Postmodernism

Postmodernism rejects Modernism. So what is Modernism?

Modernism is a high belief in science, and scientific methods, to challenge the ideas of the past, and create new scientific breakthroughs, inventions, and discoveries, so that society improves. The Modernist has faith in science and reason as the forces that cause a society to progress.

Postmodernism rejects Modernism. Why?

• The issue is objectivity -- whether knowledge of truth is possible.

• The Postmodernist believes that subjectivity makes knowledge of truth impossible.

• Science, and the scientific method, cannot discover objective truth, because a scientist’s mind is colored with cultural assumptions and moral value-judgments that he/she brings into the situation and forces onto the data.

• Science is a tool used by people in power to justify the oppression of victim groups (ethnic minorities, females).

• Societies are neither good nor bad. They can only be defined descriptively, in terms of their own internal goals, purposes, and justifications.

• No over-all Theory of Everything exists (or meta-narrative).

• Words are not founded on anything unchangeably real (whether in the sense of a word referring to a physical thing, or being subject to foundational laws of logic).

Common secular criticism of Postmodernism:

• Postmodernism criticizes the use of explanatory theories, but it is itself an explanatory theory.

• Postmodernism uses reason to promote irrationalism.

• Postmodernism criticizes writers for bringing their value judgments to a subject, but criticizing that is itself a value judgment.

• Postmodernism attacks ideas and systems based on inconsistencies, but refuses to apply its own standards of consistency to itself.

• Postmodernism attacks the making of any type of truth claims, but is itself a series of truth claims.

• It produces a suffocating self-focus. For example, since postmodern preacher Brian MacLaren doesn’t believe that objective truth is attainable, his books end up self-focused around him and his own notions and emotions. They end up being about Brian MacLaren, instead of what each book is allegedly about.

• Postmodernism exaggerates the strange or unique features about a topic, but ignores the common, mundane features that it make it understandable.

• It produces a radical self-centeredness that destroys all morals and ethics. E.g., postmodernism teaching means that Nazi Germany, or the Soviet death-camps, were no more morally repugnant or commendable than the work of Theresa of Calcutta, or the Allied liberation of Europe in WWII.

It is a sin for any Christian to be a postmodernist, since it denies God's creative intelligence (a Christian postmodernist is forced to say that God wasn't intelligent enough, or powerful enough, to create the human race with sufficient ability to know truth or reality, which would include Him), it denies the understandability of the Bible (thus damning the soul by institutionalizing the sin of doubt), and re-defines doubt as a virtue (where the Scripture condemns doubt as a sin).

My View of the Emergent Church

When taking up a subject such as the Emergent Church (EC) movement, great care is needed. By now, most reasonably informed Christians have heard of the EC phenomenon within evangelicalism. It's been written about and discussed widely, and some even think it's on the wane. I personally think it will just morph into a new form, but that's another subject.

Few subjects in recent years have excited as much controversy, or dare I say, conversation. I personally have some key theological, biblical and doctrinal concerns about this movement that dislikes being called a movement. Other Christian leaders and theologians have expressed concerns both in print and the blogosphere. I hope to reinforce concerns that have been expressed, as well as make it clear to the proponents of EC (on the extreme end) that these concerns are not going to go away despite a concerted effort to squelch criticism.

To their credit, some EC supporters, pastors and authors have appeared to take the concerns raised very seriously and have called their followers not to abandon biblical doctrine in a well-intentioned effort to reach postmoderns for Christ. Sadly, others have been disdainfully dismissive of any criticism. Some ignore it outright while others respond in answering questions in a purposefully vague, imprecise fashion. To the committed postmodern, this is the standard MO.

The first thing I want to do is highlight some "givens." The EC is NOT monolithic. They do not all agree on every plank given in related authors' books, church programs etc. There are those that lean toward the conservative end of theology, while others such as Brian McLaren are on the other end. In fact, some theologians I respect highly have called McLaren an outright heretic. Frequently, those in the EC often rightly identify problems within evangelicalism that need to be addressed, then proceed to take the wrong approach to deal with these problems. While much of their language is couched in "niceness" - if you read between the lines, the things they say about evangelicalism and evangelicals are little short of a kick in the groin. One example..the call to "authentic" worship. Am I to assume from this that my worship, and that of other evangelicals, is NOT authentic? Some EC authors confuse the issue of "proof texting." This is a common tactic cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses use, taking Bible verses out of context to "prove" one of their doctrinal aberrations. This is a FAR cry from citing biblical authority on core doctrine and orthopraxis. I remember reading somewhere that some EC authors/pastors say they get nauseated when someone quotes the Bible to them. Hmmm. I imagine Satan got a little queasy when Jesus kept saying "It is written" to Ol' Slewfoot's temptations. Think about it.

The following are eight key areas where I think the extremes of the EC have problems, protest though they may. I wish to commend my colleague and fellow Evangelical Free Church member Rev. Joe Whitchurch for reminding me of the eighth area after I had come up with my original list of seven. Phil Johnson of Grace to You has done excellent work in evaluating this subject, and I have drawn from his material along with my own thoughts. Anyway, here are the problematic areas:

1. A Low View of Epistemology

2. A Low View of Scripture and Scriptural authority

3. A Low View of the Reformation

4. A Low View of the Doctrines of Grace

5. A Low View of Eschatology

6. A Low or Distorted View of Apologetics

7. A Low View of the Biblical Gospel

8. A Low View of Biblical Ecclesiology

One note of caution. I do not accept the insistence of some in the EC that one must follow Matthew 18 in dealing with them, especially with those whose writings and electronic communications are widely disseminated. They seem to think that one must visit each EC service, talk to each EC author ad infinitum (and ad nauseum) before you dare comment on the subject. Ridiculous, of course. If they can't defend their writings and public teachings to criticism, then they had best not publish. Public error must be corrected publicly, as the Apostle Paul did with the Apostle Peter. Matthew 18 does not apply in this situation as we are not dealing with personal offenses or sins. It's doctrine, doctrine, doctrine!

The Emergent Church and Scripture

Sola’s note: This article was written in 2006, but has been updated and revised for today’s post.

The Emergent/Postmodern movement has impacted many churches and denominations across the United States. The Evangelical Free Church has not been immune, with congregations impacted, and even split, over this “new kind of Christianity.” In the best sense (if there is one), the idea is to reach a postmodern generation with the Gospel in ways they can understand. In the worst sense, the churches themselves adopt a postmodern mindset and philosophy toward truth.

I have little use for postmodernism, and even less use for the Emergent Church philosophy. My concerns are many, but I’ll only discuss one here today — mainly the low view of Scripture that many adherents of the EC seem to have. I say "seem" to have because one is never really certain of what they really think. Certainty is, after all, anathema to a postmodern. (Okay, that was a bit tongue-in-cheek).

I had mulled over several approaches to this until EC leader Brian McLaren lobbed a water balloon filled with limberger cheese into the blogosphere - his suggestion a few years ago at the Leadership Journal blog that Christian pastors, leaders, theologians etc. put a five year moratorium on making comments about homosexuality until we can figure out what we think about it. McLaren’s blog entry, of course, unleashed a firestorm. When I read his initial statement, I was aghast. Then, when I read his response to those who have rightly taken him to the woodshed, I was even more aghast. But for my purposes at least, it couldn't have come at a better time as it illustrated beautifully the point I wanted to make about the EC and God's Word.

The worst of the EC and those who embrace the postmodern mindset love to throw all sorts of ambiguity and doubt into any crystal clear, unambiguous assertion one might make. While Brian and others in the EC might not know what to think about this issue, God's Word leaves no such doubts as to what God Himself thinks. Deuteronomy 18:22 sets God's view bluntly. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination (tow 'ebah or to 'ebah in the Hebrew). Abomination is defined as a "disgusting thing" in a ritual sense as well as in an ethical sense. Far from this merely being an Old Testament/Torah prohibition, strictures against this type of behavior are also found in Romans chapter 1 and other New Testament locations.

Only in the postmodern mind can these Scriptures somehow be interpreted other than their plain meaning. Wishful thinking, maybe. You really have to either redefine them or reject them outright. But we are not to look at God's Word through a postmodern prism. Scripture makes it very clear that God will not grade on the curve when it comes to His Word. People can blind themselves through their own stubbornness and rebellion. Having done so, they will not be excused for their blindness and stubbornness.

We need to understand the ramifications of this as it goes beyond the issue of homosexuality. To not believe God's Word is to not believe God Himself. What is the opposite of "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?" If Abraham had not believed God, it would have been reckoned to him as unrighteousness. What does Scripture tell us of those who do not believe? It tells us they are condemned already. If we can't believe what God said about human sexuality, how can we believe what He said about how one is made right before Him? How can we believe the Gospel, by which we are saved (1 Corinthians 15)?

We had best stop playing eeny meeny miney moe with the Bible. And before someone attempts to throw it at me (Brian tried this argument in his response post), don't bother telling me that we don't stone people to death any more for violations of Mosaic law. I learned in Sunday school class as a child the differences between the Old Covenant and New Covenant, as well as the differences between ceremonial and moral law. When the EC or other liberal theologians try this, understand that it is merely a smokescreen designed to throw people into a thousand bunny trails away from the key issue being discussed. If a pastor is uninformed about the differences between the Law of Moses and the New Covenant, then he has no business wearing his clerical collar and Birkenstocks. Unless his obfuscation is intentional, which makes it all the more repugnant.

I am thankful to Professor D.A. Carson, Dr. David Hesselgrave, Rev. Kevin S. Johnson and others for their labors in raising concerns about the Emergent Church. I am deeply troubled that EFCA congregations — some of them fairly large churches — are so enthralled with it. I have some ideas on the underlying reasons churches fall into fads and traps such as these. I’ll talk about those reasons in my next post.