No Chains on Me…

From an excellent article entitled: “From Church to ‘Rhizone’: Reconfiguring Theological Education for the Postmodern Era” by Carl Raschke

It has been said too often that we are now in a post-Christian world. A better phrasing would be apost-churched world. Ironically, that may be what Christ really had in mind when he enunciated what has come to be called The Great Commission. Jesus said “go and make disciples of all nations,” not “go find a good location to start churches.” The difference is not all that subtle. As disciple-making disciples we need to be gearing our theological studies toward becoming makeover artists in redesigning our Father’s house, not plodding toward one day becoming junior partners in the management of his firm.

The article comes as part of the latest series on the Mars Hill grad school: The Other Journal blog, one which has a lot of really insightful stuff on how to reach the culture today and which I have oft mentioned and quoted here.

The article speaks of how education in general (though specifically focusing on theological education, seminary and the like) is in need of radical overhauling due to a shift in culture. As the culture’s perception of knowledge has changed and become more diversified and yet more able to globally communicate that diversity, there is a different mindset that will be addressed by those in education as well as everyday life. Remaining in the trench of what we have done to communicate knowledge, leaves us outside in the cold if we refuse to mold to a wildly different culture. Knowledge transfer can take place at an incredibly fast pace due to the ways in which technology has allowed it to move globally almost instantly. Education, or the receiving of knowledge happens practically unconsciously. Thus, the means in which we attempt, both to learn, as well as too teach, must adapt.

This has led to a brand-new approach to how ministry and ministry-minded education is formed and carried out.

“Revolutionaries,” [pollster George Barna] notes by way of generalization, “have no use for churches that play religious games, whether those games are worship services that drone on without the presence of God or ministry programs that bear no spiritual fruit. Revolutionaries eschew ministries that compromise or soft sell our sinful nature to expand organizational turf.”⁵ Barna’s emphasis is personal integrity and Christian commitment in the midst of all the consumer-driven wants and demands on our life. But it also implies a new organizational metaphor that does not refer to any specific organization. “Every Revolutionary I have interviewed,” Barna writes, “described a network of Christians to whom he or she relates regularly and a portfolio of spiritual activities which he or she engages in on a regular basis. This schedule of relationships and ministry efforts is the Revolutionary equivalent of traditional congregational life.”

It is fascinating to see a church beginning to become a more interconnected, global entity, to see how believers all over the world can now connect to one another and fellowship as a body miles apart, yet very present with one another. Raschke speaks of the church as no longer something that is connected to a building, or even an organization. Raschke points out that:

The word church derives directly from the Greekkyriou, a genitive possessive form which means literally “that which is the Lord’s.” So what we call the church is simply the manner in which Christ is using the different occasions and our affiliations to reshape the world in accordance with his eschatological purpose and to conform our own both scattered and interconnected lives to his image.

This is a incredibly opportunity-rich age for the church, not that it hasn’t always been. But as the world is now connected to one another in ways never dreamed possible, there are many opportunities to be taken. If we are to thrive in an interconnected era, our education system must teach men and women how to connect with and participate in a more globally accessible body of Christ to reach a globally accessible mission field.

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.

Well its been a wild weekend for me, to some degree, on the religious and philosophical front. Nothing life-changing, but plenty of content contained within. Some time spent working on work stuff, on and off throughout the day (and late into the evening Some family friends came over for dinner on Saturday which was nice, but we ended up got our good ole fashion liberal hating on, to remind us, once again, that the liberals are the ones doing entirely all of the hating. Wait, what? Yes… believe it or not, once again I find, to my unexpected horror, that I am still with the “dark side of the force” in politics, religion, philosophy. Good to know.

Its a remarkable trend on both sides to see the other side the one entirely in the wrong, with no allowable crossover (for surely that is compromising and polluting THE gospel!): One side is biblical, and the other is “liberal” or “postmodern.” And the same is true for the other side, either you are biblically-based, or you are a “fundamentalist.” What’s even more amazing to me is that equal amounts of hate and inconsideration are thrown vociferously about, claiming that the other side is hateful and close-minded. It makes me sad to see either/both side(s) dehumanize each other in order to criticize from a better, more “righteous” position. For one, I’m pretty sure that both sides are filled with well-meaning, sinners who have plenty of issues wrong on both sides. An excellent point from this Conversational Evangelism conference that I’ve been listening through, is that almost nobody on either side is sitting around thinking “how can I get into some apostasy today?” or “how can I deny Jesus Christ?” For-real Christians, liberal or conservative (I don’t care how much you think the other side can’t be “for-real.” Get over yourselves!), just don’t think that way! Both sides are trying to find how to best follow Christ in their set beliefs. Maybe neither side is really wrong. Perhaps there is more than the binary truth we like to see. Its a view I’ve tried to present here. There is more than wrong vs. right sometimes. (And now I’ve just lost almost all of you on both sides…) I thing there’s a lot more than the flat truth that is often presented. Mostly because I’m pretty certain that if there was only one view of “the right way” there would only be one Christian in the history of Christendom, and it would be Jesus. Not only can we not live perfectly to earn heaven, but we can’t believe perfectly! Sooo… thats probably something I already wrote on Maybe another time.

Back to the point, tearing down is just easier than building up and loving our enemies. Its easier to live with the “you can be wrong and we can be right” paradigm because that justifies our hatred and condescension to others; it satisfies our conscience our failures to be the lovers God has called us to be. And it will always be that way, unless a few people can lay aside their personal issues, chips on shoulders, take up their crosses, and follow Christ as they love their enemies, perceived or real. Hence, it will always be that way…

Granted, I get my liberal pretty well too, so I’m not exempt from what I’m be critical of, but I’m trying to reform… mostly The flesh in me would love to yell some more, but perhaps the Spirit would have me do otherwise… and yell at BOTH!!

Moving away from that though, to the rest of the weekend, this Sunday was excellent, good time of repentance on my part, I definitely needed it, mostly because of my definite lack of time dedicated to spend with God, and putting instead into other things. Good fellowship with the people of God as well and a challenge to always have the name of Jesus on my lips, not to shut up the word of God in my bones, from Isaiah and Matthew.

Finally got back into the blogs I frequent too. Its been a while since I’ve had a good amount of time to actually read some stuff again. An excellent interview with Charles Taylor from the always excellent Mars Hill Grad School’s Other Journal on the new atheist movement and how it is both interacting with western culture and being interacted with by more conservative circles. Read it if you have time.

Also last night and a good portion of this afternoon, still continuing in this Conversational Evangelism conference podcast series. I managed to snag the last of it off of the site. Its been absolutely wonderful to hear people speak of evangelism from a postmodern point of view (not just how to address postmoderns, how to evangelize as postmoderns), questioning how it ought to be done in an effective and genuine way. Not just evangelism alone, in the sense of speaking the Gospel, but how to actually engage the people around us in a lifestyle of living what we have in Jesus. Its been very encouraging to hear people talking the way I think for the first time in a while. The blessings of God are sweet.

“Every good and perfect gift comes down from the father of heavenly lights, in whom there is no shadow or variation.”

Lastly, for fun…

relativism of law - by joão ramos

In amongst the non-postmodern circles, there is a favorite argument seemingly hailed as the ultimate argument against postmodern thinking. It is though it is the irrefutable line of reasoning that can always be pulled out to force “the opposition” to reckon with their own pointless logic. It is also only two words long:

Prove it.

What makes me laugh, almost every time I see this argument pop up, is the fact that postmodernists don’t like to reason from “proof.” To do so would go against the very thing postmodernism is speaking about. And so seemingly, at the very basis of the argument between the two parties, there is no grounds for communication or healthy dialog. This kinda hurts any further debate…

–

I must pause here to say, it is soooo good to be eating real fruit again. Cedarville’s cafeteria is nice and all, but their fruit is usually pretty abysmal. I just bit into an actually ripe pear for once. One of the benefits of summer! Thank God for the goodness of fruit. Okay, sorry.

–

The very idea of trying to prove something, especially in the philosophical or even theological world, seems a bit out of reach to me. Philosophically, how do you “prove” something as the modern or postmodern view of truth? How do you demonstrate absoluteness? You can certainly argue for or against it, but logic doesn’t seem to prove or disprove something, it only makes a case for it, an attempt to convince as it were. Plus, in my mind, logical arguments can usually be made about any side of any subject (lawyers are still in business, after all), and the arguer is going to be arguing, hopefully in a logical fashion, to prove his own side. Kallenburg puts it well (a quote I’ve used before:

“The phrase ‘compelled by logic’ has no more teeth than to say that, in point of fact, we happen to accept certain conclusions; it is to say that our social framework requires of us these constraints as the conditions for continued participation in the language-game.”

To delve into the spiritual, how do you prove the existence of God? The existence of heaven? The idea that Christ’s death actually saves us from sin? Can you do that? You can argue from Scripture, but how do you prove that it is breathed by God? In my mind you can’t. I’m not saying I don’t believe in all of those things, I’m just saying I have no way of “proving” any of them. All of these things seem to be claims made, not proofs to be had. I think thats why faith becomes a huge topic throughout the Bible. Any of these claims must be taken in faith. Its even hard for me to say that how I believe I see God acting in the world around me and in my life as proof of the truth of what I believe. The reason I say this, is there are plenty of ways to dismiss God’s workings in the world in as many ways as there are human beings. The religious diversity around us is testament to that. And so again, faith seems to be a huge part of how we continue in our faith. What’s fun is when you get arguments like: “So are things like gravity relative too then? Step off a cliff saying you don’t believe in gravity, and have fun falling and believing it to your death.” So nice…

In case you were wondering, in my mind, yes, science itself is subject to this relative point-of-view. Gravity can be defined however you like it. Try it, its kinda fun. The trick is, in order for you to make sense to the people around you, it must fit how they speak of gravity (going back to our favorite language-games discussion). And you’ll need someway to account for falling down whenever you trip (or walk off a cliff!), wither you call it gravity or no. We’ve had some of this discussion before. If you want more of my take on science… call our 800 number for comments and questions Monday-Friday 8am-5pm and a representative will be waiting to take your questions Couldn’t resist! No, just ask in the comments and perhaps another post will magically appear! Its too far afield to continue with now.

Back side.

Now along the same track, postmoderns are often criticized for having no truth. This would appear a shallow understanding of what postmodern philosophy speaks of when it talks about truth. I suppose what it really comes down to is how you choose to speak of truth. If you define truth as requiring the property of being absolute (which you’re then going to need some way of demonstrating), then yes, postmodernists have no truth… in that sense. But if you’re willing to let your desire for absolutes go (hard as that can be for some), you’ll find a far more freeing and friendlier point of view. Because I, as a more postmodern person, see truth as being relative to who we are and how we define it as we encounter life, there is a freedom, odd as it may sound, in realizing that perhaps, I don’t have to have my philosophical/theological ducks in a row according to some absolute, singular standard, as it were. Perhaps there is a wider web of beliefs, as Quine (and later Davidson) described it, within which we are called to wrestle (a thought I have used before, coming from N.T. Wright). A misunderstanding of this idea leads many to think that I’m saying “Oh, Buddhists, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses are all Christians too.” Though there is a far deeper discussion to be had there, I am not saying that. To fall within the “Christian category” as it were, there are tenants that seem to come along with the “title,” if that’s not putting it too flatly. The problem is for me (although, not really), what are those tenants and who defines them authoritatively? Scripture? Okay, but who choses which interpretation, among potentially limitless interpretations, is the right one? I really am sorry for going back here again, but Reformed people like to think they’ve got it all wrapped up. But not to stop there, Catholics have done much the same.

Side Step: This is an interesting turn I’ve taken of late: From what I’ve seen in looking at both Reformed and, I guess I’ll call it “non-Reformation” camps (I guess namely Roman Catholicism), BOTH sides now are pointing to a fairly deep traditional bases (different traditions to be sure), though certainly, the Roman Catholic people, especially, can take that contest by a huge margin (which is another interesting discussion). I find it ironic that reformed people are now leaning so heavily on theology which has been developed for a few hundred years, while screaming they are sola scriptura (“the Scriptures alone”). Okay, maybe it was developed through study of the Bible… but I think… just maybe… Catholic tradition came about much the same way? Is it possible they are concerned about the Scriptures as well? Not that I think its a bad thing to have or embrace tradition on either side. But don’t claim you’re free of traditions when its just a separate set of them (*ehemreformersehem*)… ’scuse me…

Two quotes to leave you with, one speaking to relativism, the other to the openness needed towards a wider variety interpretations of the Bible (interpretations which I think don’t have to all agree and can still be valid):

First one (relativism) was brought to my attention by a friend of mine. Its from the book Hail, Holy Queen by Scott Hahn.

“The ultimate truth about God cannot be dependent on anything other than God. We cannot define God in terms of something contingent, as in analogies with creation. God does not depend upon creation for His identity. So even His title of creator is something relative and not absolute. Though he is eternal and He is the creator, He is not the eternal creator. Creation is something that takes place in time, and God transcends time. So, though creation is something God does, it does not define Who He is. The same goes for redemption and sanctification. Though God is redeemer and sanctifier, these titles do not define His eternal identity, but rather certain of His works. The terms “creator,” “redeemer,” “lawgiver,” and “sanctifier” are all dependent upon the world – upon something that needs to be created, redeemed, ruled and sanctified…”

Very interesting take on who God is. Its hard to wrap my mind around some of that, but I think it is a more correct view of how we should view God.

The second is from a favorite author, whom I’ve mentioned and quoted oft in the past: N.T. Wright. This is from a speech entitled New Perspectives on Paul. Its long, but good (read the whole article if you can. Excellent view of how we should look at much of Scripture).

“What has happened, then? Like America looking for a new scapegoat after the collapse of the Cold War, and seizing on the Islamic world as the obvious target, many conservative writers, having discovered themselves in possession of the Pauline field after the liberals got tired of it, have looked around for new enemies. Here is something called the New Perspective; it seems to be denying some of the things we have normally taught; very well, let us demonize it, lump its proponents together, and nuke them from a great height. That has not made a pretty sight. Speaking as one of those who is regularly thus carpet-bombed, what I find frustrating is the refusal of the traditionalists to do three things: first, to differentiate the quite separate types of New Perspective; second, to engage in the actual exegetical debates upon which the whole thing turns, instead of simply repeating a Lutheran or similar line as though that settled matters; and third, to recognise that some of us at least are brothers in Christ who have come to the positions we hold not because of some liberal, modernist or relativist agenda but as a result of prayerful and humble study of the text which is and remains our sole authority. Of course, prayer and humility before the text do not guarantee exegetical success. We all remain deeply flawed at all levels. But that is precisely my point. If I am simul iustus et peccator, the church, not least the church as the scripture-reading community, must be ecclesia catholica semper reformanda. Like Calvin, we must claim the right to stand critically within a tradition. To deny either of these would be to take a large step towards precisely the kind of triumphalism against which the Reformers themselves would severely warn us. But if we are siblings in Christ there are, I think, appropriate ways of addressing one another and of speaking about one another, and I regret that these have not always characterized the debate.”

Lastly, how was all of what I just said, not me trying to make up absolutes for all of you to follow? Hey, these are just the things I’m taking as my own. I think they’re pretty cool and think you could benefit from some of them too! Are they the “right, absolute” view? Who am I to say? You can take ‘em or leave ‘em. I don’t think you’re sinning by not believing like I do. God only knows what is truth. Its up to him to figure that one out, and I’m quite happy to leave that one there. My prayer and hope is that I am merely thinking God’s thoughts long after him in a way that is also pleasing to him.

Shalom. Peace to you.

…you might like what several notable authors have written about a postmodern world and Christianity’s role in it in: The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World, by multiple authors, such as: John Piper, Voddie Baucham (!!), Mark Driscoll and others. The book is actually free for download (one of the things I like best about Desiring God Ministries). I haven’t read it yet so I can’t say if I agree with it or not, but I intend to read it shortly. Good, short review of it here.

Shanghai Skyscape – by pmorgan

If you read anything at all tonight, read this posting on the Jesus Creed called Our Reasonable Faith. It is an excellent conversation on a lot of what I’ve been speaking about here. Don’t just read the article (its a short one) but dig into the comments made afterwards. Some great thoughts coming out of a large group of people.

If you only have limited time, at least catch comment #: 8, 10, 16, 22, 25, 30, 35, though you might have to read further to get where they’re coming from. Comment 57 is fascinating, one most of you will disagree with. I’ve run up against it before, and I’m not sure where I stand with it yet. Read it especially and respond if you like.

Also, perhaps it’ll show you I’m not the only one thinking over this stuff, that perhaps this postmodern community is a little bigger and more serious than you think

Much love.

? – by Krystian PHOTOSynthesis

Okay, time to answer some of the questions asked of late. First of all, we’ll go with Scotty’s questions on why I still believe Christianity is worth believing in a postmodern world, even more specifically, why I am still a Christian given the views I have stated. I may have to refer to his actual comment to respond.

First: “Why should anyone believe anything if that is the case?” To answer this question is very simple. You cannot believe in nothing. Or well, you can, but then that becomes your belief. You are going to act according to your belief set. Even if your set of beliefs is changing, say for example, you begin to disbelieve Christianity, you are going to have some intermediate set of beliefs before you move on to something new. That said, you set of truth then becomes what you are currently accepting as truth. I’ve touched on this before in the statements along the lines of “truth is what you (and the society you are embedded within) make it out to be.”

And so why do I believe in Christianity if truth is not something concrete or absolute? For one, because I don’t think absoluteness is foundational to me thinking something is true. Somebody put it well: Certainty is not necessary in order to be convinced of something. I don’t have to be certain that the way I believe is completely correct, that it is the only way that Christianity is to be viewed, in order to be convinced that its the best thing out there in the way of answering the questions I have about creation, suffering, purpose in life, reason for existence, a future after death, etc. It makes sense to me. I like what it has to offer. It lives out well and as it says it will. Is this evidence? You can say it is if you like. You could also say it just happens to be that way. I prefer to think life lives out the way it does when lived by, what God describes as, the Christian life because it is what God intended and purposed. Is this the way it actually is? I can’t be certain, but I am convinced it is.

Can you see the difference in this? In this, I am also willing to reconsider if you can present to me a better way of life, a better set of beliefs, if you can make something sound more appealing to me. Sounds like a shaky foundation of belief, huh? The trick is, I’m pretty well convinced that no one is going to be able to show me a better way. I’ve read about other ways of belief, I’ve seen some of them lived out. I’ve seen the miserable failings of others. In this too, there is much, even in the postmodern school of thought within Christianity that I am not sure I can or ever will accept. And there is still much I have not seen. In everything I’ve looked at, though, I am yet to be convinced that there is any better way than Christianity. Maybe thats too weak a view of truth for you. I see it as how it is. There are a few other issues to be addressed in this topic, but for now, I hope that helps.

Now onto, John’s questions. Some interesting issues for sure. A few issues with your reasoning I need cleared up before I can speak accurately about it. Here is a portion from your comment:

1) Absolutes cannot exist for a being with Will.

2) There are no absolutes in a natural world except those that are defined by supernatural Will.

3) Absolutes defined for the natural law, have zero influence on the supernatural Will.

4)Therefore we, under natural law, are completely unable to define Truth. We are, however, able to understand Truth; given we understand that there IS supernatural Will.

First, from #1, I’m assuming that you mean “Absolutes cannot exist for a natural being with Will.” Otherwise, to claim the supernatural also has Will, and that he defines absolutes doesn’t make sense.

Second, from #2, there is an assumption being made, that the supernatural will is actually defining absolutes. Does he and why is this necessary? I don’t see the necessity of absolute truth being defined. Does God in fact define absolutes, or is there more an interconnected web of ways of understanding which are valid inside of God’s interpretation of truth, as it were? N.T. Wright puts it well when speaking of the question of justice and the answer to how our view of God fits into the reason for evil in the world: “…I don’t think there is such a thing as ‘the answer’, but – the matrix of thought and life within which God’s people are called to continue to grapple…” [N.T. Wright - "What it Looks Like When God Runs the World"]

Lastly, I question the idea that God, in creating the system of “natural law” would then step around it in order to provide truth. Could he? Yes. Did he? I don’t know why he would. What then is the purpose for this natural law, if it only serves to cloud and disturb God’s ability to transmit truth? Your comment, “Any truth that we define for ourselves is subject to law, therefore is no truth at all.”: Why is truth we define and is subject to “natural law” (that I think you would agree with me in believing God created) not truth? There seems to be the idea here that God cannot work with his creation of a natural order and man’s subjectivity to it in order to give man some form of truth. Is there perhaps a more wide range of beliefs within Christianity that fall underneath God’s view of truth? The question may not be: “Is not God powerful enough to transmit his truth absolutely in a fallen world?” but rather: “Is not God powerful enough to give his truth to a fallen world in a way which does not demand absolute truth or a singular point of view?” Can/does God work in our fallen understanding to allow even the fallenness of our knowledge to point to truth, even if it is not absolute? Hebrews speaks of God speaking to us through natural means, now including his Son, who came in the form of one under “natural law.” I am not arguing (as I said above) against the idea that “We have truth and are able to understand it because it comes from God.” I am arguing that one way of understanding is not the only way. This is Christian postmodernism, not that there are multiple ways to get to God, but that there is no “one absolute way” to live and believe within Christianity.

In this (this is the question I see coming from both of you), I am not arguing that there are multiple ways to get to God, say, outside of Jesus. I am arguing that what that actually means or looks like (believing in Christ Jesus) is perhaps not universal. I’ll wait to address that one until somebody asks

Hope that makes some sense. Thanks for the questions. Definitely good ones for this discussion.

Okay, well good chunk of homework done for the day, so I guess I have more time tonight than I thought, which is really nice.

So I’m going to try to rewrite the post I was working on when my computer died the last time. If it dies again, I’ll know I’m not supposed to be writing these thoughts down

I think this is my second big post on postmodernism, and I think there’s a huge gap from what I thought about it last time and what I think now. Perhaps its because I’ve become a lot more embedded in it than I was before. Who knows. So to start, there’s a few assumed givens that I think need to be challenged and rethought when we speak of postmodernism and Christianity, maybe just Christianity alone. Here they are, as I remember putting them down:

1. Uncertainty or doubt is always assumed to be a sin. Why? A healthy amount of doubt is a good thing. We have doubts about plenty of other things in this world, which can often keep us from making decisions we will regret later. Can we not have the same mindset towards our theology? It makes you continue to reevaluate the things you hold to, continue to test them to find out if they still fit. Without doubt, you are blind to the fact that you could be wrong. If you are not willing to critically evaluate ideas, you are accepting ideas blindly as truth.
2. Often those within the Christian rationalist school of thought assume this argument:
   • Human beings are rational
   • We are created in the image of God
   • Therefore God is rational
   • Because God is rational, the model of knowledge God gave us is rational.
   • Rational knowledge can be discerned in its entirety by rational means.
   • Man, as a rational being, can therefore come to a rational understanding of all rational knowledge.

   There is a non-sequitur argument made in the idea that because God is rational, he created a rational system of knowledge that can be discerned entirely by rational means. Why is it a given that that is what he’d do? Because it makes sense to be that way? Because its comfortable to believe that? A second item is that this is backwards reasoning, in starting with man, we assume that the way he made us is the way He is and is the way he created knowledge. Is that a valid line of reasoning? I wonder (and I don’t have a good answer) why these assumptions are made. My guess is that it is more comfortable to think we can get to all knowledge through reason and that somehow that it is this “view from nowhere” or an unbiased viewpoint simply because it is rational. We are more comfortable thinking God is like us, rather than believing that God is so much more than us, so much more beyond us. It also seems to overlook man’s finiteness in the face of an infinite God. Did God give man a means (reason) to come to the knowledge of all truth? If, given enough time, could man discover and document all truth? Saying all truth is rational would indicate that perhaps, yes, we could discover all knowledge. I question this assumption a lot.

3. This line of reasoning is assuming that the way we propositionally define truth is unbiased and that man is coming from pure reasoning for defining it the way he has without any motive for defining it in that way. Scott brought out a good point in saying that I have perhaps defined my position on swearing because I have first gotten comfortable with the idea, then looked for someway to justify it. How is this not true of much of what we define as truth? How much of it is constructed the way it is because that’s how we’re comfortable with it being defined that way? This plays into a large part of the “language game” aspect of the postmodern view of truth, even more so in that truth is simply what we are comfortable with, only what we allow authority, only as much as we feel needed to get across what we understand. More on this in a bit.
4. We assume that our view of truth is how God views truth. I think this connects with the above point, that somehow our line of reasoning is also going to be God’s. Now there’s an interesting turn that this argument usually takes and it comes out of my favorite book of all time, kinda the postmodernist’s handbook to the Gospel: 1 Corinthians. Here’s what is usually used:

5. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.

   People will say that, because this verse tells us we have the mind of God, that our mind is God’s mind because we have God’s mind. Why do we assume this: That our thoughts are now God’s thoughts? How do we know our sinful minds are not skewing things to read the way we want it? That even in having the mind of God, we twist it in our sinfulness to fit what we want? It seems a reversal of what is said in the verse. I think, yes we can come to some understanding of what God is trying to get across in His word, that we can see what God is communicating. But to say we have *gasp* the forbidden word, with certainty a perfect and unbiased knowledge of what God is trying to get across, that the meaning we derive from Scripture is THE meaning, seems very prideful and arrogant, assuming that our thoughts are God’s thoughts. Hmm, another verse about that idea from Isaiah 55:

   “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD.

   “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

   How do the two verses reconcile? Is that even a grammatically correct question?

6. We think (even if we would never say it) that truth is truth/true because we’ve placed it within nice, neat propositions. Oh, we’ll never say that, but we’ll fight to the death over what definition is ‘right’. Is that really what truth is? I’m beginning to wonder (again) about what is truth ’cause I really don’t think that truth is true because we define it or document it somehow or lay it down in stone. I’m coming to the conclusion that we can only speak of truth, we can never actually create it or even define it absolutely or objectively. Truth is fluid, always on the horizon, always what we are looking towards, but never actually reaching. Truth is something found in the development of it, in the arriving, but never being in the state of “arrived.” It isn’t one thing and not another. It changes constantly as we speak of it, come to new ideas about it. This is a hard one to get around and see the benefit of, especially for Christianity. Keep reading!
7. To claim absolute truth from a singular position, that it is the absolute truth, means to change anything about that view, means either truth has changed or we were wrong and had to reevaluate our position to what was actually true and NOW what we have is truth. Wait, what? This is what I find interesting about those who claim absolute truth, and then change their views on something like predestination and free will, or perhaps the permanence of salvation. Truth doesn’t seem to be a stable thing to me. It is always being revised. It seems to follow, then, that we don’t have a certain/objective/absolute view of truth, but that we are always evaluating truth, always redefining it according to what fits our current line of reasoning.

So now I can’t deviate any longer from the view I’m trying to get at from all of these assumptions I’m questioning: Truth is only what we make it. A ’set of truth’ only holds value for those who give authority to it. For people on the side of absolute truth who say: “Truth is true wether you like it or not” are basically saying the same thing as the postmodernist who is saying, “What is true for you isn’t true for me” and I would argue both are wrong. To say one is more logical or makes more sense to you than another way is a cop-out. As Kallenberg says in his paper on Relativism:

“The phrase ‘compelled by logic’ has no more teeth than to say that, in point of fact, we happen to accept certain conclusions; it is to say that our social framework requires of us these constraints as the conditions for continued participation in the language-game.”

Again, we go back to the thought that modernists and rationalists still exist inside the postmodern viewpoint. To say one is more ‘logical’ than the other simply means it makes more sense to you in the paradigm you are within. They are, in fact, just another view among many. Neither of them are holding to a view of truth that really holds any meaning beyond itself and the way they (and the social culture they reside in) defines it. So what is truth then?

Truth perhaps is only what you are able to say it is within the society you are within allows you to say its true. Truth is what you are comfortable calling truth, what you allow yourself to say and accept about truth, what you allow yourself to be governed by. Maybe the crudest way of putting it is truth is what you say it is. (Heretical, huh?) And it isn’t just you, but what your society is accepting of as truth. If you define truth for you and you alone, nobody is going to give you any credence. You have to be part of a “social model of knowledge” or truth, otherwise, you’re out in the cold alone.

And here is where it turns interesting (actually downright cool!) for Christians. To participate in a group or a set of belief, you must accept how it speaks of truth. You must change how you choose to define truth to fit with this group, otherwise, you’re somewhere out on your own again. This seems exactly what those who desire to follow the teachings of Christianity are called to. We are called to change how we speak of truth to fit that which God speaks of, or at least to seek to come as close to it as we humanly can. This is conversion: a redefinition of what truth for us is.

A few thoughts along the way on this: first of all is the question comes up, if truth is only what we are saying it is, is truth worth anything? Are we actually speaking about anything? Here’s where I’ve come down on this question of late: even in saying that we are speaking of what we know, what is this knowledge based off of? Speak again of the Christian context, can we speak of eternal life, of heaven, of the existence of God, (and on the list could go) of from a standpoint of knowledge, of proof? I would say no, we cannot. This is why Christianity leans (or should lean) so heavily on faith. The basis of anything in a relativistic world is faith: Faith that the things we believe in are actually true. Look at Hebrews 11:

“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. [...] And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

What I find interesting about reformed theology is that it calls Christianity back to salvation by faith alone and then turns around and begins trying to document theology in order to have a solid proof or a basis for why we have faith. And I suppose we are still taking the fact that all of those propositions are in fact true, but usually it seems to becomes an assumed fact, not an issue of faith. Sorry, side point

And an idea that crosses many people is the idea that we cannot have certainty means we can somehow not be convinced of what we believe. I think that is the very essence of faith: the idea that we have no hope of what we are hoping for to be fulfilled, and yet hoping against hope, hoping for the impossible. In fact, an excellent point is brought up by Caputo in his much referenced (by me) book What Would Jesus Deconstruct? that hope is not hope if we have some guarantee of what we are hoping for. If we have some form of proof that we are getting what we are hoping for, hope is simply us waiting for that thing to happen. Hope is waiting for what we should be impossible. That sounds exactly like what we have in Christianity: A conversion to a language God is speaking, a set of truth He speaks of, in fact is by His very essence, a conversion of now seeking to speak of truth as He does, to hope that what we are speaking of is in fact what God is saying is truth. Does that make sense? Its a very difficult concept to get around, but it makes all the sense in the world once you do. Once again, a part of this language game thing: truth is only what you are comfortable with saying. If you can’t make this turn, if its too uncomfortable or unnatural for you to be able to speak of truth this way, then it isn’t going to be true to you.

Anyways, those are my thoughts once again. Hope there was some semblance of sense in that. Respond as you will! Love you all and look forward to the firestorm of condemnation

A good friend of mine, Scott McEwan, asked me some good questions in his comments to a previous post. I responded in an e-mail, and he asked if I could post it publicly, so I figured I would! A quick word of caution: The actual wording is subject to change, since I’m still very much in the process of thinking about how I’m thinking about this stuff. Here it is:

“Hey Scotty. I’m afraid I was working on an answer when my computer’s harddrive died and I lost it all. So I figure I’ll try to give a little response here, though some of it is more questions in response to your questions, which I know isn’t cool, but I’m not sure I’ve figured out some of that yet.

1. Postmodernism doesn’t deny any of the things that you’ve said are necessary for Christianity. Especially not Christian postmodernists. But postmodernism will deny that such propositions hold any meaning outside of Christianity or for those who reject such an idea. Those ideas are, like you said, vital to Christians. But saying that they are necessary, that they are true, does not make it so for everyone. Your claims are only going to have validity from within your Christian paradigm… does that mean Christianity is invalid? Not at all. It simply means it is one view among many. I believe what I believe is right. Who doesn’t believe that? Who is actually right? Who are we to say?
2. I would agree, teaching those things are wrong and against what I believe, but I am (as you are) saying that because of the context I am centered within and I can hope and have faith (and am hoping and believing) in God that it is the view God takes of such things. I cannot speak for God. I can only speak from what I have clamed as truth and hope it is also what God thinks of such matters. I will believe and live out (God keep me to this) to my dying day my belief that adultry is wrong because of the views I accept as correct interpretation of the Scripture. In teaching such things, this other person, or anyone else who does the same, falls outside of the common “Christian” paradigm, and very obviously so. They are no longer ‘one of us’. This teaching may be truth to him, while very anti-truth to us. But that is simply a separation becase of what truth we are subscribing to. What then is truth? Interesting question sir…
3. Again, I will agree with you that homosexuality is a sin (though I’ve heard many conflicting interpretations on this issue). My stance in this then, again, is that I have faith, hoping that is is also how God “interprets” the Scriptures (though that is a confusing way to term it). I am coming to the opinion that truth is no more than what we say it is. It only holds true for those who accepts its validity. Does that leave us with a weaker view of truth? What was truth to begin with? Is there some “view from nowhere” as modernity claims? I question how we can even know what is absolutely true. Since when is what we say is true, the standard of truth? Where do get authority in saying that our view of truth is also God’s? How do we know that? This is a really tough part to get the mind around. I think I know how you’ll respond to these ideas, but I’ll wait for you to ask those questions.

I will also say this however: You can argue all you want about what doctrines we hold and how we go about defining and defending them are and are not right. I honestly don’t really care a whole lot. I think even if you argue one way, it simply proves the state we are in with postmodernity. Even modernity exists within postmodernity. So argue away for absolute truth. I will say there can’t be. I will also argue that Christianity still has a huge place in all of this, and is in fact a lot better off in a postmodern context.

Living out what we believe is what actually matters in any of this. You can debate doctrines until you’re blue in the face with anyone and not get anywhere. Defending doctrines is worthless to me. It doesn’t seem to do anything more than set up a “me vs. you” situation. Doctines, however, are not worthless (although ultimately only binding to those who accept them), though, even in postmodernity. Even so, living is the task at hand. You’ve done well in this, my friend.

Thanks for asking the tough questions. Hopefully that gives you some view of what I believe. God is good! I love you, Scotty boy

-Lukas”

There are still some unresolved issues even in the statements I made, but those are still coming. We can make it a game. See if you can find the questions still waiting to be asked in this e-mail.

Love!

So my thoughts have been requested on the chapel message given Monday by our President Dr Brown on the topic of Postmodernism and the Emergent Church. First, I hafta direct your thoughts to my dear friend and DC leader, Derek Hostetter who’s comments I really respect and agree with.

And now here goes.

I was fairly disappointed by the chapel message, but not unexpectedly so. I actually wanted to skip chapel Monday since I was not feeling very well, but on hearing that the topic was what it was, I decided I needed to be there. Before I really get into why, however, I have to say that I still respect Dr. Brown a great deal and am proud that he and this administration are graciously taking so much flack for what they are choosing to do. I wouldn’t want his job in any way right now as he tries to bridge old and new at this very difficult and controversial time. I’ve tried to encourage him the best I can and would ask anyone reading this to do the same rather than criticize him. Too many people are already doing that and it has to be really rough on him and his family as his name and that of the University get dragged through the mud by everyone and their second cousin…

So with that said, I understand why Dr. Brown laid down the lines where he did, what with the time constraints he had and peace he is trying to keep. Where I was fairly disappointed in was the fact that what he did say about the topics at hand was a pretty unfair and and not a valuable or accurate representation of what Postmodernism presents. The arguments he presented to the student body (and an external audience as well) about the Emergent Church were also pretty pointed and negatively focused rather than allowing it validity in its views and criticisms. And I am frustrated due to the fact that now a large number of my fellow students are going to begin or continue to think that Postmodernism and the Emergent church = BAD. What do I do with that when I agree with both to a large degree? Is my side of the story never to be allowed some semblance of validity?

What’s more is that now the whole “Truth and Certainty” argument comes back up and the student body begins to fight within itself again, which I hate!! This is evidenced, oddly enough, by “The Rock,” the one item allowed on campus for graffiti and a frequent location for controversial statements. The day of the chapel, someone wrote something about Postmodernists being the “wolves among sheep” and “postmodernism promotes doubt and thus sin” and other students began to react very strongly for or against that kind of thing, partly because it is so public, and this serves only to divide brothers and sisters. Its heartbreaking to see that happen here, as a representation of what has happened in the Christian world at large. And so everything again begins to go horribly awry and peace, humility, and love are thrown out the window once again and once again, I’m stuck on a campus where everything becomes horribly shallow and not focused on Jesus and the unity he bought for us. Sometimes I hate it here so much…

And even with all this talk, Cedarville is nowhere near what its opponents try to say it is. It is very much still a Protestant, Evangelical, Conservative university, which is okay, in my opinion, as much as I may not be inside of that mindset. Its probably what is needed at this University right now and I’m not saying its a wrong view, its just not the view I’ve chosen to become a part of. What people need to get over is saying that because you or I disagree with something, we are saying it is sin. Disagreement is not, or I suppose should not be condemnation. And support, or at least evaluation, of something controversial is not, or should not be viewed as sinful! People are far too opposed to change and to evaluation of what they believe in circles like this one, and I wonder, what happens when you hold so tightly onto things that are wrong? Francis Chan says we should never assume that we are the good soil mentioned in Matt 13. We should be always evaluating what we believe, always asking the Spirit to fill us and lead us into living the way God defines godliness, however that may be.

So here I am, wanting so badly to be heard as a valid point of view. Sometimes I get the chance, in smaller circles. Other times, I get the full force of anger, fear and judgement. Sometimes I wish things were a lot simpler than they seem to become. Perhaps I really shouldn’t care. I suppose the one thought I want to come down to is this: Despite all the controversy at this University and in the world around me, how much I may disagree with people or how much other people may disagree with me, I want to come down to what Paul says in what is still fast becoming a favorite book of mine:

And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

I am praying that my only goal in any of this is to show Jesus Christ more powerfully in my life, myself more humble, the Spirit more filling, and God more glorified. May God forbid that I ever see myself or try to become any more than I am: A wretched sinner, saved by Jesus, who died to set this broken, prideful, and marred soul free from sin, for the purpose of living for His purpose and glory because of His life in me. For if I am truly dead to self, and purchased as a slave of Christ, I should do nothing else.

God help me….

Some interesting things coming out of Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog. I’ve really enjoyed his thread “Reforming” which is a string of points on the book Reformed Always Reforming (see book list on right). This is a quote from McNight’s blog:

“knowledge may be relative even if truth is not” (127). “This is not relativism but recognition of the relativity of perspective inherent in all human thinking.” “Truth may be objective, but knowledge never is.” [...]

[...] Rodney Clapp, too: “evangelicals need to acknowledge that all their truth claims are contestable and that their confidence lies in the power of the Spirit and in faith rather than in some neutral and objective rationality divorced from the Christian perspective” (133).

The alternative?

1. Proper confidence instead of foundationalism.
2. Perspectival nature of all human knowledge.
3. Critical realism.

True truth is out there; but our knowledge and claims are value-shaped.

[From Jesus Creed]

I think this idea is what I’m getting at, especially in the realm of truth and whether or not we can be confident in what we believe, especially in the quote from Rodney Clapp. Hopefully that opens up some thoughts towards why postmodernism is not an abdication of certainty of conviction. There’s certainly a lot more there, but I’m going to save my thoughts for later. I’m really hoping to read Reformed soon, it sounds like a pretty solid book.