Can't we all just get along?
Why "playing nice" by postmodernist standards is a losing proposition
The favorite buzzwords of the postmodern spirit all sound so warm and friendly, don't they? Conversation, dialogue, openness, generosity, tolerance. Who wouldn't want to participate in discourse with someone who truly prized human values such as those?
On the other hand, the very same Zeitgeist has demonized a host of other essential biblical values, such as authority, conviction, clarity, and even truth. In the milieu of the emerging discussion, this second category of words has been made to sound harsh, unreasonable, arrogant, and extreme—if not downright evil.
Moreover, postmodern human values are increasingly being defined in a way that expressly precludes eternal biblical values. For example, the prevailing opinion nowadays is that you cannot be "open" and certain at the same time. A person who speaks with too much conviction is ipso facto deemed an "intolerant" person. Above all, anyone who recognizes the full authority of Scripture and insists that God's Word deserves our unconditional submission will inevitably be accused of deliberately trying to stymie the whole "conversation."
This is not to suggest that disagreement per se is prohibited in the postmodern dialectic. Quite the contrary, "deconstruction" is all about disputes over words. Postmoderns thrive on dissent, debate, and contradiction.
And (giving credit where credit is due) it should be noted that postmodernists can sometimes be amazingly congenial in their verbal sparring with one another.
One thing the participants in the postmodern "conversation" simply will not tolerate, however, is someone who disagrees and thinks the point is really serious. Virtually no heresy is ever to be regarded as damnable. The notion that erroneous doctrine can actually be dangerous is deemed uncouth and naive. Every bizarre notion gets equal respect. Truth itself is only a matter of personal perspective, you see. Everything is ultimately negotiable.
Now, if you want to join the postmodern "conversation," you are expected to acknowledge all this up front—at least tacitly. That's the price of admission to the discussion. Once you're in, you can throw any bizarre idea you want on the table, no matter how outlandish. You can use virtually any tone or language to make your point, no matter how outrageous. But you must bear in mind that all disputation at this table is purely for sport. At the end of the day, you mustn't really be concerned about the truth or falsehood of any mere propositions.
Some "conversation." The ground rules guarantee that truth itself will be a casualty in every controversy, because regardless of the substance or the outcome of the dialogue, participants have in effect agreed up front that the propositions under debate don't really matter.
Entering the "conversation" at all is tantamount to breaking the seal on a software package. The moment you do it, you have putatively given your consent to the postmodernist's ground rules. If you then violate those rules—meaning if you take any doctrine too seriously or insist that Scripture is really authoritative—you will be savaged as someone who is cruel, intolerant, unenlightened, and hopelessly arrogant.
That's why it is well-nigh impossible to have an authentic, meaningful conversation with a devoted postmodernist and ever see anything genuinely resolved. The postmodernist by definition has no real hope or expectation of arriving at the truth of any matter. That's not the goal of the postmodernist exercise. It's not even a desirable objective. The only real point is to eliminate certitude altogether. This is done not by settling disputes, but by silencing or assimilating everyone who resists the unrestrained free flow of the postmodernist idea-exchange.
Truth is under attack on countless fronts today. What's popular these days—even among professing Christians—is glorying in ambiguity and uncertainty. Precious few are still committed without reservation to the truth and authority of Scripture. The very last thing I would willingly do in times like these would be to pledge a moratorium on candor or agree to a ceasefire with people who delight in testing the limits of orthodoxy. See Nehemiah 6:2-4.
The favorite buzzwords of the postmodern spirit all sound so warm and friendly, don't they? Conversation, dialogue, openness, generosity, tolerance. Who wouldn't want to participate in discourse with someone who truly prized human values such as those?
On the other hand, the very same Zeitgeist has demonized a host of other essential biblical values, such as authority, conviction, clarity, and even truth. In the milieu of the emerging discussion, this second category of words has been made to sound harsh, unreasonable, arrogant, and extreme—if not downright evil.
Moreover, postmodern human values are increasingly being defined in a way that expressly precludes eternal biblical values. For example, the prevailing opinion nowadays is that you cannot be "open" and certain at the same time. A person who speaks with too much conviction is ipso facto deemed an "intolerant" person. Above all, anyone who recognizes the full authority of Scripture and insists that God's Word deserves our unconditional submission will inevitably be accused of deliberately trying to stymie the whole "conversation."
This is not to suggest that disagreement per se is prohibited in the postmodern dialectic. Quite the contrary, "deconstruction" is all about disputes over words. Postmoderns thrive on dissent, debate, and contradiction.
And (giving credit where credit is due) it should be noted that postmodernists can sometimes be amazingly congenial in their verbal sparring with one another.
One thing the participants in the postmodern "conversation" simply will not tolerate, however, is someone who disagrees and thinks the point is really serious. Virtually no heresy is ever to be regarded as damnable. The notion that erroneous doctrine can actually be dangerous is deemed uncouth and naive. Every bizarre notion gets equal respect. Truth itself is only a matter of personal perspective, you see. Everything is ultimately negotiable.
Now, if you want to join the postmodern "conversation," you are expected to acknowledge all this up front—at least tacitly. That's the price of admission to the discussion. Once you're in, you can throw any bizarre idea you want on the table, no matter how outlandish. You can use virtually any tone or language to make your point, no matter how outrageous. But you must bear in mind that all disputation at this table is purely for sport. At the end of the day, you mustn't really be concerned about the truth or falsehood of any mere propositions.
Some "conversation." The ground rules guarantee that truth itself will be a casualty in every controversy, because regardless of the substance or the outcome of the dialogue, participants have in effect agreed up front that the propositions under debate don't really matter.
Entering the "conversation" at all is tantamount to breaking the seal on a software package. The moment you do it, you have putatively given your consent to the postmodernist's ground rules. If you then violate those rules—meaning if you take any doctrine too seriously or insist that Scripture is really authoritative—you will be savaged as someone who is cruel, intolerant, unenlightened, and hopelessly arrogant.
That's why it is well-nigh impossible to have an authentic, meaningful conversation with a devoted postmodernist and ever see anything genuinely resolved. The postmodernist by definition has no real hope or expectation of arriving at the truth of any matter. That's not the goal of the postmodernist exercise. It's not even a desirable objective. The only real point is to eliminate certitude altogether. This is done not by settling disputes, but by silencing or assimilating everyone who resists the unrestrained free flow of the postmodernist idea-exchange.
Truth is under attack on countless fronts today. What's popular these days—even among professing Christians—is glorying in ambiguity and uncertainty. Precious few are still committed without reservation to the truth and authority of Scripture. The very last thing I would willingly do in times like these would be to pledge a moratorium on candor or agree to a ceasefire with people who delight in testing the limits of orthodoxy. See Nehemiah 6:2-4.
posted by Phil Johnson on Saturday, November 26, 2005
109 Comments:
You forgot to add..."and doing this while sober is always optional..." ;-)
Hope you enjoyed your pizza!
Big Chris
Because I said so
You've just summed up in one entry, the majority of my experience in the last year of dealing with the EC non-movement-conversation.
Thanks for this, I appreciate it.
SDG ~ Carla
"For the last time, we ECers DO believe in truth and certainty!"
Maybe if they say it enough the majority will buy it.
Oh well, you just set them back by at least 30 blog posts =(
Oohh, most excellent Phillip. Seems to me that over on the secular/political side you can make the same argument. The only thing "tolerant liberalism" hates is the intolerance of those who insist there is absolutely truth and it actually matters. Then the "tolerant" lose their tolerance and become implacably intolerant towards them who don't agree.
The national library society, or whatever they're called, used to have an annual day where they decried books that were banned. Well now - a - days the only banned books are to be found on the right side of the spectrum, particularly those based upon a Biblical worldview. So, when's the last time the national library society decried banned books? You'd have to go back a few years. They'll never defend the officially "intolerant." Books by the "intolerant" they'll gladly ban.
Virtually no heresy is ever to be regarded as damnable.
I would go so far as to say that in a postmodern way of thinking there is no such thing as a heresy, and if you think there is, and you point it out, then you're, well, a heretic.
This is a pretty dumbed down version of post-modernity. Let me sum up Calvin in 200 words or less.
He was a tyranical despot who ruled Geneva with an iron fist. He was hypocritical and paranoid. He hated women and helped support racist doctrine. Anyone who didn't attend church would be severely punished. Anyone who would not become part of the elect was exiled or put to death. Based on this evidence those who love 'Absolute' Truth don't seem very Christ-Like.
Those things I have said are true and can be verified with footnotes if needed. But the article isn't balanced. Yes there was lots bad about Calvin, but there was lots of good in Calvin too.
When you say Post-Modernity is evil. I think you're right. But it can be good too. Just like modernity. It's a human system of thought. It's not from God. But because it exists we need to pay attention to it. To understand it's good and bad so it may be used for God's glory. The goal of the EC'ers I've seen isn't to make the Church Post-Modern. It's to be missionaries to a post modern world.
Your article communicates to me that you don't understand or care about post-modernity except in how it affects your modern faith. Great. The body needs followers of Christ to be missionaries to the modern thinkers and those with a modern world-view too.
Rob
Phil
I think Lycaphim might be right and this post brings us all back 30 steps, especially those in the emerging church that can hold
"Conversation, dialogue, openness, generosity, tolerance"
AND
"authority, conviction, clarity" and truth
at the same time.
To make a dividing line between the two, forcing a choice of either/or, is not the way forward.
Rob said: "The goal of the EC'ers I've seen isn't to make the Church Post-Modern. It's to be missionaries to a post modern world."
Rob, you can be the most well-meaning missionary in the world, but if you're not going to fulfill the part of the Great Commandment where Jesus said "teaching them to observe ALL things I have COMMANDED you," then you're destined for failure. ECers routinely undermine the clarity and conviction expressed in God's truth. Those who are lost are in error, and need the truth. If you don't hold up the truth clearly to them, they aren't going to come to a clear understanding of their own error with a realization they need to depart from it. It is the truth alone that has the power to set people free.
Dang Phil, another great post. Have any left over pizza? THat sure made my mouth water. All i had was deep fried turkey and I thought... Mmmm... Deep fried turkey on a chicago style deep dish pizza...
Discussing things with these people can be, to use a phrase borrowed from Marvin Lubenow, like trying to nail jelly to the wall. But it's gotta be done. Almost the whole of the next generation has been raised with a postmodernist intellectual background (such as it is). If we can't or won't consistently and kindly engage them, we will lose them.
In order for Rob's analogy with Calvin to accomplish what he would like it to do he must adopt a view of history that completely rules out that which he would like to accomplish.
It is interesting how many post-modern writers/apologists/thinkers, believe that the great truths of the Word of God are no longer sufficient for today, as if people are incapable of grasping them, or worse yet, BEYOND them! Or that God's Word cannot speak to all people's because cultural context is not observed... I guess the church fo rthe past two thousand years has just been fortunate that the gospel spread, huh?
The great deception espoused by the post-modern crowd is that they are somehow unique in history, that they have stumbled upon the exact right questions and are now setting about to grapple with them, and are the first to do so.
The thing I have found is that many of them have a poor grasp of history, and an even poorer grasp of the Word of God in its entirety.
Th reality is that they are not post-modern in their thought, but more PRE-modern, bowing to superstition and any mystical thinking that comes along.
Go read the history of the church; the same thing was going on during the time of the Roman reign before the Reformation! People were driven by superstition, and the leaders took full advantage of that, enabling the people to be bent to their will by simply invoking some new 'revelation'.
It was the people of the Reformation (nasty ole Calvin, etc.) who stood up and said, "Enough! There is an absolute truth, and here it is (the Word of God)"
Absolute truth has again gone out of vogue, and the PM folks act as if they are somehow enlightened and have discovered something that has never been experienced before; but they are sadly mistaken, it is old heresy reborn in many cases.
Now, with that being said; the PM crowd HAS asked many pertinent questions regarding the 'modern' method of 'doing church', and I tend to agree with some of the conclusions, it is the solution to the problem where I feel they have left the path and are wandering about in the weeds.
The answer is not to embrace every crazy notion and ritual, and become pluralistic, rather it is to raise the banner of Christ high in this time of uncertainty and shifting sands and give people something SOLID to cling to.
Conversations won't get it; the preaching of the Word of God will! And until people hear the undiluted proclamation of the Gospel, they will continue to founder and grasp at straws.
The PM leaders will continue to use Tibetan Yogic practices, glommed onto psuedo-Christian elements, that have been sutured together with TM and listening to the Beatle's White Album backwards, and they will continue to promote that this is somehow worship of the ONE TRUE God...
There is truly nothing new under the sun... This is the Jesus Freak movement coming home to roost in its self-absorbed home...
Sorry for the length of the post Phil!
Phil,
Great post. John Piper writes about the horrors of Biblical subjectivity in chapter 2 of "Don't Waste Your Life," specifically of note are pages 23-25.
Piper writes,
[quote]
. . . since we can't know objective reality outside ourselves, there can be no objective meaning in what we write either. So interpretation does not mean trying to find any objective thing that an author put in a text, but simply means that we express the ideas that enter our head as we read. Which doesn't really matter because when others read what we have written they won't have any access to our intention either. It’s all a game. Only it is sinister, because all these scholars (and small group members) insist that their own love letters and contracts be measured by one rule: what they intended to say. Any mumbo-jumbo about creatively hearing "yes" when I wrote "no" will not go down at the bank or the marriage counselor.
[end quote]
I encountered such teaching (as I'm sure everybody does nowadays) at college. I remember in Freshman Literature, our teacher was talking about how there were many different ways to interpret Shakespeare, and that all of them were right. "Well sure," I thought, "nobody gets hurt or loses money if they misinterpret Shakespeare." But in my math and engineering classes, you had to put The Right Answer on the test or you got points counted off. I think it's telling that postmodern deconstruction has not made much progress in the hard sciences. I know there are some places that are trying it (where it's ok to think 2+2=5), but they are the exception. The problem is that people know there are absolutes, but they just don't want to (openly) acknowledge them. If I'm designing a bridge and I think 2+2=5, people might get killed.
astute observations, Phil - stay the course!
i've brought this up in posts elsewhere and people have thought i was a bit out there..but here goes. Businesses, education, evangelical Christianity, etc. are learning to engage in dialoguing to consensus, putting down resisters, scoffing at absolutism, labeling those who are dogmatic as pharisees and other methods that are very similar to hegelian dialectics. It is a proven method utilized by Rick Warren (for example), many corporations, and our educational system to break down a traditional system that is hierarchal in nature. The Emergent types just fit right in. We totally have to be prepared to stand up for truth. Don't give in to pressure to just get along at the sake of precious biblical truth. Just to give you an example of how this process gets worked out in the workplace. My husband attended a one day workshop on "conflict resolution". They all brainstormed (dialogued) on how to be good team members and get along. One point was made very very clear. One does not bring up religion in any shape or form. So...one cannot tell another employee that they are a Christian or share their testimony. Now we all have experienced this at our jobs, but I am just using an example of "conflict resolution" being the silencing of controversial subjects, religion being the most controversial. You will see another example during the holidays as employees of stores, post offices, etc. are not allowed to say Merry Christmas..but must say Happy Holidays instead.
In case you don't know what hegelian dialectic is: the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite; also : the critical investigation of this process b (1) usually plural but singular or plural in construction : development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism (2) : the investigation of this process (3) : the theoretical application of this process especially in the social sciences
Hey. I dont know you, or what "EC" is; I got this website from my friend, he quotes it a lot. And I just had a major problem with this last blog post. You talk about post-moderns as a group of people, usually leftist atheists, but postmodernism isn't a group of people. It's a time period. Something natural that's been occurring since the beginning of time, along with romanticism, naturalism, and modernism. Everyone in that time period has qualities of these eras. So not only do left-wing atheists have post-modern qualities but so do the most conservative christians in the world. This means that they enjoy in arguing without actually attaining a purpose just as much as the opposing side. So when you say that only the "other side" enjoys ripping apart arguments you are completely false. There is no way to argue and get a point across to the other person in postmodern society, I agree with you, but christians acknowledge this too. When you use words like certain and open canNOT be compatable to each other. It is impossible to be absolutely certain about your point and to also be open to others' ideas and beliefs. To be open to something is to seriously take it into consideration, to think about it, to question it with you heart. When you're certain about your own belief it's not possible to open to others'. That's all I really wanted to say.
Rob said: "The goal of the EC'ers I've seen isn't to make the Church Post-Modern. It's to be missionaries to a post modern world."
Let's pretend I grant you this point for the sake of argument. But how do we become missionaries to the post modern world? I don't know where you've been, but from the big guys at the top to the little guys at the bottom the message is that to do this we have to re-tool Christianity to be palatable to the post-modern palatte. Which, in doing so, ends up making... the... church... post modern!
But really, this is kind of silly. If I dress up like a bear and go ramblinb through the forest so that real bears will be more accepting of me, I've got to have a pretty thick skull if I complain when the group of campers I stumble upon gets scared and runs away. (This illustration leaves aside the question of whether "dressing up like a bear," or seeking to couch Christianity in the prevailing mind-set of the say, is a biblical idea in the first place.)
"Your article communicates to me that you don't understand or care about post-modernity except in how it affects your modern faith."
Sorry, just stating something doesn't make it true. In order to make such a statement, you actually have to spend some time demonstrating why Phil's "faith" is "modern" instead of, say, "biblical."
The EC converstation reminds me of the little bit of Rabbinical commentary I read in seminary - a lot of opinion, a lot of unresolved chords, even contradiction between commentators. They left this tension alone. But they had an excuse. They would often end a "post" commenting on a passage with "when Messiah comes, he will make it clear."
The last word in the OT is "curse." Would God's people escape that curse? Now we know how - Christ came to deliver us from the curse. Now that the Word has come, we have the truth of God to proclaim from the rooftops (see Rom. 16:25-27; 1Pet. 1:10-12; Heb 11:39-40). Why would we want to go back to the shadows of uncertainty regarding God's plan of redemption?
Terry Stauffer
Tolerance is speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) but not the syrupy love most have (Porverbs 27:5-6)- Open reuke is better than secret love! Try out my blog
http://spm1313.blogspot.com
or
http://bibleexpository.blogspot.com
Good observations all. I have experienced the same thing. It can be very frustrating.
Also, you have forgotten an important part of any such conversation: you must first apologize for your mere existence and for not affirming the value and worth of the PoMos. Very important to do that.
While postmodernism may be a time period, it is also a philosophy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
Keep the posts coming Phil.
kaelien1 said: "It is impossible to be absolutely certain about your point and to also be open to others' ideas and beliefs."
Are you sure you want to hold to such logic?
Let's consider what Jesus said in John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
He was absolutely certain about that, wasn't He? Are you saying He should've instead proclaimed openness to other ideas and beliefs?
And if Jesus was absolutely certain about the point he made in John 14:6, shouldn't we as Christians be, too?
That's just one example of numerous absolutely certain statements in Scripture which nullifies any need to be "open to other ideas and beliefs."
There's great danger in saying we cannot allow ourselves to be absolutely certain, and that it's always necessary for us to be open to other ideas and beliefs. Certainly, we can LISTEN to those other ideas and beliefs, and TALK about them...but that doesn't require that we also be OPEN to them.
There are some matters in which we had better be absolutely certain, because the outcome makes all the difference in the world. As Jigawatt observed, that's true in math and the sciences. According to the Bible, that's true in religion. It's the difference between eternity with God, or eternity without Him. It'd be the epitome of cruelty for me to be "open to the ideas and beliefs" of a Buddhist friend while he's on his deathbed.
Many in today's society--including those in the EC nonmovement--think that professing absolute certainty equals intolerance. Not so. By that definition, Jesus' statement in John 14:6 would be abhorrently intolerant.
Fact is, Jesus was being infinitely loving, for He wanted people to know the one true way to heaven. You can't be more loving--and truthful!--than that.
I'm not saying the ECers are denying that Jesus is the way. Not at all. The problem with the ECers is that the Bible is absolutely certain about specific truths which the ECers don't want to be absolutely certain about. That, to put it mildly, creates a dilemma.
Some words we shouldn't surrender to the pomos.
I.E.:
I really value the word conversation. It requires both listening, communicating, understanding, patience and responsibility. It takes time to effectively communicate (the blogosphere is evidence of this) and I don't want to give up that word to the pomo-EC verbage war quite yet.
Dialogue is also a great word. In fact, it has its etymology from the Greek word, dialegomai, which is the same word the Apostle Paul used in Acts 17:2 and Acts 18:19 for "reasoned." The word literally means to dialogue, have intelligent discourse, engage in debate, or to present intelligent argument. Though it has been watered down in our day, we shouldn't let the pomos reinvent a key word of such rich meta-narrative. (This is also a derivative from the Greek word dialektos for language.) (I am currently in "dialogue" with one of the key leaders of EC; and it has been very profitable, biblical, and beneficial for both of us so far. No its not McLaren).
Genorosity is also a word that we should never surrender to the pomos. It is a wonderful attribute of a true believer in the Lord, and one that I try to daily teach my children. Being generous is a lost "art" in the church today... Giving sacrificially, unreciprocally, without asking for anything in return is one way that we genuinely demonstrate love for our neighbors; for each other in the church, and in fact, it is essential to loving our enemies (Matt. 5:44). Just because some pomos want to deconstruct its meaning to represent the acceptance of any so called truth system shouldn't thwart us in our quest to preserve the wealth of meaning of some of these terms.
Just like the word authority - though it has been abused and misused by many pastors and elders in church leadership by lording over their flocks - that shouldn't diminish our usage of that great word when it comes to the absolute rule and standard of Scripture for all matters of life and godliness.
Thank you for this post.
BTW: I'm with you on the pizza thing being a Chicago boy myself. And what a year for Chicago sports: though the Cubs tanked once again, wasn't it great to see the White Sox bring "the sauce" back to The Windy City?
Grace and peace to you Phil,
Campi
Col. 1:9-14
Phil,
Perhaps you should just adopt this strategy...
:-}
Campi: Thanks for posting that. Tosssing aside true civility and Christian charity is certainly not an appropriate response to the postmodern Juggernaut, either. And of course, that's not what any of this is about.
Here's the point I am making about "human values": Too many Christians have worldly ideas even about such fundamental things as what constitutes true goodness. Ultimately Scripture, not contemporary opinion, ought to shape our definition of charity, benevolence, generosity, and other civil virtues.
In other words, the problem is not that our culture has elevated love too high on the hierarchy of moral excellence. That would be impossible. The real problem is that culture has corrupted the concept of love. Terminology itself has been so badly deconstructed that the popular conception of "love" now includes even fornication (which is actually a Satanic attack on authentic love, which does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth).
It is not an attack on love to point this out. (Though the mind committed to the corrupted notion of love will always squeal in protest about it and claim it is hateful to insist on a biblical definition of love.) It is not "uncharitable" to say that homosexual desire is sin. It is not inherently mean-spirited to say that someone who questions the authority of Scripture has no right to teach Christ's church. It is not inhumane and pitiless to acknowledge that God's wrath is real. Etc., etc.
The virtues of authentic love, joy, peace, etc. must be recovered from the morass of postmodern confusion, not tossed aside in haste, just because those ideas have been so badly twisted out of shape—having been both humanized and then de-humanized—in contemporary thought.
I know that's exactly what you would say, too. I almost stayed up an extra half-hour last night and added this point to my post itself, but it was already well past midnight. So I appreciate your raising the point. This saves me having to do a follow-up post.
is there any virtue in being so open-minded that your brains fall out?
perhaps there is for pomos - personally, i prefer to retain all my cranial matter.
John 8:31-32: “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”
I find it interesting that so many Christians -whether they claim to hold to post-modernism or not- simply believe that absolute truth in some areas cannot be known. Often times the above verse is interpreted to mean that Jesus was only referring to absolute truth in regards to His Deity. But I disagree. This verse is clearly referring to the teachings of Jesus, which in turn can be interpreted as the teachings of the entire Bible, and obviously points to ‘abiding in My word’ as a prerequisite to understanding truth. Praise God that truth can be known! Even truth in the toughest of areas (eschatology, soteriology, spiritual gifts).
Rob said:“Those things I have said are true and can be verified with footnotes if needed.
Looks like someone is using What Love is This? for their source of information on Calvin! Please, let us not depend on Dave Hunt and his sources for any kind of information, especially in regards to Calvinism.
SDG
The last word in the OT is "curse."
That is not true.
The last word in the Old Testament is ya'al, which means 'to go up' (2 Chronicles 36.23).
The last word in Malachi is cherem which means 'devoted thing' or 'destroyed thing.'
The Hebrew word for curse is qelala and is not found anywhere in 2 Chronicles and only found twice in Malachi (2.2 & 3.9).
Carla,
You've summed up in one comment how I feel about this post.
Marc
Over at Free St. George's we are beginning to consider Henry Drummond ('The Greatest Thing in the World' etc.) and his 'New Evangelism' of the late 19th Century. I think some of you might be interested. It is my two-and-six worth of the 'conversation', the historical perspective.
The problem with post-moderns is that they make absolute assertions about the absolute uncertainty of moral standards, all the while believing themselves to be "open". It's high time they start living what they believe IN EVERY ARENA OF LIFE! IOW, in a post-modern world the following should be standard fare:
(1) No privilege or freedom to propogate one's moral views in the public square. After all, without objective moral certainty one wouldn't want to take responsibility for influencing others who follow such fluid ideals to their own harm.
(2) No borrowing from an "absolutes" system in life or death (ie, moral) matters. For instance, don't expect the pilot flying your transport to strictly adhere to absolute standards while you're on board; Don't demand that your bank meticulously follow contract terminology when dealing with your account; Don't require your spouse to take your words "as certainly as you mean them"; Don't exhort your children strongly on any moral issue since then you would have to speak in propositional assertions (Heaven forbid!...er...uh...if Heaven even exists); And never, under any circumstances, teach anything to anyone that might impress them to adopt your view...since postmodernists can claim no meaningful views.
This would be a truly consistent post-modern way of life!
Highland Host, I am so glad you're doing that. I hope people here who want to see this whole conflict in a larger historical context will read what you write and learn what happened the last time this particular merry-go-round mad a revolution.
Rob without any consideration to truth and fact wrote the following concerning Calvin and Geneva:
"He was a tyranical despot who ruled Geneva with an iron fist."
That is a statement contrary to fact -- in other words, a lie. John Calvin never ruled Geneva in any manner whatsoever at any point. In fact, he wasn't even a citizen of Geneva and couldn't vote or even carry arms; he was also banned from the city-state.
rob curiously continued, "He hated women and helped support racist doctrine."
More nonsense.
rob went on, "Anyone who would not become part of the elect was exiled or put to death."
Damned lies and complete sophomoric incompetence.
rob laughably added, "Those things I have said are true and can be verified with footnotes if needed."
The things rob "said" are lies and the comments of an incompetent hack. rob simply expressed his ignorance of history and John Calvin, nothing more. It is one thing to disagree or to lay emphasis upon certain facts as determinative to an issue, but to offer such blatant lies is not only intellectually horrid but also ethically shameful.
Ravi Zacharias once wrote, "Never before has skepticism had such a brilliant halo around its head. There is a glory about 'not knowing.' A high premium is placed on the absence of conviction, and open-mindedness has become synonymous with intellectual sophistication." He then went on to quote G.K. Cherston who said, "that an open mind, like an open mouth, does have a purpose: to close upon something solid." Two relevant comments to the Emergent movement. Great Blog Phil!
Perhaps genuinely edifying conversation with "emerging" brethren is rendered further unlikely by the radicalization represented in this post? I'm not sure what qualifies you to make these sorts of generalizations, but it seems to me that this sort of rhetoric is the same kind of thing that you opine about in the caricaturizations of your own positions.
The idea that postmodern theories of truth and or knowledge is fundamentally a failure of nerve is typically unhelpful critique. What might be useful is an evaluation of the theoretical forces driving the postmodern turn: the move from correspondance to coherence or deflationary theories of truth, the rejection of knowledge as a "justified true belief" (this move has taken place in other circles as well, as in Reformed epistemologies). In any case, for everyone outside the choir loft, this post has exactly the same value as the "you're mean" critique has for you.
Incidentally several seminars at both ETS and SBL have proven you wrong, or at least ignorant, about the genuine engagement that is happening in evangelical scholarship with regard to the "postmodern turn" many have taken. A good example might be the six views book edited by Myron Penner. You should read it and do a book review for a more productive post on the topic. It looks to be a satisfying meal for those who like to chew before they swallow.
Vermigli,
Thank you for this post. My comments re Calvin were absolutely true from a certain point of view.
Many believe he was responsible for the burning of Servetus, helped to create a system that allowed for slavery and engaged in the supression of women. But my comments were also unfair, ONE-sided and rather uninformed. Much like this post and many others I've seen on post-modernity. There's no one-word (or 250 word) answer to sum it up. This post is very ONE-sided. Where is the positive commentary on the post-modern experience? There's lots of good in this worldview.
For example, it's much more spiritual then the modern era. More and more people I see are open to Jesus (unfortunately not open to Christians though).
Look at post-modernity from more then one-side and I think you'll begin to understand the EC a lot more.
Rob
Is it so bad to question your faith?
This, purely, is your word against postmodernism. And you are showing a great intolerance toward postmodernist thinking.
At least they allow room for your opinion.
UPDATE: Having read much more of Michael's writings, I find that I do disagree with much of his theology. It is such error that drove us to start blogging, and if Michael thinks he will get a "pass" then he is sorely mistaken.
Raja,
Thanks, but see my comment above about the definitions of charity, benevolence, etc. I think I'll also let Scripture, rather than postmodernity, define what is "productive" and edifying.
Speaking of which, did you realize the Bible doesn't actually set forth any formal academic prerequisites for understanding the essentials of the gospel? Or that wisdom and discernment are not, strictly speaking, virtues that can be acquired mainly through the study of philosophy? As a matter of fact, Scripture expressly teaches that spiritual enlightenment is not conferred by titles or academic degrees. And my strong personal suspicion is that the study of epistemology as an academic discipline might in fact be detrimental to the actual pursuit of knowledge.
But we've had this discussion before, haven't we?
So why must your criticisms always be laden with a smarmy tone of condescension about the "qualifications" of whoever you disagree with? Surely by now you realize I'm not going to wave a white flag and go drown my grief in suds at the Boar's Head just because someone fresh back from ETS reports that "several seminars" there have nailed the coffin shut on my worldview. Give me the substance of an actual argument and I'll be happy to discuss it. Otherwise, please feel free to give the snooty remarks a rest.
That whole approach actually contradicts what you are saying and proves my point.
Phil said, "my strong personal suspicion is that the study of epistemology as an academic discipline might in fact be detrimental to the actual pursuit of knowledge." AMEN Phil! Very well said! The only reason that knowledge is a "problem" is because of unbelief. The only benefit of the study of epistemology is to show the unbeliever that on his terms knowledge is impossible.
You state, "Truth is under attack on countless fronts today." I do not believe truth is ever truly threatened. Truth cannot be defeated and need not be defended for it stands quite unshakeably well on its own. Truth is rather like God who simply is. We can like it or ignore it and live with the consequences either way.
The great fear of the modernist mind is that somehow truth needs us. However, the opposite is more the case; we need truth. To hear the modernist clamor for dogma doesn't surprise those of us who let truth speak for itself and judge us wherever we may stand. Such an insistence on systematic categories of so-called truths sometimes annoys us but more often just saddens us.
To know Christ is to know truth. To state some categorical creedal statements in no way strengthens truth. For a truly "post-modern Christian, truth is not some theological construct; truth is embodied in the same One who is our life and lights our way.
That may not be good enough for those who want tight boxes to manage belief about God, but it does quite nicely for those who yield allegiance to the Lord of all creation. Those who frequent your blog are certainly entitled to their opinion that truth must be defended, but I hope they realize that this opinion is based upon some assumptions about God's omnipotence that they do well to examine more closely.
In short, God doesn't commission us to defend truth, but to make followers of the Truth.
Could the post modern spirit be named Neville Chamberlin?
Dean -
You said "truth is not some theological construct; truth is embodied in the same One who is our life and lights our way."
Excuse me, but your assertion is a theological construct.
You said "To hear the modernist clamor for dogma doesn't surprise those of us who let truth speak for itself and judge us wherever we may stand."
Let truth "speak for itself" from where? Inside you? From your intuition? When truth does speaks to you are you saying it isn't "dogma"? With no source but yourself for the origin of truth, I guess that makes you the embodiment of it.
You said "To know Christ is to know truth...That may not be good enough for those who want tight boxes to manage belief about God, but it does quite nicely for those who yield allegiance to the Lord of all creation."
How do you know He's the "Lord of all creation"? By what means did you determine that "truth"? And how will be certain of your allegiance since there are no "[manageable beliefs] about God" against which it may be measured?
If all you're going to do is make statements for which you alone are the acid test of authenticity, please refrain and try interacting with the words of your "Lord of creation" Himself...
John 17:17
John 16:13-15 (BTW, the men to which Jesus directly spoke these words wrote most of the NT).
I'd like to see the post-modernist get down to the business of exegetically disputing clear passages defining and proposing truth. Saying you "know" Christ and therefore know truth is only legitimate if your words themselves carry their own absolute authority---a highly unlikely notion.
Dean -- I am curious; how do you KNOW what truth is? Is it a feeling, or an assumption, is it what the Scripture means to you specifically?
I am sincerely asking because I hear a lot of folks from the EC/POMO camps denigrating people who adhere to creedal statements. However, I have not got the foggiest idea how you determine truth, and I have had this discussion with several of my friends who are in your camp.
What I get from them is a lot of hand-waving, and broad statements about my beliefs 'having God in a box' etc. Now, when I ask them what that means exactly, I don't get much more than some mumbling about my view of God being incorrect...
The creeds/confessions were put together in order to combat heresy, and to provide a framework from which we could state our faith via affirmitiva. The statements of faith that many disregard are actually Scripture, stated in a manner that leaves no doubt as to the meaning of the statement.
I am curious as to what 'those who frequent this blog' are missing regarding the omnipotence of God. I am not saying that you are incorrect, I am asking that you tighten the statement down a bit, and explain this statement.
jerryw -- You beat me to the punch, I should have just let you say it, you did a better job than I...
:-)
Dean,
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion that truth does not need defence, but that opinion is wrong. Here's one example why:
"Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 3)
But poor Jude, he was just a modernist, clamouring for dogma who wanted tight little boxes around his conceptions about God. Yep, poor Jude.
Raja -
I'm grieved at your comments. Chewing before you swallow is one thing...but putting everything and anything into your mouth is just plain unhealthy!
See 1 Cor. 3:18-23 and 1 Tim. 6:3-5
Ray -
Thanks for tag-teaming my thoughts.
The EC tries to do a better job loving others than they see in churches around them. This is where their “missional” objective comes from. However, they do this operating on a faulty definition of love, so the results are faulty. They confuse real love with acceptance and openness. Somehow, if they were to reject someone's ideas, and not seriously consider those ideas, then they wouldn't (in their mind) be showing authentic love to that person. This results in what Phil says:
“Every bizarre notion gets equal respect...you can throw any bizarre idea you want on the table, no matter how outlandish. You can use virtually any tone or language to make your point, no matter how outrageous.”
They have failed to separate the person from the ideas. They think they must accept the ideas in order to love the person. There is such an EC bias toward erroneous love they will be open and accepting toward anything. The only way they can be enfolding, inclusive, accepting and open to all these disparate ideas is to put them on equal footing. The shortest route is to accept the idea that truth isn't absolute, or if it is, it can't be known with any certainty.
The result is a warm fuzzy group of people with no grounding in truth, and readily chasing after whatever doctrine tickles their ear.
good grief
this sort of nonsense is what gives jesus worship, and jesus, a bad name.
Dean said: "You state, 'Truth is under attack on countless fronts today.' I do not believe truth is ever truly threatened."
Dean, I'm sure many of us would agree with you that truth can stand on its own. But we Christians are the vessels who have been entrusted with the responsibility of communicating the truth. That's a pretty serious stewardship, wouldn't you say?
You seem to disagree with Phil's observation that truth is under attack on many fronts. But the evidence is pretty obvious. There are many people (including ECers!), who, by operating on the premise that we cannot be absolutely certain about the truth, are muddling it, making light of it, and undermining it. To do such, quite frankly, is to attack the truth. That's not to say the truth can't stand on its own. Rather, it's to say it's being mishandled, dishonored, maligned.
rob stated:
"Thank you for this post. My comments re Calvin were absolutely true from a certain point of view."
No, rob, your comments were absolutely false. For example, you wrote, "He was a tyranical despot who ruled Geneva with an iron fist."
You get an "F" on your history exam. John Calvin was not a "tyranical [sic] despot who ruled Geneva," for the simple reason that he never ruled Geneva in any sense, whether in a "tyranical" (it's spelled tyrannical) or benign manner.
Period. End of story. He wasn't even a citizen of Geneva, let alone its "tyrannical despot".
This is not a "point of view," but simply historical fact. You simply don't know what you are talking about and simply have no restraint to bear false witness against better men than yourself. But this is part of the postmodernist mess, to simply state whatever your subjective metanarrative requires in order to construct whatever "power" assertion your "belief community" wishes to put forward for itself.
Ergo, lies and ignorance are retooled and presented as a "certain point of view." None of it has a thing to do with a Biblical epistemology or a Christian worldview. In short, nothing you offered has anything to do with the truth.
Well I don't know about all this stuff.
It seems pretty high minded and inflated if you want my personal opinion.
But don't mistake my lack of "dialogue" with inexperience.
I've been in church my entire life, was converted at 6 baptized at 8 and filled with the Holy Spirit when I was 12.
I've been everything from a Methodist to the full fledged Pentecostal...and one thing I can tell you in over 40 years as a christian is...the American Church isn't exactly making the kind of impact that the "pre-modern" church made.
I cannot phathom the concept that truth is relative to the situation, but I also cannot fathom the concept that we have it all figured out yet, for crying out loud we're not even half what the early church was, and we think we've made such progress.
So before we dump the dialogue, lets at least admit to the fact that we either have a long way to go in impacting the current postmodern culture, or I suppose we could just add another chapter to the Scoffeild Dispensational Model and call it the "Laodecia Dispensation"...since we're all rich with truth and what not.
I really don't think Jesus cares much if you are a Calvinist or not, what He seemed interested in was whether or not you loved.
And if I remember correctly the fruit of the Spirit didn't include "doctrine", but actually Paul exhorts us to "not become boastful, CHALLENGING one another..."
Phil, I'm not trying to be snooty. As usual my problem is with the fact that you speak authoritatively about things you don't seem to know very much about. The point you seem to be missing is that you own (or have inherited) some philosophical presuppositions that you're not very critical about. And in my view that's one of the good things about this whole postmodernity thing - ideally it's forcing people to take a critical look at the ground they're standing on. Who doesn't say, "I'm standing on the Bible alone?" It's not as easy as CLAMING that you do. Justin Taylor's Reclaiming the Center, Milton Terry's work on hermeneutics, and all the other stuff you might claim as the "traditional biblical view" happen to appeal to a great deal of philosophy. The idea that not studying epistemology will somehow cleanse you of philosophical influences is crazy.
As for expecting you to "waive a white flag", I'm not commenting to fight a war, and I'm not interested in surrender. The battle motif isn't really the way I characterize my interaction with believers who disagree. If you would have read more carefully you might have noticed that I said there was GENUINE INTERRACTION, not a coffin nailing ceremony.
I have a problem with much of the postmodern trajectory myself; but in posts like these you continue to insist on fulfilling the caricature postmodernity sets itself against, and end up proving the point THEY are trying to make. I wouldn't have commented, but I wanted to earn my keep as provocative ;)
Jerry, agreed. I don't chew on Mormonism, Islam, etc. But when someone affirms the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian council, etc. I'm a little more willing to listen. I agree that the straw men are naughty and dangerous. I also agree that there are serious problems even with conservative appropriations of postmodernism. But hurling Bible verses into the void, as if they interpret themselves, doesn't usually help.
By the way Phil, I don't know where you're getting the idea that I have piles of academic credentials behind me - I graduated from TMS. We didn't learn a lot of philosophy there. I'm a pastor, like you. I've no more education than you do.
The Blue Raja is saying it well Phil
Two quotes:
"One method that I have found helpful in making sure that I have dealt fairly with a position that I could not espouse was to assume that a person endorsing that view was present in my audience (or was reading what I had written). Then my aim is to represent the view faithfully and fully without mingling the criticism with factual statements. In fact, I try to represent them so faithfully and fully that an adherent to that position might comment, "This man certainly does understand our view!" It would be a special boon if one could say, "I never heard it stated better!" Thus I have earned the right to criticize. But before I proceed to do this, it is only proper that I should have demonstrated that I have a correct understanding of the position I desire to contest."
"I may learn from those who differ from me that I have not sufficiently perceived certain dangers to which my view is exposed and against which I need to be especially on guard. I may find out notably that there are certain weighty objections to which I had not given sufficient attention heretofore. Here again, I must be grateful for a signal service rendered by the objector. Instead of being irked by the opposition, I should rise to the challenge of presenting my view with appropriate safeguards and in such a way as to anticipate objections that are likely to arise."
http://www.founders.org/FJ33/article3.html
Moe Said...
"Is it so bad to question your faith?
This, purely, is your word against postmodernism. And you are showing a great intolerance toward postmodernist thinking.
At least they allow room for your opinion."
But if Phil's "opinion" is grounded in Scripture alone(which i think it is, even with my limited knowledge of him from the LRBS), and postmodernist thinking is contrary to that "opinion", then postmodernist thinking must be rejected, since it is contrary to the word of God.
In my humble opinion.
"Is there any virtue in being so open-minded that your brains fall out?"
Well said. As a former atheist, I am somewhat familiar with the quasi-intellectual dodges utlilized by the likes of PoMo's.
The inherent contradiction in the PoMo mindset is that PoMo's are open to anything, except the questioning of the PoMo approach to theological discussion.
It seems that all of this boils down to a rejection of biblical authority. Since the Bible cannot be destroyed, the best one can hope for (so to speak) is to neutralize its effects by continuously insisting that its true and authoritative meaning cannot be finally known and settled.
The ancient Hebrews had an interesting metaphor for a person who was undiscerning, who could not tell right from wrong. The metaphor went like this: an undiscerning person had a mind like an unlatched gate that swings back and forth in the breeze. Anyone could go in and out at will, though the purpose of the gate was to regulate traffic.
The Hebrews called such people "simple minded." The modern term for such a person is "open minded."
What some mistake for being in "lock step" is actually the end result of a thought process that makes a decision. That person can defend that decision with reason.
PoMo's cannot defend their positions with reason, and cannot abide those who have made up their minds. The purpose of reason is to arrive at a conclusion. How can one claim to be reasonable if achieving conviction is denigrated as being "close minded"? If the end of the exercise does not, or cannot, result in a position worth defending, what is the point of the exercise?
"Making up one's mind" is anathema to the "open minded." I believe that a person that has made up their mind after careful thought is right to be "closed-minded."
It sure beats being "simple minded" i.e. "open minded."
Impacted Wisdom Truth said:
It seems that all of this boils down to a rejection of biblical authority. Since the Bible cannot be destroyed, the best one can hope for (so to speak) is to neutralize its effects by continuously insisting that its true and authoritative meaning cannot be finally known and settled.
You are right, but it is more than that. By rejecting Biblical authority, they lose any hope of achieving any form of unified understanding of knowledge. The EC-ers continues to preserve the “Upper Story” in an irrational application of “God Words” that have no meaning. They may even claim to ascribe to Reformed Creeds and Confessions, but the real and historical meanings have been evacuated from them. All that is left is a self-delusion that helps them to cope with the inevitable despair, for they are “thinking” in a mode that falls below what Francis Schaeffer calls “the line of despair.”
Phil Johnson said:
And my strong personal suspicion is that the study of epistemology as an academic discipline might in fact be detrimental to the actual pursuit of knowledge.
I agree, but like so many things we study as an “academic discipline” separated from “abiding in the Scriptures” the perversion comes not from the study of such things as an academic discipline but rather the study of the discipline in isolation from Scripture. We should exercise care that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I think what Steve Cowan has recently written in his blog on Preventing Dumbness: The Role of Philosophy in the Academy, the Pulpit, and the Pew is helpful in understanding the importance of having a clean baby while disposing of the dirty bath water.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Ultimately what is required to “redeem” any “academic discipline” is our commitment to do as Jesus said, “abide in my word…and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” That is, it will set you free from sin and despair.
John 8:31-32 (ESV)
(31) So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, (32) and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
I think it is important to not that Jesus said, "YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUTH." He didn't say that we maybe kinda' almost will sorta' know the truth.
The EC’s failure to admit the absolute moral truth of the Scriptures, and then fail to confront it and attempt to remain neutral is as Os Guinness says in Dust of Death, a betrayal of the Christian faith.
By the absolute immutability of His character He [God] is implacably opposed to evil and outraged by it. So, for the Christian to live with moral neutrality is to betray his faith.
Raja, as usual, you misconstrue the whole point. I do understand you are "not commenting to fight a war." I'm quite aware that you think militancy is the wrong answer to postmodernism, and that we should all join the "conversation"—or rather hand the evangelicals' side of the conversation over to experts who are trained to speak pomo. I'm the one who thinks that is the wrong approach. That's what this post was about.
I'm also not surprised there were plenty of people at ETS who are enthusiastic about dialogue with postmodernism on postmodernism's terms. ETS had a hard time reaching consensus and sounding a clarion note on the issue of open theism, too. I'm not sure the fact that rapprochement with PMism is a popular strategy among ETS members is really a very strong argument against a more militant stance. That's exactly what I was saying: I'm not going to wave a white flag just because you and lots of ETS members think it's better to learn the language, accept the terms, take a seat at the postmodern table, and join their "conversation."
I do also realize that you don't have piles of academic credentials. That's why there's a certain irony in the fact that every time you have ever disagreed with anything here, your answer starts with a condescending remark about my "qualifications" and an esoteric reading list.
Rejecting truth doesn't mean that all relativists do is sit around and discuss things all nights long.
Postmodernists can still feed the poor, treat each other kindly, and do other things that modernists, moralist and non-relavitists would deem "good".
This is higlights the difference in tone between Justin Taylor on EC and You, Phil:
Before explaining some of my concerns, we need to remember that we are bound by the Word of God to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). Some of us are so wired to “speak the truth” that we fail to do it in love. (And of course, the converse is true as well—those who are so concerned about speaking in love that they never get around to speaking truth.) I know for myself that am often far too impressed with my own cleverness and far too desirous of “scoring points.” The biblical imperatives call us to a higher ground—a both–and—truth and love. Perhaps the most helpful phrase is that coined by my pastor: “brokenhearted boldness.” We must seek to soak our critiques with meekness and humility.
I’d also encourage fellow critics to focus on the main things. Candles and couches certaintly aren't central. Let’s keep our attention on the most important issues, and agree to continue the dialogue on secondary matters.
Also recall that emerging churches—broader than the Emergent category—are a very diverse group. That makes criticism particularly difficult. It must be stressed that churches can be emerging without falling prey to the weaknesses identified below. But if we are to speak of this movement at all, we must speak in some broad categories.
Can you tell that he is being fair and balanced?
Are you being fair and balanced?
http://www.theologica.blogspot.com/
As Van Til said, "It is not kindness to tell patients that need strong medicine that nothing serious is wrong with them."
[The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel, p. 40]
Phil,
How can I misconstrue a point that I'M making? I said that your post didn't address the real issues, is unhelpfully polarizing and reflects a weak or nonexistent analysis of the forces behind postmodernism - you can disagree, but those sentiments don't "misconstrue" anything you've said.
You find it ironic that I read books and recommend them on germane topics? I don't get it. I'm not sure why you've taken so much offense at my skepticism about your "qualification", but I wasn't speaking about academic credentials when I made that comment. I wasn't saying that you need to go to Oxford before you could register an opinion - I was simply suggesting that you actually do some work to characterize your opponents fairly and that you address the strongest and more relavent forms of postmodernism instead of the weakest and most radical ones.
Your comment about "handing the conversation over to those that speak pomo" exemplifies that uselessness of your polemics. It's something like King James Only people responding to issues of textual criticism with "I don't need to know about 'authographs", 'uncials' and 'minuscles' in order to know that the 1611 KJV is THE WORD OF GOD!"
Your comment about people being "enthusiastic about dialogue with postmodernism on postmodernism's terms" is just plain ignorant. The panel discussions included vigorous arguments against postmodernism - it just happened to actually do so with a much deeper understanding of what it is and how its affecting evangelical theology. Just because the entire organization isn't willing to oust anyone holding those views it doesn't mean there aren't people with passionate, deeply held differences.