A new brand of thinking has emerged within our society without anyone really aware of the change. This spontaneous, societal shift has given rise to the philosophical viewpoints of people everywhere, some having no idea of the change within themselves. The movement has been defined by its lack of basis for truth. Like Lutzer puts it, "truth has disappeared and few have noticed." In reality, postmodernism spawned out of the Modernistic Movement. Modernism was basically the belief that the human mind and reason were the basis for reality. To live within the world, one must make conscious decisions that rely on science and history to interpret the world. These findings would then give the truth about our state.
It's a bird, it's a plane, it's Postmodernism.
The Postmodernism Movement challenged the Modernistic movement in the sense that postmodernists would claim that reason has led the human race aloft, and there is no basis on which truth, can be defined. This truth, which applies to all people at all times, cannot be objective truth, for there is really no such thing as objective truth, for it will not be applicable to each persons' situation, thus not really being truth. The postmodernist movement has been driven by the fact that "i do not discover truth; I am the source of truth." Since this is now the case, and "truth" is now being defined as my interpretation of the world, I would be inclined to believe that there are as many "truths" as there are people living in the world.
Truth by definition is exclusive. It negates all other "truths" as being false. For example, if I make the claim that "Mike Bibby is the best point guard in the NBA right now," I have to also reject the claim that any other point guard in the NBA is better than Bibby in the present. By me to making that claim as truth, means that I also make the claim that no other point guard is better than Bibby. I cannot say that both are true. Oh, and the best rebuttal is still the fact that many will make the statement, "there is no truth," yet by making that absolute statement, they are in fact, making a truth claim that there is no truth.
Since society's definition of truth has shifted to really not being truth at all, but rather a set of beliefs, there has been a direct attack on any standard that is put into place. Truths are being thrown out the window. People have no purpose for living if everything is relative. Opinions are regarded as truth, and lets face it, with as many people as there are living, opinions are rampant, and I do not want someones opinion guiding my life. I want truth to be the standard.
For Christians, it is the Word of God. That is the standard. Without it, there would be no standard or absolutes by which to live by. The church must take a stand for what is right and not succumb to the relativism that is permeating our world. "The love within the church attracts the world, the holiness within the church convicts the world."
Erwin McManus says it best, "A part of the design of the church is to be able to make positive change while keeping her essence at the core." Moving from the standard changes the essence of the Gospel. God does not need us to change His message to be relevant. To change the face of the Gospel is to tell God that what He did will not work for people in this day and age, that it must be tinkered with to have a full effect. Tell that to a God whose very breath creates.
Truth has been taken hostage, and it is our job to free it. When we loose a basis for truth, we loose all hope. We miss the real Gospel.
"Preachers have found a message people want to hear. No need to speak about the hard aspects of the Christian life; no need to carry one's cross or to bear up under suffering. No need for turning from sin or choosing to live without creature comforts."
You are the creator of truth, who needs a standard? Live as you please....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I understand the perspective that you are coming from and respect it in many ways. Truth is important, but I want to challenge you to think about a couple of things.
ReplyDeleteThe core question about post-modernity vs. modernity has to do with epistemology. How do humans come to know what they know? Now, if a person who is finite claims to know something ‘absolutely,’ how can they be so sure? For instance, there was a time in our history when science believed that everything in our world has a cause/ effect relationship. Everything was viewed as predictable. So, making a claim that ‘we know something for certain because our diagnosis and logic demonstrate it as such’ was an easy thing to say. But with the discoveries of modern science in the areas of quantum physics, it is now understood that things don’t always work in mechanistic and predictable ways. At the sub-atomic level, there is unpredictability. Our models of knowing had to be rethought upon this discovery. What once was claimed to be absolutely true, had now become relative (theory of relativity, etc.). In the same way, it is impossible for the human mind to objectively know something without having a bias of some kind of subjectivity. To make any claim at all, requires the person to subjectively deal with data. And how one person deals with data may differ from how another person deals with data based on preconceived models of understanding, experience, and the like.
Making truth claims is risky business. I like your Mike Bibby analogy. It may even be true based on the stats that he is indeed the best player in the NBA. But then you have to ask the questions that are not answered by the stats. How does he utilize other people on the court? How many games could have been won if he had passed the ball more often then taking shots? As a one man show, does he benefit the game of basketball in a positive way, or do other players on the court become excluded from potential contributions that they could give? (this may not be a very strong argument, but I think you can catch on to what I am saying). There is more to truth than data, and it is difficult for any person to deal with mere data and come up with an “absolute truth.” In some ways, making “absolute truth claims” can shrink the truth by reducing them to our perceptions. No one ever exists in a vacuum. There is usually more factors that the data doesn’t provide… or that our interpretations of that data doesn’t provide.
Now, I have a very strong view of the bible. I don’t think that people would know God unless he had chosen to reveal himself in some way. But let me caution us to say that the Word itself is limited to the interpretations of humans. Each of us brings our own biases, experiences, and traditions to a text like the Scriptures. If the Bible itself were “absolute” in the sense that modern epistemology would imply, then we would not have so many interpretations of it.
Now I want you to know that I believe that there is only one absolute: GOD. Now with that said, some may ask: how do you know that he is the only absolute? Well, this is not based on logic or argument (although I think that there is some validity to those kinds of things), but rather this is based on “Relational Truth.” God has revealed himself to me and it is by my relational encounters with the Spirit that I come to the conclusion that God must be the absolute one. So, rather than saying I believe in “absolute truth” (in the sense that human logic or arguments can take place in a vacuum—and that human words are sufficient to describe a Divinity that is bigger than we could ever express), I believe that truth is revealed via relationship. All other ways of knowing are based on our own logic and perceptions. It is in my personal and biased opinion that one way that the church can help the post-modern person through the chaos of multiple choices is to guide them into a relationship with the Spirit (who Jesus said would lead us into all truth!). When someone experiences this “relational truth” the hope is that ‘relativism’ will be healed by the practical ways in which authentic Christian experience works our in their own life journey.
Drew, this is not meant to be rude in any way and I raise some questions to grow with you in conversation for the sake of the Kingdom purposes of God!
Hey Andrew. I meant to respond to this post much earlier, but I was caught up with school. I’m glad you wrote on this topic and that you’re thinking about it…post-modernism is a movement that needs to be understood and responded to by the church. I was actually talking with Uriah about it recently. Here are some of my own thoughts:
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that modernism and post-modernism are two different worldviews, each of them capable of understanding (and misunderstanding) God’s truth. Traditionally, the gospel has been communicated in ways that are appealing to modernists (because that is how our culture is/was)…and yet the gospel can be communicated in ways that make sense to post-modernists as well (I believe this is what the “emerging church” is mostly about). If this is the case, then modernists and post-modernists need to listen to each other, to strive for like-mindedness, “having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind.” I think one of the ways we can do this is to focus on our shared love of Christ, rather than our differences. We are all members of Christ’s body, each with a different part to play in building his kingdom.
Here are some quotes from Leadership Next, a book that talks about leadership in a post-modern environment.
“Post-modernity speaks the language of “perspectivalism” which asserts that what you see depends on where you stand. It is true that this presents a challenge to the absolute truths of the gospel, but that challenge can be addressed by presenting the good news from a variety of perspectives. The collective witness of the church is reinforced by the testimony of people from across the centuries and around the globe.”
“Post-moderns above everything else want to experience authenticity. They are interested not so much in our truth claims as in the extent to which our lives correspond to the truth we proclaim. Post-moderns still possess a deep hunger for a metanarrative that can provide them with a sense of significance, purpose and freedom, but they are highly sensitive to inconsistencies (which they often rightly label hypocrisy). Credible communication therefore requires honesty, humility, deep respect for the individual as a person of intrinsic worth, and the assumption that God is already at work in that person’s life…. In the current cultural climate, credible gospel communication does not IMPOSE an absolute but PROPOSES an alternative. Any attempt to share the good news that gives the impression that the witness has wholly packaged the message and has a ready response to all previously unanswered questions will be regarded with suspicion and treated with ridicule. Authentic witnesses do not have the “whole story” but bear testimony to what they have grasped and have been obedient to in their own lives.”
For post-moderns, “Big stories that provide an explanation of life and that demand the total allegiance of “true believers” are assumed to be controlling devices or power grabs. One consequence of this suspicion is that many pre-Christian post-moderns reject the gospel when it is framed in propositional statements. A more promising approach is (1) for an individual to begin with his or her own story of God’s grace at work, and (2) for that story to be reinforced by the witness of other people who have different backgrounds, temperaments and life experiences. We should introduce the gospel not as a sequence of propositions but as a series of significant “little” stories, which make up most of the Bible, leading to the story of Jesus himself, including the kind of life he lived and the statements he made about his mission and his identity.”
-Michelle
I would have to say 'dido' to everything Michelle said!
ReplyDelete