You seem to be a well read person. Which forum do you like more and why? Sorry to get off subject but I just found that other forum today and it seems to be more complicated!!OzSpen said:
I wish you well in your endeavor's.
Sincerely.....Tom
Apologetics of low interest in churches
- Thread starter OzSpen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I wish you well in your endeavor's.
Sincerely.....Tom
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Tom,tom55 said:
Today I received this emailer from William Lane Craig's 'Reasonable Faith' ministry. I thought it might be of interest to you. There is some interesting material in the URL link provided:
What I find encouraging is to see these evangelical Episcopalians, who are in a hostile atmosphere to the evangelical faith, are prepared to address a critical issue in cultural apologetics, the concept of God in Islam vs Christianity. That topic should be a challenge to many evangelicals, not just Episcopalians.
Oz
Born_Again
Well-Known Member
Oz,OzSpen said:
I actually didn't watch the super bowl as I am not a football fan. I watched a movie that night a read a book. lol
Wormwood
Chaps
In my opinion, apologetics is on the decrease because it reflects a modern mindset of dealing with unbelievers. We live in a postmodern world where people are not impressed by proofs, truth, or "facts." They tend to not even believe in such things for the most part. Postmoderns are more interested in what works and how things make them feel. Thus, many preachers and teachers are utilizing narrative as a means of impacting our current generation. Right or wrong, I just dont think apologetics are as effective as they once were. We have a generation that trusts their feelings much more than they trust their thinking.
My thought is that this isnt necessarily a bad thing. Jesus tended to use story a lot in his preaching to make people think and challenge the status quo. I think the reason people are leaving the faith is not so much because we dont have enough apologists, but because we do not have enough passionate believers that are willing to make disciples. Faith has become a privitized matter in which we are encouraged to "live and let live." I believe we need more teaching on judgment and hell to wake people out of this stupor that leads them to believe that their faith in Jesus is simply a personal matter, like their favorite ice cream.
Born_Again
Well-Known Member
I like that take on it. Its true, we are in a society where it really is live and let live.Wormwood said:
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Wormwood said:
WW,
A problem with that approach is that postmodernism itself needs a solid critique through a defense (apologetic) that exposes the glaring holes in postmodernism.
- You say that people are not impressed with 'proofs, truth or facts'. Oh, yes, they are! They would not be driving a car or getting into a bus to cross the Brisbane River's new bridge unless it was proven safe for transport. Neither would they be doing it on transport to the ski slopes of Mt Jung Frau in Switzerland. You'll have not a chance of convincing me that a postmodern going to Jung Frau is not interested in proofs regarding transport and safety.
- What about truth? Is it true that when a person stops taking the drug warfarin for a heart-valve condition that a clot could form in an area around the valve and send that clot to the brain, leading to devastating consequences? Even postmoderns have to accept the truth about medications.
- As to facts, is it a fact that when the postmodern's car battery goes flat, it will not be able to be started in the car's garage? Are these 'Facts about Strychnine' true or false? Or should I just go on the feeling that strychnine is OK to drink for my better health?
A similar message is in an earlier book by Crossan (1991:xxx-xxxi).
In good postmodern fashion, are you going to recommend Crossan's view that a regular update of Jesus is needed for constantly changing new times in 2016? We are in new places, situations and among new problems, so a newly actualised Jesus is needed for today?? :unsure:
We can't get away from the need for apologetics to address postmodernism's problems. We may have to deal with it with some challenging narratives, but the need for apologetics is at the forefront of dealing with postmodernism.
Oz
Works consulted
Crossan, J D 1991. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco:HarperSanFrancisco.
Crossan, J D 1998. The Birth of Christianity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
Wormwood
Chaps
Oz,
I think you misunderstand my point. Let me address your response in a few ways:
1. Philosophically, postmodernism rejects modern linear thinking based on its a priori assumption that absolutes can be known in the realm of metaphysics. So, this is not in reference to bridge building but rather deals with issues of faith, morality and the like. It is not that postmoderns reject absolute truth (as is commonly misunderstood) but that they reject the notion that such absolutes can be known by finite people who are themselves very limited and shaped by culture, language, intellect, and a host of other factors. There is no platform from which a finite person can stand to get a perfect understanding. Even our language in which we seek to communicate the things of God are incapable of actually capturing that which far exceeds us.
2. I am not saying I agree with postmodernism. I am simply sharing the mentality of our age and why apologetics is on the decline. Personally, I am very modern in my thinking, as you are. However, I don't know that one view is "right" and the other is "wrong." Both views have strengths and weaknesses. I certainly would not, in any way, align myself with those in the Jesus Seminar. I believe the Bible to be inerrant and absolute truth.
However, I do question the legitimacy of apologetics in many forms. While I love debates and can watch them for hours, I do think they are not effective to postmodern audiences. For the postmodern, an attempt to "prove" God via apologetic proofs is simply not of interest to them. They are not interested in quantifying God and, indeed, they are quite skeptical of the validity of such endeavors. They are highly skeptical of the ability of the baseline rationality upon which modern apologetics build their argumentation. They do not believe in such things, but value individuality and the uniqueness of every perspective. Thus, an attempt to prove God to them in an apologetic endeavor is simply dismissed as arrogant (even if the arguments are sound). They are more interested in experience and how God changes your life than they are if you can recite ontological and cosmological arguments. They simply feel such knowledge is pointless if it does not impact their daily experience.
So, again, my point is not to say postmoderns are right, but simply to say that this is how many young people think today. As alarming as it may be for us who think more in lines of modernity, it is comforting to know that Jesus often used parables, stories and narratives to teach people about who he is and why he was worthy of our faith. There are ways to reach postmoderns with the truth. The approach must change even though the message remains the same.
I think you misunderstand my point. Let me address your response in a few ways:
1. Philosophically, postmodernism rejects modern linear thinking based on its a priori assumption that absolutes can be known in the realm of metaphysics. So, this is not in reference to bridge building but rather deals with issues of faith, morality and the like. It is not that postmoderns reject absolute truth (as is commonly misunderstood) but that they reject the notion that such absolutes can be known by finite people who are themselves very limited and shaped by culture, language, intellect, and a host of other factors. There is no platform from which a finite person can stand to get a perfect understanding. Even our language in which we seek to communicate the things of God are incapable of actually capturing that which far exceeds us.
2. I am not saying I agree with postmodernism. I am simply sharing the mentality of our age and why apologetics is on the decline. Personally, I am very modern in my thinking, as you are. However, I don't know that one view is "right" and the other is "wrong." Both views have strengths and weaknesses. I certainly would not, in any way, align myself with those in the Jesus Seminar. I believe the Bible to be inerrant and absolute truth.
However, I do question the legitimacy of apologetics in many forms. While I love debates and can watch them for hours, I do think they are not effective to postmodern audiences. For the postmodern, an attempt to "prove" God via apologetic proofs is simply not of interest to them. They are not interested in quantifying God and, indeed, they are quite skeptical of the validity of such endeavors. They are highly skeptical of the ability of the baseline rationality upon which modern apologetics build their argumentation. They do not believe in such things, but value individuality and the uniqueness of every perspective. Thus, an attempt to prove God to them in an apologetic endeavor is simply dismissed as arrogant (even if the arguments are sound). They are more interested in experience and how God changes your life than they are if you can recite ontological and cosmological arguments. They simply feel such knowledge is pointless if it does not impact their daily experience.
So, again, my point is not to say postmoderns are right, but simply to say that this is how many young people think today. As alarming as it may be for us who think more in lines of modernity, it is comforting to know that Jesus often used parables, stories and narratives to teach people about who he is and why he was worthy of our faith. There are ways to reach postmoderns with the truth. The approach must change even though the message remains the same.
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
WW,Wormwood said:
I don't think I misunderstood your point. My point was that even postmodernists (based on the examples you gave) have to be challenged on the nature of their postmodern presuppositions and the consequences of pursuing their lines of feeling, thinking and doing. I dedicated a large section of my PhD dissertation of 488 pages (dissertation-only in the British system), to critiquing Crossan's postmodern presuppositions, particularly as they were applied to history and Jesus' resurrection.
Suppose that today's postmoderns were surrounding Paul at the Brisbane equivalent of the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-34) - Mt Cootha. How would he respond?
Let's use your example #1:
As I passed through the Queen St Mall, Brisbane, I was talking with some of you and I noticed that you were talking about you can never be sure of anything about faith and the nature of human beings. In fact, I was engaged in talking with you about sex and sleeping around. You told me that you cannot know whether having sex with 10 different people every 3 months is OK or not. You said it was up to you to decide. Live and let live is your way of life. If it feels good do it. In our Aussie culture, why are you bothering to talk with us about that? You're a Jew and not an Aussie and you wouldn't understand us.
Oz (as Paul): I agree that as a human being in your Aussie culture, I'm not understanding all you are going through. Your slogan is: 'Live and let live; leave morality up to me and my mates'. I proclaim to you that the God who made you, the world and everything in it, knows you better than you know yourself. He has established laws of sexual right and wrong that are designed to help you live and let live according to God's standards. This God proclaims that if you practise sexual immorality the way you are doing it in Australia (sleeping around with anyone), you will not enter his eternal kingdom. God says you are deceiving yourselves when you think that you can live and let live your style, when it really is live and let die with possible STDs, including HIV.
Now WW, I know that example comes with some modernist overtones, but I would use a role play to expose the false thinking in postmodernism, using very experiential examples.
If you were Paul on your equivalent of the Areopagus, what would you say to a group of 20 year-olds gathered around you?
You are being very thoughtful in your responses to me. I look forward to your creative Areopagus proclamation with postmoderns.
Oz
Wormwood
Chaps
Oz,OzSpen said:
Thanks for your response. Again, I think you are approaching this the wrong way. It is not a matter of "right" or "wrong" but how to effectively communicate with a worldview. You will never convince people with facts if they are uninterested in facts. That is my point. Paul spoke to the people in the Areopagus in a manner in which they could understand him. He "became all things to all people that he might save some." The questions is, "Why are people uninterested in Apologetics?" I am trying to answer that question and am not so much trying to compare the modern worldview with the postmodern one and which one is a better reflection of reality. As I said, I tend to be more modern in my thinking, but I do appreciate some of the points postmoderns make that many modern thinkers assume. For instance, let me quote a section of a paper I wrote on the issue...
Oz, to me, this is like telling a poet that math is a superior discipline than that of poetry. The fact is, the poet doesnt care and all your attempts to convince him that poetry is an inferior pursuit is only beating the wind. We live in a culture of pluralism whether we like it or not. Yes, we can try to point out the inconsistency of pluralism, and we should. However, we need to connect with them in a way that makes sense to them. For instance, we live in a visual and technological age. We can both argue that reading books is a surperior way to gain knowledge and studies show that reading and focusing the mind in this kind of discipline aids in intellect and sound reasoning. However, a 12 year old who plays video games and watches TVs all day isnt going to be impressed with your facts. So, you have to meet them where they are. You have to communicate your message in a way they can recieve it....TV and video and perhaps, through those media you can start to convince them to expand their viewpoints and approaches to learning...as well as learn the dangers of sitting in front of a screen all day.
So, what will not work is to tell postmoderns that they way they see the world is wrong. From your perspective that is true (and perhaps from mine). However, that doesnt matter to them. You have to share Christ with them in a way that is true, consistent with the BIble and actually connects with their frame of reference if you hope to make any headway. Trying to convince people to do apologetics is like trying to tell a modern church that they should do revivals because they were so effective in the 70's. Why should they invest in them if they do not reach most people? Why not take an approach that better connects with how people think today?
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
WW,Wormwood said:
Thank you for your insightful response. It was very helpful.
My problem is that I've been working exclusively in academic circles in the last 5 years as I've written a large dissertation on deconstructing the presuppositions of John Dominic Crossan's postmodernism in historical Jesus' studies (with emphasis on the resurrection).
I can agree with your promoting the Pauline emphasis 'I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some' (1 Cor 9:22), and applying that to communicating with postmoderns.
However, here's where I struggle with what you are proposing:
1. The Gospel has content. I've compiled a detailed outline of this on my homepage in, 'Content of the Gospel ... and some discipleship'. Covering even the main points of my outline in postmodern terms is more than most people in the pew could handle on the streets, unless there is solid equipping of the saints. I can cover some of this content with postmodern technology, etc., but that leads to....
2. The need for all people to use their thinking abilities as indicated by the Scripture. Isa 1:18 (NET), 'Come, let’s consider your options,” says the Lord. “Though your sins have stained you like the color red, you can become white like snow; though they are as easy to see as the color scarlet, you can become white like wool'. Phil 2:5 (ESV), 'Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus'.
3. The defense of the faith (apologetics) was the nature of Paul's ministry in some of his missionary journeys and of Peter's emphasis (1 Peter 3:15), so I would never recommend giving up on apologetics. But I hear your emphasis of the need to use a different approach with postmoderns. But I never will get away from Gospel content. Otherwise I become a servant of epistemology of the era in which I live. I become as Dom Crossan wants to make us - reinventing a new Jesus for each place and time. Crossan could not even be consistent in applying his postmodern definition of history to his own works.
4. If I am to communicate with a postmoderns in my Western culture as you suggest, I will have to adjust my approach. However, that also means that I'll have to adjust my approach when speaking with Muslims, Hindus, atheists, libertines, etc. Many Christians will find it impossible to manage even that mini list I've given you. In my part of the world, churches are not equipping the saints to communicate with postmoderns. It seems that the light and fluffy from the pulpit with the church band and singers highlighted with lights and digital cameras has replaced content from the pulpit. I'll be doing it wrongly by your standards, but I'm not prepared to put up with seeker-sensitive dumbing down of the people of God for the sake of communicating with postmoderns. These should not be expected to come into our church building anyway. We should be on the streets talking with them.
5. As for revivals and their success in the 70s, that's the way it was in the USA but not here in Australia.
Thank you again for your provocative challenge to me. I've taken it on board, but some of my thinking is not like yours. Aren't you glad about that?
Oz
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
BA,Born_Again said:Oz,
Being formally of the conservative Presbyterian culture, I am curious to see the response that congregation gives you!I am non-denom now. My spiritual hunger outgrew what my previous church was giving me.
What was the response from the conservative Presbyterian congregation on Sunday night?
I softened the impact of the example of the Australian churches who are offering sanctuary for asylum seekers in their churches, but using this example:
Do you remember this lady?
(courtesy Wikipedia)
What did Corrie ten Boom and her family do during World War 2?
Would you do that today? Should we be doing it for the asylum seekers? I raise it as a point for discussion.
That's what I shared in the sermon about the ten Boom family after giving the example of the need for 'sanctuary' for asylum seekers in Australia and the offer by some churches. After the service, not a person mentioned to me anything about the need for 'sanctuary'. Not a soul spoke to me, but when I asked from the pulpit who Corrie was, many knew and said so. I found it interesting - but not surprising - that there was zero comment about the sanctuary issue.
Blessings,
Oz
Wormwood
Chaps
Thanks for your response, Oz. I recognize this can be a challenging issue that impacts various aspects of teaching, discipleship and how we maintain the integrity of the Gospel while connecting to people who's worldview would be dismissive of the absolute claims of that same Gospel. Here are my thoughts on your points:
1. I agree that the Gospel has content. I think it is how the content is dispersed rather than the accuracy of that content. Clearly, Crossan's postmodern thinking leads to a dismantling of the content of the Gospel, which is not at all what I am proposing. However, we should recognize that modernism also took its fair share of shots at the Gospel. Modern rationalism has been perhaps one of the biggest affronts to the content of the Gospel in history. Due to modernistic thinking, the miracles in the Bible were completely dismissed as unscientific which led to Deism, agnosticism and atheism to degrees the world had never seen. Moreover, modern thinking gave rise to liberalism that began to sift the Scriptures and question the legitimacy of them afresh. Some of this scholasticism has been a good thing and has led to healthy forms of textual criticism, whereas much of also led to very unhealthy types of form criticism and redaction criticism.
2. It is not that postmoderns do not think. In fact, as you have probably seen in your research, many of these postmodern thinkers and philosophers are highly intelligent. They are sometimes portrayed as unintelligent by moderns who like to characterize their views but usually this is due to the modern thinkers lack of understanding of the rationale behind the argument. For postmoderns, they are very critical of the assumptions of moderns that attempts to flatten and label things outside of self as a legitimate form of knowing. For instance, consider all the species of animals. Moderns teach that to know animal life, one has to be acquainted with the various trees of life and the various catergories of species. Meanwhile, the postmodern will say, "Do you really think you are learning about animals because you have memorized a bunch of categories created by some guy who stuck them in a textbook? That is not knowledge at all! If you want to know an animal, you appreciate its uniqueness and observe it in its natural state and you dont try to reduce it down to a list of categories and words and pretend that is "knowledge."" So you see, its not that postmoderns are against knowledge and truth, but they reject the modern's understanding of what knowledge and truth is. They claim (and often rightly so) that moderns are unaware of their own faulty assumptions and much of their knowledge is nothing more than word games.
3. I agree that Paul used apologetics...to a degree. However, he did not really use apologetics as Western thinkers approach the subject. Paul did not engage in proofs for God, scientific rationalism or trying to prove the validity the OT as truthful. He just assumed as much and even seems to indicate that if someone did not accept the Scriptures as God's word it was because they were spiritually calloused. Personally, I think we need to confront every argument that sets itself up against the knowledge of God. Sometimes that take the form of apologetics, but sometimes it takes the form of stories and parables (which was the common way Jesus attacked wrong thinking). I just dont know that I would say one way is superior. It depends on who you are talking to and their frame of reference.
4. Yes, it does mean work for us. Like any good missionary, they go into their culture with an understanding of the mindset of the people they want to reach and how they can effectively witness so they can be understood. You dont go into an African tribe and start talking like a 21st century scientific Westerner and expect to convert a rural tribe that still lives in huts and worships earth spirits. It seems we recognize this when going to a foreign culture, but fail to employ this same basic discipline when reaching our own younger generations. We have to become like them if we want them to become like us.
Again, I am not saying we water down the truth. I am saying we put the truth in packages they can receive it. Ketchup can come in small packets, bottles, plastic squeeze containers, or pump spouts. The container is just the vehicle for the same ketchup. The same is true with our approach to the Gospel. Jesus didnt use arguments like Paul did. He was speaking to farming Jews in rural countrysides. So he told stories about farmers, bankers, seed, and fishermen. Obviously Jesus wasnt watering down the truth with the use of stories. Rather he was helping people to understand the truth in a way that was familiar to them...farming, fishing, baking, etc. We can do the same thing. A sermon isnt more biblical if it has 10 points and a poem. A sermon can be a series of stories that helps listeners make sense of the truth of Scripture and yet it can be communicated in a way that helps the hearer pay attention and make sense of what is being said. In the same way, many complain about the music of modern worship. However, Wesley's hymns were contemporary bar songs in his day that he converted to hymns to God. He was trying to reach people with familiar tunes and insert godly lyrics that would teach people about Jesus. We need to do the same thing instead of trying to freeze time and act as though some particular worldview or period in time is more holy and sacred than the coming generation. All generations are sinful and all worldviews have problems...we just have to make use of them to the best of our ability for the grander purpose of pointing people to the Creator and Savior of it all.
I better run! Enjoying the conversation!
1. I agree that the Gospel has content. I think it is how the content is dispersed rather than the accuracy of that content. Clearly, Crossan's postmodern thinking leads to a dismantling of the content of the Gospel, which is not at all what I am proposing. However, we should recognize that modernism also took its fair share of shots at the Gospel. Modern rationalism has been perhaps one of the biggest affronts to the content of the Gospel in history. Due to modernistic thinking, the miracles in the Bible were completely dismissed as unscientific which led to Deism, agnosticism and atheism to degrees the world had never seen. Moreover, modern thinking gave rise to liberalism that began to sift the Scriptures and question the legitimacy of them afresh. Some of this scholasticism has been a good thing and has led to healthy forms of textual criticism, whereas much of also led to very unhealthy types of form criticism and redaction criticism.
2. It is not that postmoderns do not think. In fact, as you have probably seen in your research, many of these postmodern thinkers and philosophers are highly intelligent. They are sometimes portrayed as unintelligent by moderns who like to characterize their views but usually this is due to the modern thinkers lack of understanding of the rationale behind the argument. For postmoderns, they are very critical of the assumptions of moderns that attempts to flatten and label things outside of self as a legitimate form of knowing. For instance, consider all the species of animals. Moderns teach that to know animal life, one has to be acquainted with the various trees of life and the various catergories of species. Meanwhile, the postmodern will say, "Do you really think you are learning about animals because you have memorized a bunch of categories created by some guy who stuck them in a textbook? That is not knowledge at all! If you want to know an animal, you appreciate its uniqueness and observe it in its natural state and you dont try to reduce it down to a list of categories and words and pretend that is "knowledge."" So you see, its not that postmoderns are against knowledge and truth, but they reject the modern's understanding of what knowledge and truth is. They claim (and often rightly so) that moderns are unaware of their own faulty assumptions and much of their knowledge is nothing more than word games.
3. I agree that Paul used apologetics...to a degree. However, he did not really use apologetics as Western thinkers approach the subject. Paul did not engage in proofs for God, scientific rationalism or trying to prove the validity the OT as truthful. He just assumed as much and even seems to indicate that if someone did not accept the Scriptures as God's word it was because they were spiritually calloused. Personally, I think we need to confront every argument that sets itself up against the knowledge of God. Sometimes that take the form of apologetics, but sometimes it takes the form of stories and parables (which was the common way Jesus attacked wrong thinking). I just dont know that I would say one way is superior. It depends on who you are talking to and their frame of reference.
4. Yes, it does mean work for us. Like any good missionary, they go into their culture with an understanding of the mindset of the people they want to reach and how they can effectively witness so they can be understood. You dont go into an African tribe and start talking like a 21st century scientific Westerner and expect to convert a rural tribe that still lives in huts and worships earth spirits. It seems we recognize this when going to a foreign culture, but fail to employ this same basic discipline when reaching our own younger generations. We have to become like them if we want them to become like us.
Again, I am not saying we water down the truth. I am saying we put the truth in packages they can receive it. Ketchup can come in small packets, bottles, plastic squeeze containers, or pump spouts. The container is just the vehicle for the same ketchup. The same is true with our approach to the Gospel. Jesus didnt use arguments like Paul did. He was speaking to farming Jews in rural countrysides. So he told stories about farmers, bankers, seed, and fishermen. Obviously Jesus wasnt watering down the truth with the use of stories. Rather he was helping people to understand the truth in a way that was familiar to them...farming, fishing, baking, etc. We can do the same thing. A sermon isnt more biblical if it has 10 points and a poem. A sermon can be a series of stories that helps listeners make sense of the truth of Scripture and yet it can be communicated in a way that helps the hearer pay attention and make sense of what is being said. In the same way, many complain about the music of modern worship. However, Wesley's hymns were contemporary bar songs in his day that he converted to hymns to God. He was trying to reach people with familiar tunes and insert godly lyrics that would teach people about Jesus. We need to do the same thing instead of trying to freeze time and act as though some particular worldview or period in time is more holy and sacred than the coming generation. All generations are sinful and all worldviews have problems...we just have to make use of them to the best of our ability for the grander purpose of pointing people to the Creator and Savior of it all.
I better run! Enjoying the conversation!
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
WW,Wormwood said:
I'll get back to your content here later as I'm working on a journal article for academic consumption.
Have you read Albert Mohler's new article that arrived in my email today?
His view is that the West has moved beyond postmodernism. Interesting!
By the way, I again was not advised in my email of this last post of yours. Something seems to be messed up with my notification system. I need somebody's advice at CyB to fix it.
Oz
Wormwood
Chaps
Hey Oz,
Very interesting article. I think he makes some strong points. I specifically agree with him that postmodernity is really turning into more of a hyper modernity than anything else. This is also the claim of those in the camp of Radical Orthodoxy. Though I do not agree with all their positions, I think their analysis of the philosophy and mindset of our age is pretty accurate. I think, as we contemplate worldviews, we should keep the words of Paul in mind that we are battling against principalities and powers in spiritual places. In Paul's day, Greek philosophy and competing gods were the enemy of truth. In modernity, humanistic philosophy and rationality set itself up against revelation. In postmodernity (or late modernity, as Mohler labels it) the emphasis turns to almost deifying individual human freedom and expression. I think perhaps Mohler doesnt give postmodernity enough credit...I dont think it simply was a spark that made modernity more complex, but it really did change the game in terms of how people think about epistemology and metanarratives and I think that trend is continuing, but it does so in a very modern and secularist methodology. Very intriguing.
To me, this is stuff of incredible importance and why Christians need to understand their culture so they can speak to them intelligibly. We must combat the the antichrists of our age and we will be ill-equipped to do so if we keep thinking of the enemy in terms of other nations (as many premillennials do with their end times charts) or a person's sexuality. The real enemy is the doctrine of demons being peddled in our schools through these philosophies that glorify human reason and expression and attack the authority of God's Word that would call human reason in to question and demands self-restraint. Wars and sexual sins are mere byproducts of this root and we need to go after the philosophy rather than what it produces.
I would maybe message the Admin or Angelina about the notification system. That stuff is beyond my pay grade.
Very interesting article. I think he makes some strong points. I specifically agree with him that postmodernity is really turning into more of a hyper modernity than anything else. This is also the claim of those in the camp of Radical Orthodoxy. Though I do not agree with all their positions, I think their analysis of the philosophy and mindset of our age is pretty accurate. I think, as we contemplate worldviews, we should keep the words of Paul in mind that we are battling against principalities and powers in spiritual places. In Paul's day, Greek philosophy and competing gods were the enemy of truth. In modernity, humanistic philosophy and rationality set itself up against revelation. In postmodernity (or late modernity, as Mohler labels it) the emphasis turns to almost deifying individual human freedom and expression. I think perhaps Mohler doesnt give postmodernity enough credit...I dont think it simply was a spark that made modernity more complex, but it really did change the game in terms of how people think about epistemology and metanarratives and I think that trend is continuing, but it does so in a very modern and secularist methodology. Very intriguing.
To me, this is stuff of incredible importance and why Christians need to understand their culture so they can speak to them intelligibly. We must combat the the antichrists of our age and we will be ill-equipped to do so if we keep thinking of the enemy in terms of other nations (as many premillennials do with their end times charts) or a person's sexuality. The real enemy is the doctrine of demons being peddled in our schools through these philosophies that glorify human reason and expression and attack the authority of God's Word that would call human reason in to question and demands self-restraint. Wars and sexual sins are mere byproducts of this root and we need to go after the philosophy rather than what it produces.
I would maybe message the Admin or Angelina about the notification system. That stuff is beyond my pay grade.
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
WW,Wormwood said:
This is where I'll disagree with you. The reader-response mentality of postmodernism that deconstructs (Crossan's language is reconstructs) any document means that a postmodern, reader-response reconstruction of the Gospel makes the truth of the Gospel putty in the hands of the reader. He or she can make the text mean what he or she wants. Derrida did it as well as other postmodern reader-response advocates. Stanley Fish was one of the most radical reader-response advocates.
I agree that modernism attacked the Gospel with its higher critical presuppositions and methodology, but a postmodern, reader-response approach destroys the author's intended meaning and that includes Gospel content.
One of my doctoral examiners (a historian, exegete and evangelical) told me that Crossan was a very intelligent and knowledgeable scholar as he found out by attending meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL).
I understand the example you have given about knowledge of species of animals. Let me expand this to the plant world. I'm a sugar cane farmer's son. If Dad and the farmers didn't know the difference between CP and NCO varieties of sugar cane, they would have been deprived of knowing the better variety for CCS (sugar content). By the time I left high school, NCO was by far a superior variety to CP because of the increased sugar content. For postmoderns to tell my cane farming community that knowledge outside of the self (NCO superior in sugar content to CP) was not knowledge at all, that postmodernism would have been laughed off the farm. This article tells of the validity of the 'varieties' of sugar cane, which includes knowledge outside the self and its reliability.
I'm not going to be seduced by the postmoderns into believing that CP, NCO, Q50 and Q55 are just a list of varieties, known externally. These varieties have been tested for sugar content at the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations to determine the value of growing these varieties. Believe me - those varieties had been tested for validity in producing a thriving crop of sugar cane.
Paul did not engage in labels such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument (William Lane Craig) but he most certainly engaged in apologetics. What is Rom 1:18-32 if it is not an apologetic for the existence of God? Psalm 19:1-6 also confirms the same kind of approach. Romans 1:18ff is not a parable, but it is a strong apologetic defense using a classical or cosmological argument. Of course it is not in the form of that used by a Wm Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias or John Gerstner, but it is an apologetic for God's existence, nonetheless.
I agree that Jesus used parables to communicate his message. I don't see Paul clearly using that method.
I agree. However, Jesus did use arguments on numerous occasions. Take the example in Luke 13:10-17 regarding the woman with 'a disabling spirit' (ESV). This was no quaint parable. Jesus confronted the ruler of the synagogue, etc.
This is where I will disagree with you because of verses such as 2 Tim 4:2 (NIV), 'Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction'. It doesn't say, 'Tell stories or parables about the word; do it with whomever and whenever and with patience to carefully consider the worldview of your audience'. I note that Wycliffe Bible Translators and SIL are promoting a story-telling approach to the Gospels. They have been to my church for a presentation.
I think we are both heading in a similar direction, but I'm not prepared to look like I'm compromising the Christian position and its content.
Blessings,
Oz
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
WW,Wormwood said:Hey Oz,
Very interesting article. I think he makes some strong points. I specifically agree with him that postmodernity is really turning into more of a hyper modernity than anything else. This is also the claim of those in the camp of Radical Orthodoxy. Though I do not agree with all their positions, I think their analysis of the philosophy and mindset of our age is pretty accurate. I think, as we contemplate worldviews, we should keep the words of Paul in mind that we are battling against principalities and powers in spiritual places. In Paul's day, Greek philosophy and competing gods were the enemy of truth. In modernity, humanistic philosophy and rationality set itself up against revelation. In postmodernity (or late modernity, as Mohler labels it) the emphasis turns to almost deifying individual human freedom and expression. I think perhaps Mohler doesnt give postmodernity enough credit...I dont think it simply was a spark that made modernity more complex, but it really did change the game in terms of how people think about epistemology and metanarratives and I think that trend is continuing, but it does so in a very modern and secularist methodology. Very intriguing.
To me, this is stuff of incredible importance and why Christians need to understand their culture so they can speak to them intelligibly. We must combat the the antichrists of our age and we will be ill-equipped to do so if we keep thinking of the enemy in terms of other nations (as many premillennials do with their end times charts) or a person's sexuality. The real enemy is the doctrine of demons being peddled in our schools through these philosophies that glorify human reason and expression and attack the authority of God's Word that would call human reason in to question and demands self-restraint. Wars and sexual sins are mere byproducts of this root and we need to go after the philosophy rather than what it produces.
I would maybe message the Admin or Angelina about the notification system. That stuff is beyond my pay grade.
I can endorse much of what you've said here, although I'm not as familiar as I ought to be with Radical Orthodoxy. I've been too busy deconstructing reader-response theories and exposing Crossan's presuppositions for 5 years to get involved too deeply in RO.
Yes, there are worldviews and philosophies that have devastating outworkings in our society. I've attempted to uncover some of this in an article I recently wrote: 'Pedophiles: It's not their fault!'
I think that much of the discussion you and I have had here may not be what the average person in the pew chooses to think about and act on. Is this too philosophical for the people in your church? It is in mine!
Oz
Wormwood
Chaps
Oz, thanks for your response. It is true that deconstruction of documents is a byproduct of postmodernism. However, I see this as no different than the redaction and form criticism that was a byproduct of modernism. It is not true that all postmoderns are deconstructionists (or even understand what that means) just as not all modern thinkers question the legitimacy of the authorship of the Scriptures. However, deconstruction is a byproduct of postmodern thinking that questions the legitimacy of words to convey knowledge of that which is other than self in a reliable way. Now, as I said, I strongly reject the stance of Crossan, but also believe that postmoderns are on to something that is somewhat meaningful. Moderns are all about objective truth and that if I have this text then it is true and that settles it. However, postmoderns rightly point out that all facts are interpreted facts. Again, it is not that truth doesnt exist but that meaning is filtered through through finite lenses and words themselves are quite limited in their ability to channel reality. So, as I see it, postmodern thinking is helpful to a degree. It reminds us that we are finite people with predispositions and assumptions that skew everything we read and say. We are not blank slates that see things objectively. There is no such thing as an objective reader or communicator. We all have points of view and we must take those into account. To fail to do this is to decieve one's self about their own predispositions and blind spots. I think this line of thinking fits very well with the biblical notion that we are all fallen beings as well as points to the fact that we need to give each other grace and that love is the supreme ethic.
Now, I agree with you that the Bible is inspired and that deconstructionists that would seek to render the text meaningless or can be used merely to simply reflect the individual's own agenda is dangerous and something we should combat against. But, as I said, just as not all modernists are miracle rejecting form critics does not mean all postmoderns would agree with Crossan and interpret the Bible as he and his ilk do. You need to remember that Cossan is "a postmodern" he is not a reflection of all modernists....just as Einstein was a modernist, but his beliefs do not reflect those of all modernists. I think you are allowing your doctoral work on an individual to shape your thinking of an entire worldview that has all kinds of varying degrees and nuances.
Most postmoderns do not even know why they think the way they do or how their culture has shaped them. They just accept things like relativism and have a deep seated disdain for authority/institutionalism and dont even really understand why. So, in my opinion, it does no good to argue with them about why their worldview is wrong because most young adults do not even know what you are talking about. They just know how they feel and your predisposition toward proofs and facts is like speaking to them in German. It doesnt register and they will just tune you out and go about their way.
I guess my point was, from the postmodern view, CP and NCO are labels we have created, they are not stamped on the plants. I understand your point that CP and NCO reflect sugar content and that these are very observable and testable realities. However, postmoderns think more in terms of metanarratives. Who constructed the whole framework and why should we accept that framework of knowledge as legitimate? For example, most people today embrace "the secular" as a concrete concept. It is as if "the secular" represents what is left once religion and superstition is stripped away. However, that is not the case. Secularism is a positively created ideology that had to be constructed by someone. It isnt a natural reality, but a constructed ideology. Postmodernists are about deconstructing those constructions and questioning their legitimacy as frameworks for us all to embrace as sustainable for objective understandings of what exists outside of us. I think, in many ways, this is an important undertaking. Moderns have set up a framework based on the assumption of a secular, autonomous human reason. Postmoderns have also assumed as much and I think this baseline understanding of reason should be called into question. Reason is not self-contained as if we are born (or evolve as modern/postmoderns may argue) with some innate bottle of reason. I believe, as early Christians did, that reason was a gift from God and that the ability to think is itself a sign and reflection of God's divine mind. Yet, the metanarrative of our culture is simply that people spring up randomly like weeds in a garden with their own, self-contained, autonomous human reason. This concept is never called into question, but it should be. In the same way, some postmodern Christians reject apologetics because they see the enterprise as only validating a false metanarrative established by modernism: the exaltation of human reason. Here is an excerpt from something else I wrote on the subject:
I agree with you, Oz. I do think Paul used some apologetic (but mostly rabbinic rhetorical skills) tools to convince his audience. I am not saying that apologetics are useless. I am saying that they are not as effective because they are not well received by our audiences who do not think in such ways. If you were presenting Christ in a local university, then perhaps some apologetic arguments would be helpful. However, in most communities today, you would be better off gaining a hearing by telling stories of how your life was changed by the love of Christ than presenting a 5 point message on the validity of God's existence and the reliability of the Bible. Again, I am not saying that one is innately better than the other, its just that one is more effective in one setting and not as effective in another. In the postmodern climate, narrative and story seem to be far better tools for communicating truth than apologetics.
But the Bible IS a group of stories, parables and narratives! When I read about Jesus walking through Galilee and healing the demon possessed, I am telling a story. Does the story become more meaningful if I turn it into three points and give Greek exegesis on numerous occasions to illustrate some point about the verse 19 and then read a poem at the end? In many ways, such approaches perhaps interrupt the story and lose the real meaning of what is being said. Believe me, I am all for reading Scripture and focusing on the text itself. However, there are different ways to read and highlight a text. You can read and highlight a text by breaking it down word by word and looking at the Greek, or you can read and highlight the text by reading the story and then telling other parallel modern stories that help highlight the biblical story in a way that helps the audience understand it in a contemporary light.
The modern thinker like "points." The postmodern person would say, "Paul didnt make those "points" you did." And, to a degree, they are right. If you tell me about your day, and then I tell a friend about your day and say, "Oz had a bad day. Point 1: Oz had a bad day because his car wouldnt start. Point 2: Oz had a bad day because he forgot his lunch at home. Point 3:....." You get the picture. What I am saying may be true, but I could also say, "Oz had a bad day. Early in the morning, while it was still dark, Oz way bustling about and trying to get to work. As he rushed out the door with his morning cup of joe, he jumped into his car, turned the key and was greeted with the clicking of a dead battery...."
Both approaches are attempting to share the truth about the fact you had a bad day. One tries to break down your day into points (which I created and were not part of your original story) and the other simply tries to narrate your story in a way that involves the listener to participate in your bad day. One is not right and one is not wrong. They are both just different approaches (or containers for the ketchup, if you will). That is all I mean by "telling stories." I dont mean making up things and encouraging the audience to take whatever they want from the biblical narrative. I hope that makes more sense.
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
WW,Wormwood said:
You say, 'It is true deconstruction of documents is a byproduct of postmodernism. However, I see this as no different than the redaction and form criticism that was a byproduct of modernism'.
No, deconstruction is a core element as part of postmodernism. It is different from redaction which deals with editing a document, not deconstructing. Form criticism is an academic attempt to try to understand the form of a document before it was put into writing. It amounts to hypothetical invention of what a researcher wants. It is fanciful nothingness, as I understand it, which probably goes closer to reader-response invention.
Reader-response is much closer to the allegorical interpretation that I hear from far too many evangelical pulpits.
You say, 'Moderns are all about objective truth and that if I have this text then it is true and that settles it. However, postmoderns rightly point out that all facts are interpreted facts'. Try telling modernists such as J A T Robinson, James Barr, Schleiermacher, Ritschl and Fosdick about objective truth. I don't buy into that one.
Of course we filter information through our worldviews, that need to be tested with reality.
Yes, Crossan, Funk and clan are examples of postmodernists in action. In my examining Crossan's postmodernism, I have had to evaluate other postmodernists such as Lyotard, Derrida, Fish, etc. I am NOT allowing doctoral work to shape my evaluation of postmodernism. To pursue a dissertation-only thesis in the British system takes a mammoth amount of research to make sure the postmodernism of Crossan is not an isolated example. I think you have underestimated what is covered in a doctoral dissertation to get through an accredited university system's checks and balances.
WW: 'Most postmoderns do not even know why they think the way they do or how their culture has shaped them. They just accept things like relativism and have a deep seated disdain for authority/institutionalism and dont even really understand why'. That's where I begin with postmoderns to help them understand how they got to this point in their human journey.
WW: 'But the Bible IS a group of stories, parables and narratives! When I read about Jesus walking through Galilee and healing the demon possessed, I am telling a story'. No, you are telling history and I would not wipe it aside as 'story'. It historically happened.
WW: 'I guess my point was, from the postmodern view, CP and NCO are labels we have created, they are not stamped on the plants. I understand your point that CP and NCO reflect sugar content and that these are very observable and testable realities. However, postmoderns think more in terms of metanarratives. Who constructed the whole framework and why should we accept that framework of knowledge as legitimate?'
CP and NCO are labels of sugar cane varieties that have been created to label the variety and the nature of the sugar content, just as Pontiac, Toyota Camry and Hyundai tell of varieties of motor vehicles that tell of the nature of certain brands. To try to get away from labelling that has been created is as meaningless as John, Jane, Jim and Joan getting away from the names their parents gave them. This is where postmoderns are in a helpless, self-defeating bind. They want to promote the metanarrative, but can't get away from Mum or Dad calling them by the external label of John, Jane, Jim or Joan. In pursuing the metanarrative, they invent material that conflicts with the very philosophy they are promoting.
For the benefit of others who might be reading this thread, a metanarrative is:
You stated:
I find experiential Christianity to be engrossed in subjectivity that could be repeated by secular people. I have no guarantee that a person's statement about his/her life being changed by the love of Christ is any more reliable than a person's life being changed by occult involvement or being a secular good Samaritan. Only a few days ago here in Queensland, a person lost his life by a selfless act of intervening in a domestic abuse event happening on the street of the city of Toowoomba. Read about it in, 'Norman Olsen dies after bid to stop alleged domestic dispute in Toowoomba' (ABC News, 24 February 2016).
Subjectivity is no guarantee of truth. Who knows what is causing a person to act a certain way?
Oz
Wormwood
Chaps
Oz, I have to respectfully disagree. Most young people today are "postmodern" in their thinking. Most of them do not have a clue what "deconstructing" means. Derrida, the philosopher behind deconstruction, would himself not even associate his philosophy as postmodernism. Foucault is associated with postmodernism, but his thinking is very different from Derrida's focus. You need to understand that "postmodernism" isnt some package label that encompasses an entire train of thought. Like modernism, there are many different branches and lines of thinking that are based out of the same basic premise. Modern thinking is all based out of the reliability of human rationality "I think therefore I am" while postmodernism is based out of a questioning of that reliability and the metanarratives that have been formed by modernism. However, saying Crossan represents the thinking of all postmoderns is like saying Nietzsche represents the thinking of all moderns. Philosophy doesnt work that way and neither do worldviews. Just because you are "modern" in your thinking does not mean you are skeptical of miracles in the Bible or trust reason over revelation...as is true for many moderns. We cannot box entire worldviews and philosophies in like that. Most young people are "postmodern" but have never read Crossan, Foucault, or Derrida.
I agree with you about your concerns. I do think there needs to be caution in this area. The Bible is not a mirror for us to look into and see ourselves and what we want to see. However, I do think we can craft our proclamation in a way that it makes more sense to those not inclined to listen to 45 minute long messages with 10 points.
Spoken like a true modern thinker.
I just dont think you are properly seeing or appreciating some of what postmodern thinkers have had to contribute. Consider a basketball game. Two teams playing to win the game. A whistle is blown. The blue team and their fans all see that it was clearly a "foul." The red team and their fans all believe it was not. Are they both not seeing "reality?" They are all seeing reality, but are seeing it according to their perception and desires. Postmodernism's original plea was to show that those in power are the ones who make the rules and define "truth." If the "red team" is in power, then the play is is not a foul. If the blue team is in power, the play is a foul. Consider your history books. Who writes those books? If Germany had won WWII, what would history books look like? Children all over the world would likely be learning about evil America and Britian and how Hitler was a hero that freed an oppressed German people and sought to aid human development and evolution to create a better world. That is their point. We tend to accept the "metanarratives" laid down before us without question. But what if the metanarrative is wrong? What if the whole "education" and "truth" being shared is nothing more than a particular version of history that is propagated to benefit those in power? So, it is not about scientific fact, as such, but the metanarratives, educational practices and social structures of the world around us and recognizing that they are not "objective" and truth is more than just words printed in a history book. We need to take into consideration who wrote the book and their predispositions and slant on the events that took place! I understand your point, and agree with you...to a degree. Remember the rich young ruler? He wants eternal life. What did Jesus say to him? Did Jesus say, "Young man, your problem is you dont have right doctrine. Let me educate you about my divinity, virgin birth and atoning sacrifice. Then you just need to pray this prayer after me, and you will be saved." No, Jesus didnt say that at all. Jesus didnt seem interested in giving people a series of "facts" so they can say, "I know the truth and therefore I am going to heaven." Jesus was interested in creating disciples. Just as there are a lot of secular groups doing "good works" that dont know Jesus, there are a lot of evangelical groups that have the "right doctrine" and are some of the most calloused, bitter, unfriendly and hateful people you would ever meet. Communicating facts for congregational consumption can be no better than doing good works for the sake of good works.
Jesus often told stories and did not even give people the meaning! He just told a parable and left people to scratch their heads. No conclusion, no points, no application. Was Jesus promoting subjectivity? I dont think so, but neither was he promoting a facts-laden approach to preaching that pretends if people have the right information they will become faithful followers...which is how many moderns have tried to reconstruct Christianity: accept this fact, pray this prayer....thats it. This type of discipleship/Christianity is just not found in the Bible, imo. Personally, I think it looks a lot more like Gnosticism.
WW, I agree with your analogy of the basketball game, in the sense that if one doesn't really understand the rules and one isn't really paying attention to the game then one tends to support their team rather than reality or in terms of the Bible the reality of what the Bible is saying. In my opinion it is a very good analogy in looking at how our personal biases, if not addressed early on in our walk, will tend to govern everything we see or read. Learning how to read the Bible early on is the best way to grow in the Holy Spirit.
Similar threads
