can’t stop talking about sin, but they accomplish nothing. Jesus was able to avoid the whole issue and achieve a resounding victory for the kingdom of God (John 9:1-41). I know you’re familiar with the story, but I think it’s important here.
This story shows one way that Jesus viewed sin. In this case, it doesn’t matter. Sin was not a part of the equation (though surely both the man and his parents were sinners). What Jesus did was love the man, do a kind deed to him, and gently guided him through compassionate teaching in the end. I’d say this is a pretty solid model for how Postmoderns see evangelism. We are to show people the love of God. We are to be actively creating the radical Kingdom of God, and inviting people to participate with us. When people begin to enter the community, we will slowly guide them along, help them, encourage them. If God is who we claim God is, then S/he is more than powerful enough to work in this person’s life. If the holy spirit is legit, it will convict this person of the errors of their ways. But, I’d be willing to bet that if someone did truly become active in communities participating in the work of the Kingdom, sin would become much less a part of the equation, and they too can spread the love of Christ to others.
That’s just one way of looking at it though…perhaps others have thoughts.
Hank,
To echo what Ham said, the PoMo would say that our job is not to convict of Sin. That’s the Spirit’s job. Rather, we are to live out Jesus’ story - we are to be a holy community that is radically inclusive. We are to do justice by showing mercy. Love is to be our guiding principle/reality.
IF we are doing that, if we are a community that incarnates the Word, then we have no need to preach condemnation. Rather, we will be able like Paul to say, "Imitate me, for I imitate Christ".
That’s why I think Honzo’s next post on narrative will be fantastic. We have the best story, and we know ours is the truest story.
I think maybe more to the point, even if we do not need to preach condemnation, Hank is wondering one what basis do we even, say, preach against the oppression of the Empire? On what basis outside ourselves do we call oppression wrong? We can live contrary to the Empire, but why even do that if we have no basis for saying there is somethign wrong with the Empire? Essentially, what is the basis for saying “We have the best story, and we know ours is the truest story.”
Hank, if I’ve not gotten your question straight I’m sorry! I just felt my brothers here weren’t getting at the heart of what you were asking. I have answers, myself, but I’m interested in seeing where this goes.
Tom, that is the most disarming question of the discussion for sure. What’s somewhat ironic, is that the energy that drove many poststructuralist thinkers and theorists was precisely the incomprehensible injustices that were justified through modernist discourse (Slavery, Holocaust, etc.). Yet, depending on the direction one goes with such theories, you could ultimately deconstruct your own justifications for justice and equality…
Here’s the thing, I know in my heart of hearts what I think justice is, why oppression is wrong, etc. This comes from my interactions with God, Scripture, and Humanity. Yet, I don’t know if I have a philosophical treatise outlined to justify my views on such things…probably why I’m not a philosopher (and not much of classical western theologian either). I’d love to see how one begins a discussion on such things, and would happily participate in such a discussion if I felt my voice was necessary.
I don’t know why we need an objective, pure base. I agree with Ham… we have our communities that are (hopefully) self-critical as much as anything else, that understands we’re imperfect beings in a fallen world. So we are as dedicated to rooting out injustice and oppression in ourselves as we are to finding it anywhere else. This is far from pure and objective, but I think it’s more legitimate than anything else. We get to pull the "the Spirit told us" trump card.
Well,
Tom was getting at my question. Before we can command repent we have to understand what it is to repent from. The Bible uses the term "sin." So then how do we define "sin" and say that it is wrong (I’m not talking about condemnation but calling sin “sin” and what must be done with the problem it has/does create(d))? How can a PoMo tell someone from "another city" (to use Honzo’s terms from the post) that child molesting (to borrow from another post) is wrong when that city not only sees child molesting as okay but something to practice and upholds? How can a PoMo say that slavery is injustice in a "city" that encourages slavery? What is the basis to define sin and then call that sinner to repent of that sin for it offends the very God who desires to pour mercy and grace upon them? I do not get where the authority to do that comes from. May be this could be another post?
I personally think evangelism in a PoMo world lies in Piper’s/Edwards’ center on the glory of God–but not just simply defined as honor. That glory is rather defined as the beauty of God’s manifold perfections (his love, grace, mercy, faithfulness, etc). God is a God that is fully happy within himself from a trinitarian sense (the Father delights in the Son and the Son delights in the Father etc.) and that those who are united to the Son by faith are united to that joy (I thought it was odd that Rob Bell would point his readers to Piper but the fact that he did that really clarified this for me). I look forward to Honzo’s post to see if I am on track in how I would want to share Christ with a lost and biblically illiterate culture (the west has really become secularized and thus biblically illiterate). Feel free to chime in on what you think about this view of evangelism.
This might sound funny…but I think it is insightful for this discussion.
In the movie CARS:
There is a scene where the old town has a flashback about days long ago when the town was thriving. During this scene, there is a highway built that bypasses the town…and we see the town slowly fade away.
For a long time, Modernists were thriving, but now people have built bypasses around what Modernists held so dear (truth). No the people on the highway drive past the old town.
So many small churches have been bypassed by newer thinking (POMO thinking–not liberal scholarship). So the choice is simple. We either learn how to adapt to this new stuff or we slowly fade away.